Posted by Brandon Irvine in Discussion - Modern Navy Plan Revisions

Posted by Rear Admiral Robert Archer (Engineering Director) in Discussion - Modern Navy Plan Revisions

Posted by Joe P in Discussion - Modern Navy Plan Revisions
Posted by… suppressed (6) by the Post Ghost! 👻
The following discussion is a final check over from previous discussions over the past two terms. This discussion entails the opening paragraph of the MNP only.

[Snip]

Pardon me for being rude and not reading the text, but how exactly do you get away with calling this a “final review” when it’s something nobody has talked about for two terms?

Joe

Because the changes proposed were agreed upon after several others in those two terms, so this is a final review of this section (which is very minor if you check the log, the other sections need more review but this least then lets us check this part off)

Robert Archer Edir

Well, excuse me for being a dick here, but your assertion that “everybody agrees to it already” is the very thing I’m wondering about. Because I participated in these discussions quite a bit and don’t recall agreeing to change an opening paragraph. I mean, I don’t remember much of anything, despite the fact that I was the one who pointed out the problem in the first place.

I mean, the entire original point of this review was to replace the entire notion of classifying ships based upon their size, because that system made it impossible to create ships that were consistent with other canon designs. I can’t say whether or not the opening paragraph is good or not without knowing how you actually intend to fix it. It seems like you’re keeping it exactly the same, so to me it seems like we’re going to have exactly the same problems absent any other information about what it is you intend to do here.

Joe

First off joe no i dont think you’re being a dick. Secondly the everybody agrees is not a literal thing it is based on those who did fully participate in the discussions at those times. While you did bring up the major problems early on as you mention regarding not being able to make canon designs, more input was given by others which I as the EDir at those times and in charge of the policies the EDept runs by per its charter agreed with those suggestions, and coupled with a majority (again based on those who gave feed back) out the many weeks and months this was put up which sadly did not get huge amounts of participation but that is a norm here I chose the changes that came about.

Well, it would be great if we could read the summary of these discussions, but nobody has it at the moment. My memory of what happened (including the claim of yours that I wasn’t a participant) isn’t the same as yours.

Ok let me clarify I’m not saying you didnt participate, I’m saying compared to the 3 others beyond me at those times you didnt chime in much if at all in anything constructive.

Oh, I see. We’re redefining it now from saying I didn’t participate at all, to saying I didn’t participate with anything “constructive.” When, again, you guys didn’t even realize the problem with the current process (which is that it’s impossible to create canon-compliant specifications with the Milwaukee Plan). There wouldn’t be any “constructing” at all if I hadn’t participated in the first place.

In this case if you look at the 2 changes for this section it was addressing mistakes of spelling and adding a sentence to adhere to the coming alteration of how specs will be made namely that people can put in tech not normally given the the ranges below this section (covered as I said in part 2) but they had to be approved by the reviewer and fit the designers idea of the submission.

The spelling mistake change is uncontroversial. The idea that we can do stuff out of ranges is, because I remember very much arguing with you about this approach. I believe we went in circles about it. But I don’t remember what the concerns were with what you intended to do at the time, because I can’t read what you said. So, I cannot agree to approve a wording change where the purpose of the new wording is to make legitimate a change that hasn’t been presented for public discussion.

I mean, maybe it would be better to actually skip to the meat of this thing, and do the inconsequential change later if it really is as inconsequential as you say it is? Or maybe just lay out what your plan is here, so we can make sure everyone is broadly on board with that before we stuck in the inevitable nitpicking of text that refers to other text that we’re going to nitpick later.

I was attempting to save time and huge chunks of words by breaking things up Joe.

Well, that’s fine and admirable and likely a good idea. I just think it’s better to start with the important part first.

No where was this opening paragraph meant to solve the issues you outlined above, it was/is simply the first step in that process, the entire effort of updating and revising all three major plans is what will solve the greater issues and others as a whole. To deliver I hope at its end a better experience for the years to come.

Robert Archer EDir

And again to make things clear non of these changes will impact or effect current specs in any shape they’re all grandfathered in it will only effect new designs going forward or those who wish to make their designs conform to these updates it will not be effecting in any form the roleplaying experience that the club has.

Robert Archer EDir

Except that’s complete crap, because the whole reason this got started was because you were trying to “update” the Discovery class. And we already know the long term agenda here is to replace or update the Discovery class, because you don’t like it. And we know that because your assistant is going around asking everybody but me if they’re interested in a new class to replace the Discovery. Which absolutely nobody is.

Joe

Ok Joe I do not appreciate you continually insinuating that my only reason for this work is to ax the Discovery, IT IS NOT. Secondly even if a new design came along that replaces the discovery in use no one repeat NO ONE is forced to use said design it is up to the CO’s to change it and only IF after a few terms no one uses said spec anymore (any spec at that not just the discovery!) then it gets retired just like the other retired designs.

