Posted by Vice Admiral Jack Dipper (CMM) in Recruitment/Ship Vacancies

Posted by Tom Hillman in Recruitment/Ship Vacancies

Posted by Russell Watt in Recruitment/Ship Vacancies
Posted by… suppressed (18) 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

Apologies, I looked to see if there was a spoiler tag available for use in this, there didn’t seem to be. Anyway, the following gets pretty raw and discusses my own battles with mental health issues. So if that is likely to be triggering for you, it may not be a post for you to read.

I’m currently at a stage where even being required to post once every 10 days consistently is beyond me.

As a result, I wouldn’t be able to keep up even as a JO on a ‘slow’ ship. My anxiety levels and guilt would increase, and I’d just not post anywhere.

Looking and seeing I’d be AWOL would make me even less inclined to post, not more inclined.

In the past, I signed ships anyway despite feeling like this, (because I felt guilty that I had spare time and I wasn’t spending it in STF or because there was a need for a GM and I was an STF trained GM and was active in STF and it would be wrong for me not to help out) and all of the above happened, and I wasn’t kind to myself and I stopped posting altogether, ships got decommissioned, I blamed myself for being unable to post and keeping up and for being the reason why every ship was decommissioned (yes, even ships I was never on).

For me, hanging in the discord server is more fun and far more relaxing for me … after all if I go for months without being in there, all I get is a message saying that you have x number of comments that were directed to me during that time away, which is far more encouraging than a message that I am AWOL.

Russell
Tribble

Firstly thank you for sharing Russ!

And my final point really before allowing others to discuss further if they wish.

The perspective of accountability and public status’s neglects the importance of empathy, communication, and trust in fostering a healthy community.

You didn’t address most of my comments, but I do want to make some remarks before moving on - it absolutely, unequivocally does not neglect any of these things, and saying it does is disingenuous. Accountability is how you build healthy communities. You can 100% have all of these things and accountability, and the community will be better for it, because they can trust they will be held accountable to each other.

Publicly displaying a player’s inactivity can easily lead to a culture of shaming, which undermines the trust and support necessary for an enjoyable and collaborative environment which we can now see happens. Just as publicly shaming someone for missing a day of work is counterproductive, displaying AWOL status can create a toxic atmosphere where players feel judged rather than supported. Effective accountability does not require public scrutiny; instead, it should be built on private, empathetic communication between players and leaders.

You’ll note this has not been the level of accountability I have been discussing, which is accountability between players.

By handling absences and inactivity discreetly, Commanding Officers (COs) can address individual needs and circumstances with sensitivity, thus promoting a more inclusive and understanding community. Trust and open dialogue are far more effective in encouraging consistent participation and engagement than public indicators that may shame or embarrass players. Therefore, while the AWOL status aims to ensure accountability, it overlooks the fundamental aspects of empathy and trust, which are crucial for maintaining a positive and supportive gaming environment and hygiene factors for a lot of people.

The benefits of this could be both quality and quantity increase in posts, a healthy environment where everyone feels they have a place and allows COs to manage their own ships activity with a bespoke manner.

COs can manage their ship’s activity by setting the posting speed, upon which players can base their decisions to join or not; and players deserve to have those expectations met.

Will these benefits be recognised? Maybe. Will it work? Maybe. But should we so easily dismiss the potential for improvement and continue pointing fingers and blaming current policies?

Public AWOL status isn’t a policy, it’s an indicator - it’s the finger that is pointing. It indicates that there is a problem, and I feel like this thought line asks the question “How can we hide this problem?” instead of “How can we solve this problem?”

There might be underlying reasons for issues like membership levels, and understanding these requires an open mind to change. This is why I value change management—it pushes us to explore new methods and continuously improve. Rather than clinging to practices that may contribute to a toxic culture, we should be willing to adapt and consider new strategies that foster a more supportive and engaging environment for everyone involved.

Sure, certainly be willing to adapt and consider new strategies - but this whole conversation started because someone talked about how they use AWOL status to determine if they want to join a ship, and you’re arguing to take that ability away, which is demonstratively a worse option. Public AWOL status is not inherently toxic, how it is approached is, and everything about the approaches you’ve discussed is possible with the current system; while removing the public status does take away an option.

Aaaaanyways, back to recruitment (sorry for rabbit holing this thread) I really like the new approach! Looks great!

Jake

Hey all,

I just wanted to step in here as I think everyone has really valid points - the challenge is that those points run against each other. I’ll try to sum up, but please let me know if I’ve missed anything!

In short, there’s an argument that AWOL limits ensure accountability for players - for me personally, it serves as a useful reminder, and avoids the “I’ll do it tomorrow” trap. There’s also an argument that it puts pressure on people that means they don’t feel able to slow down on the posting front, even if RL demands it.

I do get the point that a roster that is a sea of red is probably not welcoming to someone wanting to create a new character… but usually it’s a good marker for how the ship is faring. I’m not sure of any ships that are heavily AWOL that have an industrious and dynamic RPing experience.

