A gentle reminder....

We haven`t discussed Option #5, opening the store to all (non-Recruit) members. While a reasonable option to consider, IMHO, I personally wouldn't go QUITE this far from the start, simply because I feel we'd open ourselves a little bit too much to 'grazing', people who join the fleet simply to pick up a few extra ground weapons or buffs. While I don't believe large scale fraud is possibility, we'd have to accept the fact that this option would increase our risk of multiple instances of small scale fraud, including particularly to the buff provisions.

For the record, if I had to choose one option, I'd vote for option 4, with a member cooldown of some period (3 months?) before having full access to the store. I don't think quotas are necessary, but some useful guidelines could be put in place (e.g., don't shop for your BOFFs, here are some pointers on what's good to buy and what's not, etc.). Controlled access to the stores (the system we use today) could still be allowed during the member's cooldown period. After running this for a few months, I'd then consider opening it to all members.

Any other votes, options, or insights?

Oh, Araa, it's good to see that your break from STO hasn't diminished your ability to make gentle reminders seem more like driving a fist into someone's face. You have a funny way of "speaking your piece" and letting others speak their minds. I suppose if you first don't succeed, try, try, try again.

This was not a "we're gonna be conservative while we're figuring it out" policy. The current policy was decided at a fleet-wide meeting in which all members in attendance were informed about how the new system works, it's limitations and our fears. They decided how we should proceed from that point. It doesn't get more egalitarian than that. :)

This isn't about trust. This is about rationing a limited supply fairly. That being said, our need to ration has diminished since this process was first decided. (Although, we have yet to build up a large supply of Embassy provisions.) It's been a topic of discussion among the leadership for sometime now with us debating what to do about limits and promotions. We're glad that all of you have used the forums to express your thoughts on the matter.

If we were to open up access to the fleet stores, we wouldn't do it by creating a new rank and furthering complicating how the fleet runs. We already have a ranks that separate recent joins and people that are involved in the fleet; Cadet and Member. Basing store access on donation would necessitate someone actually tallying up all donation amounts for all their characters in all our fleets. Counting would be incredibly time consuming and tedious for literally hundreds of members and characters.

Personally, one of the biggest reasons I'd like to see the 'Purchase from Fleet Store' permission given to Members is to remove this additional burden to our hard working Fleet Captains and Admirals. While promoting and demoting members isn't that time consuming, it's a little bit of tedium that I'd like to remove from their burden. Then I can find more work for them to do. :evil:

Time Zone based volunteers aren't really an option. We don't get volunteers based on location; we get them based on their availability. Even if we picked Fleet Captains based on their time zones, we can't require them to play at certain times. The much easier solution to this problem is to open up access to the fleet stores. [Actually Sthiss, one of our Admirals have been trying to contact you via in-game mail about your promotion.]

Quote by Araa

Why? The simple reason is zombie accounts, people that join a fleet and then just leave the game (or take a break long enough to get pruned), artificially inflating the size of the fleet.

Zombie accounts don't happen. We don't prune the fleet roster just when we're running out of space, we do it regularly to remove any characters that have not logged on three months. Dead accounts don't stay around any longer than that and for that reason the roster is a pretty good indicator of activity. Recently, we've needed to be increasingly prompt on the 3 month limit because we have so many active characters.

Yes, it would be news if we we're no longer the largest glbt fleet in STO. Unless this fleet has the ability to recruit without any advertisements, being listed on google or discussed on the STO forums.

Measuring who's currently online isn't exactly a perfect metric either. It would be very biased depending on your location.

Awww, shucks Nick, ya know how to make a gal feel missed. ;-) Yeah, I can be a bit persistent from time to time, but isn't that why ya love me?

I think I've actually already said my piece, so I guess I'll just leave it at that. Do love the direction it's taking though!

Quote by NicholasJohn16

This isn't about trust. This is about rationing a limited supply fairly.

Just my two cents. I've bought my one fleet ship, and I'm happy with it - don't really see any others I want.

HOWEVER, the fleet MK XII weapons and new ship consoles at the Embassy are making me drool, and I don't know what the limit on these items is.

That is what concerns me about opening up the fleet store -
1) How do each of these items drain our provisions?
2) How much of a dent would 10 fleet members each buying 7 weapons at a time impact our stockpile?
3) What is the limit on these items for each purchaser? Is it per weapon and per console?

As it is currently I really don't like the idea of bothering anyone to ask for a promotion to acquisition, and so far have only done so once to buy a couple of phasers. I don't want to take more than I am due, but I thought that the marks system would have prevented that. If you don't have the marks, I assumed you hadn't put enough into the system to take out of it.

When I joined the fleet I had no idea that would be the case. I just assumed if you had the credits and the dilithium you could buy what you wanted. Now I hear that other fleets don't have that restriction in place it kind of bothers me that Stonewall does. :dry:

On the other hand, if we have a strictly limited supply, then I can understand why it is being controlled. But not if that supply is currently running high.

