I should be available Saturday Morning PDT, possibly all day if my afternoon plans fall through. My hybrid Klingon/Romulan Mean Girl is at your disposal.

Oh Lordy Lordy, what a beast of a thread. BEASTLY! I may just have to pew pew pew everyone as punishment. Lulz aside, I feel the discussion about fleet provisions has become abit accusatory. Which upsets me tbh. Not only 3 months ago, a fleetie accused stonewall FC and Admiralty of abusing the system to get all the advanced stuff, while denying everyone else.

The sad part was, I as an Admiral at that stage didn't possess a single fleet item or provision. In-fact as it stands I only have 6 on one toon. No fleet ships either.

Why am I mentioning this? Because some members in the fleet put so much emphasis on "rank" that they allow for this kind of paranoia. I'm not sayign everyone is, it's just somethign Ive observed since being made admiral. It's just a title with a few administrational duties. That's it.

On the subject of "inferred distrust", again this is portrayed as an executive vs memberbase. But it honestly isn't. It's simply a an issue of statistical proportionality (aside from fleeties), that is to say the larger the fleet base the more higher the probability that someone will abuse the system. That's not an attempt to tar everyone with the same brush, it's a concerted effort to provide safeguards to protect provisions and a means to distribute said provisions fairly amongst everyone in a controlled manner.

Is it Inconvenient? Yes it is. For both FC/Admirals and members. BUT, It's currently the only viable safeguard for preventing abuse.

Soemone mentioned inherent distrust and that no-one in the fleet could do that. Allow me to cut through some hand holding here and shine a hot uncomfortable white light on an unfortunate reality. Starbase camping was RAMPANT after season 6 launched, so much so that the disparity between campers and their fellow members is so grossly distorted that the campers now have the fleet credit ability to purchase every fleet ship and item in the game and STILL have an extremely large amount of credits left. All this to the disadvantage of YOU. I can't tell you how much I petitioned and complained to my fellow executive officers about this, because it isn't fair on anyone.

In fact some fleeties made it a competiion against YOU, to deny YOU the ability to donate to the starbase so they could inflate their already grossly inflated fleet credit holdings.

So I think we need a bloody good reality check in the fleet! Distrust in human nature, or more to the point the desires of a minority that prioritise greed over fairness? Damn right it exists. Consider that.

All this said I'm not at all against the idea of droppping the restrictions, In fact as a member of a mock United Nations community, I would whole-heartedly approve a quorum based voting system whereby the community could vote on these issues in order to promote further transparency in the fleet.

But be aware all this I have mentioned, there are some that would deny you the ability to improve the fleet, it's unfortunate, but true.

Admiral Ozy :)

I'm sorry this last intervention of mine comes so late, but living in Europe I couldn't follow the whole thread deep into yesterday night.

Yes Todd, I haven't left the "ethical" level: it's a "place" I like and stick there quite a lot. ;) Please, don't think I'm just an idealist: ethos is a guideline and this is precisely part of the current debate.

I must confess I'm really surprised by your last intervention SBOS. I don't think anybody wanted to "play the blame game", as much as I believe that none of the Fleet leaders is an evil creature inclined to distrust the rest of the Fleet. But this is the whole point: perceptions are subjective and negative ones make you feel bad. Yet, and please believe me when I say that no offence is meant here, I don't see why your hurt feelings should be more important than mine or anyone else's. [add bear hug here]

I believe BabyBlueBoxers has asked very good questions. I'm worried myself that when tier 5 is achieved, we'll have to face the fact that lots of people who've waited for a long time to get top gear will come to the store adding to those fleeties who won't have earned enough FCs at the time. What then?

From where I come, everything is subject to criticism (neutral word) and can be re-debated. The store-restriction policy was accepted as it is because it was a tentative solution, not holy rules marked on a rock. We're playing an online game which is subject to pretty frequent reshaping, so personally I expect lots of changes to be done in order to keep the Fleet and its policies up-to-date. It's a demanding job and I say thank you to the Fleet leaders for carrying it on so well. And yet, either we all accept the fact that topics can be re-proposed and re-discussed, and cope with the dissenting opinions that come with it, or we make it clear that some facts are settled once and for all.

Two weeks in a row of great RPing. (And I have to give myself a pat on the back over figuring out the mystery.) My only problem now is that, to date, I have played three different toons in RP, and now I have to pick each week because I enjoy playing all of them. :)

I think "somehow" all our collective sewage waste will find its way to Nicktropolis :p

Really excited for this.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

This was a fun short two week episode! and I very much enjoyed the social time last week, looking forward to this weekends event!

I think asking members how much they've contributed to the base in order to have an opinion on this issue is frankly disturbing, and if it's your intention to shut down the person you disagree with you have succeeded marvelously.

I can see some griefer setting up a crime syndicate city and making it miserable for others...is there a military option if a city falls to crime lords? Say a regional coalition goes in and seizes control? ;)

Perhaps it would help to look at the "problem" from a different perspective:

Given that it is the FC's responsibility to monitor fleet provision usage via the middle-man approach to purchasing, under what circumstances would someone be denied from transacting with fleet provisioned stores?