But I also get the point that RL happens, and most (if not all) COs are sympathetic. In some instances, I’ve seen characters hidden from the roster, but still be used (just less frequently than the AWOL limits). My only grumble with that is it makes it harder to know if that person is still on the ship or not.

So, I’m wondering if there is a compromise, where we allow COs to relax AWOL limits on a per character basis. This allows them to support the individual, without the roster being hit with an AWOL person. It also allows the CO to accept occasional posters and for the rest of the crew to know that the character is still onboard.

I appreciate that there is a risk COs may abuse a feature to avoid a roster looking red, but we ought to trust them to manage their ship.

Jack

I would say I think this could be fair compromise, it does carry risk but what doesn’t in life. I’d like to reiterate just one moot point that my opinion wasn’t to get rid of AWOL or posting limits but to simply not have them on the MOTDs. I still think they serve a place for example on the individual characters bio, master roster and maybe somewhere else less so publicly damning to the overall ship (The other tools of monitoring them). My suggestion for that was so that players would be encouraged to go look at the posts rather than just the MOTD.

I am all for compromise and it certainly aligns to your mandates. As an additional random thought I think in this it would be good if COs could set LOAs for their crew only if they have A - written permission/spoken to the individual and for whatever reason can’t do it themselves and B - the LOA (AWOL) status should just be LOA so instead of setting a calander set as LOA until turned off. I have such a case they’re AWOL but LOA because they’re moving country. For me that’s not AWOL.

But happy with a compromise - I think something in an email or message should be recorded to avoid COs abusing the system but again this should be privately held and understood.

Good idea Jack!

Jake

As Steve said - this is already possible. AWOL limit is an editable field on each position on a ship. Use of that is between a CO and their FComm.

Examples like this, though, feel far better served by an LOA. While I’m not opposed to the idea, a CO shouldn’t have to turn on LOA for a player - it’s five clicks from any page to having an indefinite LOA turned on; 6 if you’re on mobile. I’ll say it again - it’s easier to declare an LOA than it is to contact a CO.

If declaring an LOA is difficult or seen as difficult, this makes me want to ask: how can we make declaring an LOA easier than it currently is? Do we make Profile a dropdown with options to View, Edit, and a submenu for Declare LOA, which has options of like 3, 7, 14 days?

Nathan
TECH Lead

Nathan,

I didn’t realise that was an option (I’ve never been a CO/XO on a ship under Exodus). So, “custom” AWOL limits can be set.

As for setting an LOA, again I see both points. But sometimes someone can drop a message to their CO via Discord, Messenger, etc with minimal effort. So I don’t fully subscribe to it being easier to set an LOA. We’re also assuming the person is acting rationally. For example, if a family member died or was seriously ill, my first thought isn’t going to be to set an LOA. The first I’m probably going to remember about the club is when someone emails/messages me to go “hey, you need to post”. At that point I’m probably going to reply “sorry, family emergency”.

My compromise would be for the PDept (if they don’t already have the ability) to be able to set a member on LOA if they’re informed by someone. That way it catches these edge cases.

On a semi-related note, we ought to be catching this in some form of guide for COs/XOs. There’s some good “you can use this feature in that way” coming out of this discussion.

Jack

Currently PDept and TECH do have access to set someone on LOA, basically we can modify a person’s profile to add a LOA to it.

In my mind though it comes down to how do we verify that this is correct, and that it has actually been requested. Can I trust Jack when he tells me Rob needs a LOA for 3 days? Or should that person, Rob in this case, directly request it to the PDept? In the past we’ve held the line at direct requests from the individual impacted.

Steve

Should this instead come from the FComm. Using the above example. Rob goes to Jack, who then puts a request in with the FComm who then signs off on it? Is that too long winded though?

Tom

I don’t think that’s too long-winded. However, I do believe there should be some level of constraint in doing this. For example, right now I am speaking to a member of my crew who has replied to my check-in email about their situation but hasn’t set themselves on LOA, a CO explaining this to the FComm should suffice. As a reply to Steve’s comment, it’s about trust. If we can’t trust one another to use this method appropriately, then we’re pretty screwed up.

Jake

Agreed, I definitely feel that trust is a big thing, as well as communication. I think starting from a place of trust is always best. Trust that there is a reason for Jack requesting an LOA for Rob for 3 days.

I love the days when we could go -

Russell to someone he just happens to be talking to in STF (let’s call them Aggie) - Aggie, I’ve had something come up, can’t get onto the site to do my LOA but I expect to be back in 10 days. Can you let my COs/XOs/ships know. I’ll update when possible.

And you could trust it would be done.

Russell

I would like to think that this would happen now.

Tom

I’m also of the view that there isn’t any real gain from a CO pretending someone has requested an LOA of, if they do, and real harm to the individual.

I think we should allow the COs to be able to inform the PDept who can then set an LOA. The current system allows that to be done. This, along with the ability to set AWOL limits by position, should mean COs are able to manage their rosters and keep them green(ish).

We just need to get this written down in a guide for COs :-)

Jack

I think that’s a good idea. I’m happy to write something up. On the topic of a guide is there anything else we want to be included in this?

Tom