Posted by Vice Admiral Krystelle Knight (Engineering DIrector / Acting Chief EGO) in Decommissioning Ships

Posted by Vice Admiral Jack D (President) in Decommissioning Ships

Posted by Louis Harvatt in Decommissioning Ships
Posted by… suppressed (1) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Hi all,

I would like to hold a short discussion on the topic of decommissioning ships.

Earlier this week, I informed the CO of the USS Sojourner that I was minded to decommission the ship, as I didn’t feel it was currently providing a healthy RP environment for members to enjoy. This sits within a wider concern that the club has become overstretched. At present, we have 59 members, of whom 22 are AWOL, spread across 17 ships. Each ship ideally needs around 12 active members to function well, so it’s clear that our current structure isn’t sustainable. This imbalance affects both the quality of roleplay and our ability to recruit and retain GMs.

There are differing views on the best way to improve the club’s health — whether by consolidating ships or by addressing a broader cultural issue where members often wait for GMs to prompt activity. Whilst I recognise that recruiting and supporting GMs remains a challenge, that stems from a simple fact: we don’t currently have enough active members to sustain the number of ships we operate.

My first priority is, of course, to increase our membership — and Krys and Louis have already begun work on that. But that will take time. The other lever we can pull in the meantime is to reduce the number of ships.

There is a risk of unintended consequences — that reducing ships could cause members to leave, or slow down recruitment. However, I firmly believe that a poor-performing ship does not provide a fulfilling roleplaying experience. As a member myself, I want to be on a ship where there’s plenty of opportunity to reply and get involved in threads. I also make an effort to start new ones to give others more to do. What crushes morale is when those threads simply don’t get responses. Therefore, I favour fewer, higher-quality ships, which is the approach I am taking.

However, there’s one area where I remain undecided: what to do with a ship that’s identified for decommissioning but represents a unique RP setting (for example, the only ship in a particular era) — which is particularly relevant in the case of the Sojourner.

One suggestion has been to place such ships elsewhere in the club and make it clear that they won’t receive the same support as mainstream ships — potentially within X-Fleet, until they either become more active or fail to meet the requirements.

So, for the purposes of this discussion, I’d welcome your views on:
1. Should unique ships identified for decommissioning be able to be placed into X-Fleet?
2. Do the requirements for X-Fleet (minimum of five posting members) make sense in that context?
3. Should we still retain the ability to decommission an area outright?

Please keep this discussion focused on the general topic rather than any specific ship. If you have particular concerns about the Sojourner itself, please speak with me or Amdirgol directly.

Jack

Evening Jack,

I wanted to add my thoughts here — you’ve raised some really important points.

To start, I think we can all agree that no one wants to see a ship decommissioned. It can understandably feel like the club is regressing rather than growing, especially when we think back to times when the fleet was buzzing with activity. But decommissioning can also be seen as part of change — and change, while often uncomfortable, isn’t always a bad thing.

We’re used to having a full and active club, but real life takes priority, we have families, careers, commitments that come first. That’s not a bad thing, its just an indication that we need to adjust with the times. What matters is that every member, past or present, has contributed something meaningful to this club’s history. Whether it was writing a vital bill or simply posting an IC message for the first time, everyone has helped build this place.

You’re absolutely right in saying that both Krys and I are working hard to boost numbers again — and I’m confident we’ll get there. But in the meantime, if we need to decommission ships to maintain a healthy and active core fleet, then that’s something we should consider. That doesn’t mean it has to be permanent.

This is where I think the X Fleet can play an important role. If a ship no longer meets the metrics for core fleet status, let’s transition it into X Fleet. That way, it still exists, stories can continue, and it may even benefit from a fresh coat of paint. Then, down the line, if it shows consistent activity, we could absolutely look at transitioning it back into the main fleet when we are in a position to do so..

If we do go down this route, we should have some criteria for whether it should be moved or decommissioned. I wouldn’t want X-Fleet to turn into a graveyard of ships - we should only be placing ships there where there is benefit, compared to decommissioning (noting that we can always recommission if numbers increase).

On your second point: I agree that a baseline of 5 active members might be appropriate for a standard X Fleet proposal. But if we’re considering a potential return to the main fleet, I’d suggest we’d need to see more than that to justify a transition. Maybe we could develop some clear performance metrics — treat it as a kind of probationary period?

Sorry, I was meaning the threshold for when an X-Fleet ship is scrapped (which is less than 5 active members… I think). But you’re right, we should look at what the criteria is for moving back into the main fleet.

Finally, regarding point three — yes, I do believe we need to retain the ability to decommission ships outright when necessary. We have to look at the club from a wider perspective. If a prospective member lands on our master roster for example and sees a list full of AWOL characters, does that project the best image?

Overall, I’d love to hear everyone else’s views on this. I think we’ve got the chance to make some meaningful and effective changes here. I’m keen to see where we can take this

Cheers,
Louis

Jack

I agree with all the points here, but I wanted to add a bit more to the numbers aspect to show why we are considering this. Back 10-15 yrs ago we had a membership of 150-200 members. It made sense to have 17-20 ships. Today we have an active membership of 60 people. If we say at least 6-7 people a ship that means that only 10 ships are really viable. But to allow for double characters and such, I could see us getting down to 12-13 ships, which is where I think we should be going. I know this seems drastic but remember as Jack has said, if we get an influx of more members it is not hard to re commission ships.

Krystelle

I don’t think we need to do anything special as far as X-Fleet goes. If the crew wants to continue playing in that environment they can submit a request to the SOX.

I also don’t think establishing rules around “mainstreaming” a ship from X-Fleet is the way to go, either. That’s not what X-Fleet is for - it’s a playground for experiments, not probation, not punishment, not a pre-game for the main fleets. That mindset can exacerbate the issue we have, of too many ships for the club to support. We should only commission ships when we need new ships.

The guideline for X-Fleet is 5 players posting within the last 21 days. That feels fairly generous to me, but I think expanding the time frame makes more sense than reducing the number of players, if we’re considering decreasing that requirement.

Nathan
TECH Lead