I read somewhere that it is believed that people may be saving up for top-level gear at later fleet stages. Are these people going to be denied for any reason, such as perhaps if the provisions started dipping? Is their contribution to the fleet valued any more or less than a newer member who may also want to make a purchase at this time, and therefore would precedence be given based on seniority? How would preferential treatment based on seniority reflect on the fleet's vision and appear to other members?

How would it work exactly if the system as it stands now were suddenly strained by mass amounts of prospective purchasers? Who would we deny, and why? If no-one is denied, and we would simply allow the stores to be depleted until they were empty on a first-come-first-serve basis, how does that reflect any difference to having the stores open to all? Is that fair, or would it somehow take away from those longer-standing members who have contributed to projects more than newer ones?

Asking probing questions like these, and generating such hypothetical scenarios, might help better illuminate why we regulate fleet store purchases, or perhaps shed light on the redundancy of the middle-man. :)

Quote by Toddoverton

So when members feel distrusted by the officers, it is the officers' fault for implying it... and when officers feel bullied by a member, then it is the officers' fault for inferring it... I think I'm figuring stuff out now...

Okay, one last comment, THEN I'll shut up, promise. (Lord Nick, you were so right about me saying my piece... and Todd, SO glad we are on the same page on all that!)

The best part of the hierarchy is that officers are called to a higher standard. They are expected to be wise, confident leaders, who build solidarity and trust to form a strongly-bonded team committed to a common cause. They lead through example, deescalating our conflicts and building our consensus to bind us together. And so yes, I look forward to all of their contributions to this discussion, particularly as they hold themselves to the high ideals of the fleet.

Quote by Araa

I think this is still being constructive, and I have no issues with Todd whatsoever, and I think we're both on the same page.

Yep.

Todd and I are both stating our views forcefully because we're both highly passionate about them, please see that as a good thing, not a threatening or bullying thing! We certainly don't.

Yep.

(And Todd, if you feel I'm bullying you

Nope.

Two of your points we agree on: Of COURSE most of you guys don`t distrust members, the concern is that the policy implies distrust of members, as has been discussed extensively.

Nope. The members inferred the distrust. Not the same thing. Not the same thing at all. I am subject to that same policy, but I don't feel bothered by it. If other people are bothered, well, that says something about them, not about the system.

And yes, we all want to prevent fly-by-night members from making purchase, but some of us want to do it through a 3-6 month cool down period before becoming 'trusted', rather than the current "equally distrusting all members" policy.

Heirarchical and arbitrary. Why not a week? Why not a year? What is magical about a certain number? After you win this argument, shall we then descend into another debate about whether it should be 3 months or 6 months or 4-months-and-3-days-except-on-leap-years? Why does someone who joins on Feb 1st have a window of 89 days, while someone who joins on July 1st has a window of 92 days? Unfair!

But guys, if our fearless leadership starts feeling bullied from a healthy debate between concerned citizens, then we have far more serious issues than store policy! lol.

So when members feel distrusted by the officers, it is the officers' fault for implying it... and when officers feel bullied by a member, then it is the officers' fault for inferring it... I think I'm figuring stuff out now...

Actually, good point mrgig. I should just shut up and let you guys take it from here*. I think the options are pretty well fleshed out.

*cue non-stop roaring cheer from the stands

Quote by NicholasJohn16

Quote by Araa

1. Inconvenience

2. Lack of utility

3. Inefficiency

4. Heirarchical

5. Distrusting of members

I disagree with this completely.

Not being devil's advocate here - but I genuinely agree with #1 and #3. The last time I made a purchase from the fleet store, I contacted 3 different Fleet Captains over the course of an hour before I got the promotion to purchase. The other 3 points are a little sensationalist from my perspective, but my experience is bound to be different from Araa's, Nick's, or anyone else's.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

I disagree with this completely.

Well, that kind of shuts down discussion for those fleeties who have said in this thread that these were issues for them, doesn't it? Do you think those fleeties will feel that they've been listened to?

Quote by Araa

Quote by Toddoverton

You know... maybe we could try out your open system on the KDF fleet first and see how it goes. That idea definitely appeals to me!

A brilliant, practical suggestion. And probably DSS as well! Why not?

I LOVE this idea!

SBO, no one's blaming anything on anyone! Put on those rose-coloured glasses and enjoy the discussion! I think this is still being constructive, and I have no issues with Todd whatsoever, and I think we're both on the same page. In fact, have you noticed our cute little jokes? lol. And no one's being bullied! Todd and I are both stating our views forcefully because we're both highly passionate about them, please see that as a good thing, not a threatening or bullying thing! We certainly don't. (And Todd, if you feel I'm bullying you, I'm going to come over there and slap you!)

Quote by SBOSlayer

Just while were on the subject matter how much have you contributed to the base? are you willing to take advantage of others contributions to satisfy, what seems like an agenda.

This may be the first time the debate got a bit ugly, in my opinion, if you mean what I think you mean by this. I have no agenda other than the reTrekifying of the fleet. I have satisfied all my purchases in other fleets and don't intend to use the SW store at all myself, but that doesn't stop me from caring a ton about how my fellow fleeties are doing. And I'm sure you're aware that I contributed enough to (still) be #2 on the kdf leaderboard, so I assume the contributions point wasn't directed at me.

