Posted by J Ridgley in Recruitment/Ship Vacancies

Posted by Fleet Captain Nathan Miller (TECH Lead) in Recruitment/Ship Vacancies

Posted by J Ridgley in Recruitment/Ship Vacancies
Posted by… suppressed (5) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Evening/afternoon/morning all!

We had a discussion on the exodus discord channel earlier today about recruitment and the way vacancies are advertised. I’ve provided some of the main points of discussion below and then summarised further below that so you get some of the context.

The profiles page is meant to be updated to streamline the process of finding vacancies but is currently unfit for purpose as it does not get updated regularly.

Started off with a suggestion of a separate recruitment channel might with the restriction that only recruitment posts (not replies) are allowed there - the last several times I’ve put up recruitment it’s vanished fairly quickly. Thoughts? Amdrigal

A more obvious recruitment or ‘front door’ page/area on the drop downs list on the website would help with active positions needing filling etc.

On the site, so an area that takes you straight to open positions for new comers, as someone who hasn’t explored the STF boards before I can imagine it’s unexciting and intimidating compared to say the Nova sites other fleets use.

We have this in the form of the ship profiles page already.

The section is titled “ship profiles” rather than “open positions” or “available ships,” which might not be immediately clear to newcomers. Additionally, the information is presented in plain text, which might not motivate someone to apply. This section should be as important, if not more important, than our news/home page. It might also benefit from integration with the proposed Discord recruitment area.

Another suggestion was using empty positions on the rosters and either leaving these open or hiding them. There was a concern raised that this might be “tacky” but also changes the way the COs would need to work the roster. However, this was mostly seen as a positive change as it would be easier to see vacancies without the need of a centralised list.

The conversation then turned to the situation currently with the way the ship profiles page is managed. Someone mentioned that currently some COs/XOs don’t know about using the ship profiles page to document vacancies. A suggestion was to send a reminder out on now to do this. Although another point of concern is that some don’t bother as it is a lot of effort. Another consideration was having the page updated with the fleet reports.

We agreed a centralised place of vacancies is wanted and needed and would be useful to have of it is updated regularly. The conversation then shifted briefly to crayons but I won’t summarise that here.

I would thoroughly argue that the crayons conversation was the most important :P

Matt brought forward an idea for having a roster on the command board for all the ship vacancies that COs and XOs have access too. Although we discussed whether this was a step back from the profiles page. Could a role be created and you click the link that sends you directly to the CO to message?

To summarise the summary the main points:

1. The ship profiles page is currently unfit for purpose as it is not updated regularly
2. Do we have a dedicated recruitment channel in discord?
3. Have a centralised list in some form or another on the site
4. Use empty positions on the ship roster
5. While this is being discussed there is a need for further training on updating the shop profiles page as it stands currently

I think I covered everything I tried to make it as concise as possible while also getting some detail over of the discussion. If I’ve missed any points raised please do reply with them.

Budgie the minute taker

As the one who made the suggestion, and the one who would implement it, I prefer using open positions for vacancies. This could be viewed both from a central list of vacancies (which could be made sortable by ship, by department, by DH/JO/Swings) or from the ship MOTD, and both locations would have a link for logged in users to apply for the position.

Having that link immediately next to the vacancies is an excellent idea, and I think the entire system update will help with both recruitment and finding ships as a player.

I definitely like this idea a lot.

On the Discord side of things: I’m unsure a separate channel will be much more effective than the current system of using #general.

*The majority of interaction takes place in the general channel, making the message much more likely to be seen
* Even if someone wasn’t actively in chat at the time, Discord tells them there are new messages and scrolls back to the start of new messages rather easily
* A separate channel is easily ignored or muted
* It becomes one more channel for moderators to monitor (even if the channel is write-restricted to a role)

We are more than willing to implement a channel if that’s the desire. I think a simpler and potentially better implementation would be an opt-in notification role that pings people when used, and continue to make posts to #general.

Nathan
TECH Lead

I hadn’t thought of using a role, but I like that solution!

Amdirgol, PDir

I agree with Nathan on the separate Discord channel front. I’m not sure a separate channel would be of much use.

I’m not sure if it’s a discussion for here or not but something may impact recruitment is the AWOLs on the ship. From recent experience I was a bit out off by ships with higher numbers of AWOLs. Probably a separate discussion there in itself but if I was looking through vacancies that’s the second thing I’d look for.

Tom

Reading thorugh the above, I was one of the people who was pro a seperate discord channel and that purely comes from experience on other boards (some not even Star Trek related) and seeing how well it works for those. I do also think a seperate role would be a nice touch, but my worry is it just clutters the general discord channel.

I also second Tom’s point on AWOLs. A ship with a higher number of AWOL writers is likely to be a negative. If I’m writing somewhere, I’d rather it be somewhere where activity is high so there’s always someone to write with and bounce ideas off of, if that makes sense?

Tejay

I’d like to quickly address the issue of AWOLs on our ships since this has cropped up now as a reason for people not joining ships. Since I took over, we’ve had instances of AWOLs where sometimes the absence is justified with prior contact to the CO, and other times it is not. This raises the question of whether we should remove AWOL visibility notifications from the MOTDs which I would be an advocate for.

Considering Jack’s empowerment initiative in his presidential campaign, we could enable COs and XOs to monitor AWOLs through a site dashboard, with oversight from FComms.