Except, you’ve tried to retire the Discovery at least three times before, and you did actually attempt to force people to change it, by telling Fleet Commanders and COs that they had to upgrade to compliant specs (I still have those emails, btw). So let’s stop pretending that something like that could never happen again.

I only brought up to Brandon about a new class idea for the Academy its intent is NOT to replace the discovery as a spec club wide so please stop this. Yes I got issues with it, but good glory man I got issues if I want with every design out there, including ones I even made myself and were passed and are currently used!

Yes, but this is the only one you keep farming out to other people to “revise.”

To bring this back on topic, if another large brief of the entire plan as laid out will help people get on the same page here then I will do so, all someone had to do was ask if they felt it was needed, or asked me if they were new to the topic or had forgotten. I only got so much time in a week with my job so long huge posts like that take time. But I will work on making one up soon as I can.

Robert Archer EDir

I would very much appreciate that, thank you.

And since you brought it up, I didn’t ask “everybody but you,” Joe. I asked Kat, who asked her staff, and then said “No, thanks.” I asked a total of one person, that person said no, I’m disappointed, but moving on with trying to improve our process for everyone.

Well, Kat must have run a poll, because I heard of it from people who aren’t her.

Let’s all be clear about where we’re coming from in the process: Rob wants to change the process for specs moving forward. I’m not too bothered by that, because I just use the numbers as laid out by the ED when designing, the particulars of the power of the various systems don’t matter to much to me, so I’m supporting him in that effort.

You… well, I had typed out a much less charitable sentence, but you’re basically just arguing in the hopes that nothing is done that will jeopardize the Disco spec, ignoring the fact that it practically dates back to the Prodigy days and there are literally no other specs that old (and bad) still in use. (Viking-class comes close, but even that is reasonably well-crafted by “modern” standards and certainly moreso than the Disco.)

Brandon
AEDir

There’s a number of problems here with what you wrote Brandon, and I think it’s worth taking a moment to actually examine them for a minute.

First of all, it’s factually incorrect that my only interest in this matter is merely to keep the Disco spec from changing. I actually wouldn’t mind of someone did fix problems in it (the specifics of which are debatable, but everyone agrees there are some problems), and after several attempts made by other people didn’t really do that effectively, I sat down and tried to do it myself; my interest in this is that the Europa uses this spec and is very much tailored around a smaller-Sciencey-ship atmosphere ala Voyager that no other spec in current use really provides.

I found out this is an impossible task. And it’s impossible to make an Intrepid clone. And a Defiant clone. I actually posted 3 examples of how it’s impossible to make an Intrepid-equivalent craft, regardless of whether you call it an observer, a frigate, or a cruiser. That’s a problem for everybody, because it basically means the current system forces all ships to be large. I thought it was just a matter of taste before, but until I sat down to try to do it, I didn’t realize that under the current rules it’s impossible to make an effective, canon compliant ship unless it’s huge. It turns out nobody else realized this either, which is why after I wrote several rather detailed posts pointing out the problems, there was unanimous agreement that we had to make changes to the process to fix them. That’s why Nick started us going down this road, and this is why Rob continued doing it after Nick was no longer Engineering Director.

So, just to be very clear, I do actually support Rob in this effort to change the process. I just want to make sure that the end product of this effort is something that fixes the original problem we were all trying to solve in the first place. I have concerns about that because, frankly, Rob has a tendency to lose track of important details sometimes, just because Rob has a lot of things he wants to do. Which is fine; but given that we went to all of this effort to solve a very specific problem, I don’t think it is unreasonable to insist that we make sure the solution addresses that problem effectively. The fact that you’re so casually dismissing what motivated me to participate in the first place suggests that I was completely correct to have those concerns about people forgetting what the point of all this was.

Second of all, let’s set everything I just said aside, and pretend that your bad-faith interpretation of my motives here was entirely correct; that all I wanted to do is ensure that no changes at all were made to the Discovery. What exactly is wrong with that? What is wrong with a Commanding Officer coming here and saying “My crew and I like our ship the way it is, please leave it alone”? Why is this treated with contempt on your part? What does it matter to you that I like ancient, decrepit spec? What does it even matter that the spec is old and dates back to Prodigy, if people in the club like it the way it is?

I feel like many departments of the club have gone through a period of confusion, in that they seem to think that the club exists to serve them, when those departments are supposed to exist to serve the club. In the case of the Engineering Department, that manifests as designers lecturing us all about how we need to use modern specifications, when we’re talking about an era in a fictional universe that hasn’t had any new canonical content for nearly twenty years anyway. Instead telling us that our preferences are wrong and asking to overwrite them with your own, shouldn’t you be listening to us to find out what our tastes are and trying to create specifications that fit our preferences?

Joe