Two of your points we agree on: Of COURSE most of you guys don`t distrust members, the concern is that the policy implies distrust of members, as has been discussed extensively. And yes, we all want to prevent fly-by-night members from making purchase, but some of us want to do it through a 3-6 month cool down period before becoming 'trusted', rather than the current "equally distrusting all members" policy.

I'm sorry if some find this long discussion tedious, or far worse, bullying, but I've found it illuminating and it's changed my views on a few things (Thanks Todd, Evil Genius, Soran, Jacien). But guys, if our fearless leadership starts feeling bullied from a healthy debate between concerned citizens, then we have far more serious issues than store policy! lol.

You share region, but not cities so you're friends won't be making changes to your city while you aren't playing. Though, problems with your city like crime or pollution will spill over into neighboring cities. I'm sure there's an offline option for those that don't like the multiplayer.

Quote by Araa

Since you ask, here are the arguments against the status quo Todd, in no particular order. I'll let you do the ones against our alternative if you like. ;-)

1. Inconvenience - Some people find it very hard to get an FC to help them, particularly people not in NA. I generally see 2-3 requests not get answered/day. Ironically, officers don't see this problem, by definition. :-) This creates frustration, we heard about one person who wanted to leave the fleet over it

2. Lack of utility - Quotas seem to be too restrictive currently, provisions are piling up and not being used, which is what they're there for. Members and officers should be out there with their fancy fleet gear, not with it piled up in the store!

3. Inefficiency - It's a significant drain on members AND officer's time, to have to interrupt or be interrupted whatever they're doing and oversee a purchase both before and after

4. Heirarchical - It places a divide between members and officers, requiring the subordinate members to ask permission from the officers, going against our highly egalitarian values

5. Distrusting of members - The enforcement mechanism says to members, we need to oversee your purchase to make sure you don't buy too much. Implication: You aren't trusted (Note: TOTALLY realize this isn't intentional at all, but the process can implicitly leave that impression on some of us, as we've heard from a few people in the thread)

The alternatives we`re discussing wipe out all of these concerns, and leave us mainly with a question around security and volume control. A number of us would address that with a cooldown period to prevent random fly-by purchasers and guidelines to prevent over-purchasing.

I disagree with this completely.

I'm starting to become rather unhappy with this discussion. Your suggestions are starting to play the blame game a bit. The response are almost instantaneous.

If you are trying to exact change I suggest you do it more constructively.

Some of these issues are becoming fantasy out of reality such as we distrust members. It's not the members we distrust, it's the fact that members of a

Lemme try to address your responses as best I can.....

1. Inconvenience - As I said, I see 2-3 requests unanswered a day, and a couple of people mentioned it in the thread. Officers can't see this problem, by definition. We can debate the extent, but I think we have to agree that some people find this a negative.

2. Lack of utility - Fair point on deferrals. Personally, I believe, as one person mentioned, that there are some people who just don't bother with any purchases because they don't want to go through the process. Some people might be intimidated to ask, for example (less social types than us). However, this isn't a major motivator to change for me, so I'll concede.

3. Inefficiency - You're arguing with Nick here, among others, who seem to feel that officers' time could be better spent on activities other than chaperoning members' purchases, which seems to make sense to me. Of COURSE they're great guys who are happy to help, but they're also busy, so why not have them focused on running events and building the fleet without having any interruptions? But they're FAR better positioned to assess this, so I'll bow out of this point as well.

4. Heirarchical - Heh, you're right that some of us are taking about introducing a new layer (or more accurately, making more use of the current requisitioning rank), which is not ideal. However, the goal is to allow ALL players easily into that new layer, and that 98% of the membership should be at this raised level, much closer to the officers. And before you argue this point TOO much, remember that the alternative, under the new system anyway, is to allow ALL members access, thus opening up the fraud question more. Also, no one's saying we don't need officers and they don't need to have more capabilities than members, we're just saying we all want officers and members to operate as a big team with, ideally, us all feeling respected as equals. Egalitarianism is one of the core principles of the fleet and, as I've said, eliminating this process of "Daddy, can I please have the keys to the car" would succeed in stopping to force members into a state of supplication, and be more representative of who we are supposed to be as a fleet. However, the next point is more important, to me anyway.

5. Distrusting of members - This. is. huge. Do you see how Kafkaesque it is to say "We are going to distrust you all equally, that way we're being fair!". Let that sink in a little, remembering that this is an fleet of largely idealistic, star trek loving volunteers. Think of Soran and Jacien's comments on values. I think you hit the nail absolutely on the head here, and it captures why some of us have such a big issue with the current approach. It seems deeply, incredibly unTrek to us.

On your last point "Guidelines, by definition, don't prevent anything, ever.", well, this depends on whether you trust members to follow them or not. ;-) With this statement, you make it clear that you don't, meaning you're supporting enforcement even to police the members. This kind of clarifies why you like the status quo so much, whereas those of us who trust members prefer a more open system.