Another option is to hide or remove players as soon as they go AWOL, but I’m not in favor of this approach because it doesn’t account for the unpredictable nature of life and the time it takes to fairly implement a three-strike policy. Additionally, I find making AWOL statuses publicly visible disconcerting and a bit finger pointy when they could and should be dealt with privately.

Happy for your thoughts.

This is something I feel strongly about.

AWOL status is not simply a measurement tool for COs and FComms - it is an indicator to other players for activity level and expected response time. It tells me as a player which will be the more active ships to play on, which will be the more active players to interact with, which will be the more active threads, who I might want to start threads with. When I’m expecting a response from someone and I see they’re AWOL on the roster I know they haven’t responded yet.

Why wouldn’t we want players to be able to see that this ship is rated medium, with a posting rate of 3/5/7, but the majority of the crew is not currently posting at that rate? Without that indicator, sure, I could look at the post list, but that list could be the active part of the crew being very active in side sims. Including the number of days AWOL and not just the status also gives more information to a player - just outside of limits? That happens. Several days outside of limits? That’s an issue. Lots of people several days outside of limits? That’s public visibility to a bigger problem. This information is important for a player to know, not just COs and FComms.

I think a lot of people look at ship posting speeds and AWOL limits as a punitive tool, but it is a contract between players for the expected activity level of a given sim that happens to be enforced by COs and FComms. Of course no one expects everyone to be able to hit that all the time, and that is exactly why we have the ability to set an LOA - it’s four clicks from any screen for a logged in user, an end date isn’t even needed but is really nice so your fellow players can know when to expect a response. That’s even faster than contacting a CO.

AWOL status is public as a group accountability tool because this a group activity. Staying within AWOL limits is not an appeasement to a CO, it is keeping a promise to fellow players. COs are already empowered on how they handle AWOLs - your three strike rule is an example. The fact we’re having a conversation about people’s concern about AWOL visibility is an indicator that it isn’t being handled well.

Nathan
TECH Lead

While the argument presents a strong case for maintaining AWOL visibility as a tool for players, there are valid counterarguments to consider. Publicly displaying AWOL status can invade personal privacy.

Knowing that someone missed a day of work doesn’t invade their privacy - trying to dig into why does. Knowing someone hasn’t posted in a few days isn’t an invasion of their privacy - digging into why does. This isn’t an invasion of privacy.

Players may have personal or sensitive reasons for being unable to post, and broadcasting their inactivity can lead to unwarranted judgement or pressure from peers.

This is called accountability. As I said, the visible presence of the AWOL indicator is an accountability tool between players. In the same way that real-time RPG groups rely on players being able to consistently show up on-time and on-schedule, we rely on players to be able to post within guidelines to keep sims moving for other players. If a player can’t post, or needs more time, the LOA system is there to help, and doesn’t require a reason.

Constant visibility of AWOL status can create a negative atmosphere, potentially discouraging players who are struggling to keep up. This may lead to feelings of guilt or embarrassment, driving some players away from the game altogether.

If a player can’t keep up with the pace of the ship they’re on, are they having fun? Why aren’t we discussing ship speeds, helping them find a ship that better suits their posting speed to increase their enjoyment, discussing LOAs with them?

Emphasising AWOL status and post rates might encourage a focus on quantity rather than quality. Players may feel compelled to post quickly to avoid being marked as AWOL, which can compromise the overall narrative and enjoyment of the game.

Having consistently AWOL players harms it more.

Commanding Officers (COs) and Fleet Commanders (FComms) have other tools and methods to gauge activity and manage player engagement without making AWOL status public.

And public AWOL status keeps them accountable to other players, as well.

Out of curiosity, what other tools and methods?

Regular check-ins, private messages, and internal tracking systems can effectively manage player activity without exposing individual participation levels.

It’s not an individual participation level, it is an indicator. Nothing prevents these other things from being done, but removing that indicator removes a tool for other players to accurately judge a ship’s environment.

Encouraging direct communication between players and COs about availability and activity can be more effective than relying on AWOL status alone. This can build stronger relationships and trust within the community, as issues are addressed privately and constructively.

Nothing about this can’t be done today, and should be being done today. Heck, again, the LOA system requires zero information about why you can’t post, just a date.

By keeping AWOL status private, COs can implement more flexible and compassionate approaches to handle inactivity.

What can a CO do with a private AWOL status that they can’t do with a public one?

They can take into account individual circumstances and work with players to find solutions, rather than enforcing a one-size-fits-all public policy.

How is this interfered with by the public AWOL status?

Just because it has always been done this way doesn’t mean it has always been right, I’m not saying change the way we do things it just doesn’t need to be public.

And I’m saying that all your arguments against it can be accomplished with the public status, and should be done with the public status. Removing it adds nothing, removes a tool from players, and decreases intra-player accountability.

While public AWOL status can provide useful information for players, it also has significant drawbacks that can impact privacy,

See my answer above for how it doesn’t.

morale,

This is a CO failing to help a player.

and the overall gaming experience.

What helps the overall gaming experience is players playing together.

Keeping AWOL status private allows for more nuanced and supportive management of player activity, fostering a healthier and more enjoyable community.

How?

Another issue that has surfaced recently is the tendency for people to readily blame others, roles, or individuals for why things aren’t working. This approach is outdated and fosters a toxic blame culture rather than encouraging open discussion and exploring potentially better methods.

I think this is in reference to my last line:

The fact we’re having a conversation about people’s concern about AWOL visibility is an indicator that it isn’t being handled well.

Am I correct in that?

Jake

Nathan
TECH Lead