Posted by Admiral Joe P (Librarian / TECH Chairman) in Question regarding the requirements to serve as Fcomm or AFcomm

Posted by Vice Fleet Admiral James Sinclair (Vice President / FComm, Foremost Fleet) in Question regarding the requirements to serve as Fcomm or AFcomm

Posted by Fleet Captain Adam W. (Former Ruler of the Club) in Question regarding the requirements to serve as Fcomm or AFcomm
Posted by… suppressed (1) by the Post Ghost! 👻

SNIP

Anyway I think that as our membership has shrunk some, and fleet identity isn’t as important as it once ways, I would say CO or XO in the fleet should be given preference, followed by former COs or XOs. I would just encourage some sort of wording that excludes former COs or XOs that were removed for cause.

Geoff

Geoff, you haven’t lost any eligibility that you once had. If you were a CO at one point in Fleet 5, you’re still eligible there. It doesn’t matter what happened to the ship since.

I don’t believe I have any objection to Joe’s suggestion. I would however object to wording excluding CO’s and XO’s who were removed for cause. There’s a lot of different situations where people lose positions. In my opinion such a rule would exclude some who should not be excluded.

Adam

We could add an exception clause to the wording. That would at least give those you are referring to, Adam, a route to petition for exception to the rule. But I do think we need to ensure that those who were found to be too challenged (in whatever form or fashion) in a CO / XO role don’t find themselves in a similar situation where it could effect an entire fleet.

James

So, here’s the problem I see with this idea: When on earth do we ever remove anyone “for cause”? I mean, I can think of very few times, where someone is removed “for cause”, and they’re typically cases that are either a) are just going AWOL, or b) there is some specific problem, but the smart thing to do is to deal with quietly rather than publicly announce in a fashion where everyone knows exactly everything about why someone was sent packing. We don’t usually record decisions to fire people in a way that those decisions can be subject to review in the future (I don’t think we should necessarily start doing that, either).

Joe

I have to say that I agree with Daniel and Sarah, I don’t see the necessity of adding more restrictions to make the job of finding people willing to serve harder. I think we’d be kicking ourselves in the backside with that. In the time I’ve served as FComm the number of applications for anything is very small if any. I’ve had to go begging for a CO to take a ship. I would agree though with removing the prior command of a Fleet to any CO/XO broadening our candidate pool. We should be doing that rather then shrinking it again by adding more restrictions.

Krys