If it's the case that someone with lots of marks from another fleet could come to us, then the reverse must also be true. We would probably have people here who put more in than they take out, and then leave.

Just to interject.

If we were to open up the provisioning vs the current system, wouldn't there be more gripe about the fact people can't get anything?

I think the logistics speak for themselves. Some members have enough Fleet Credits to diminish the store to 0 capacity. Which means the majority who are fighting for this and don't have time, much like I don't, to garner that amount of fleet credits will most likely have to wait quite a bit for replenishing.

That's the way i'm currently thinking of it. Currently the system isn't working we have. We take all feedback into consideration and even sometimes debate the issue until we come up with an effective resolution strategy. That has not been the case based on the membership we have.

On the flip side according to TTS and other channels, apart from 9th fleet, we are one of the only fleet in games with nearly tier 4 capability. I'm hoping tier 5 will give us the option for a purely based provisioning system.

If this is the case it will easy to make it a "free for all" as it were.

Just a note, most of the officers haven't even used the store yet to allow for the fleet to gain the apt gear. That's how much we want you to have this... and as a pvper I'm getting desperate :P We are thinking of the fleet as a whole and to this end we would like the system to be distributed fairly, so everyone gets a chance.

Trust me we'll come up with something, hopefully to suit all. On a side note as a uker, I'll try and make myself more available to get the euro provisioning out there ;)

Finally i'm seeing a lot of other fleets don't have this limitation. I have to say this is wrong most fleets do have this in place and are going to continue to have this in place. I don't know if everyone has access to TTS, Organised pvp, doff and elite channels, but this has been a hot topic for some time with most fleets saying that the restrictions have an overall beneficial effect on moral.

Also Araa i'm not being funny, but why are you pushing this so hard? It's a discussion and not a fight. We have to take all opinions into consideration ;)

Heh, some good stuff SBO....

Quote by SBOSlayer

I think the logistics speak for themselves. Some members have enough Fleet Credits to diminish the store to 0 capacity. Which means the majority who are fighting for this and don't have time, much like I don't, to garner that amount of fleet credits will most likely have to wait quite a bit for replenishing.

So if you feel this way SBO, then fight for quotas. Some simple guidelines, similar (but more generous), than our current ones will help to ensure that there's enough for all. And as discussed, no member will diminish the store to 0 capacity, no one needs or wants 150 ground items, and they`d run out of dil anyway. ;-)

Quote by SBOSlayer

On the flip side according to TTS and other channels, apart from 9th fleet, we are one of the only fleet in games with nearly tier 4 capability. I'm hoping tier 5 will give us the option for a purely based provisioning system.

Well, I'm not sure about 'only'. I know of 4 fed fleets (not including the 9th) and 2 kdf fleets that are already (or are almost) tier 4, which is a large % of those I'm familiar with. But what do you mean by your second sentence? That we'll only do provisions after tier 5? I totally assume that`s the case.

Quote by SBOSlayer

Finally i'm seeing a lot of other fleets don't have this limitation. I have to say this is wrong most fleets do have this in place and are going to continue to have this in place.

Fascinating. Most fleets? Really? Well, I can only go from my experience, which is that SW is the only one of the 10 (usually rather large) fleets I've checked. I haven't caught the discussion on those channels unfortunately, although I do follow them. Can you privately send me a few of the names of the ones that use that system? Would love to do some digging.

Quote by SBOSlayer

Also Araa i'm not being funny, but why are you pushing this so hard? It's a discussion and not a fight. We have to take all opinions into consideration ;)

Why on earth do people get the impression that this is fighting? :-D It's a spirited, respectful, funny debate amongst passionate people. What's not to like? And of course you should take all opinions into consideration, I've been trying to encourage all voices to contribute, the better to clarify all the arguments.

Yes, I'm passionate about this, but the policy (for me) represents a whole bunch of things I passionately don't like, inefficiency, distrust (i.e., whatever you feel, voluntary quotas alone can ensure fairness, our current permission/"keys" system on top of that inherently implies distrust), and hierarchical behaviour. The precise opposite of the way I like my organizations to function. Particularly because we're made up of passionate volunteers who want the fleet to succeed, I would much rather see what happens when we just trust our members to behave maturely! Even if it fails, I'd be happier because I'd feel the fleet would more closely reflect my values and a have a stronger belief in its members behaviour.

I realize some don`t see these problems at all, but I`m just telling you how it looks from my perspective. Ultimately we`re all fighting for the same thing, a successful, smoothly-functioning, happy fleet!

And just to reiterate, enjoy the debate, try to learn from your debators (I've already learned a few valuable things from SBO and The Evil Genius for example), practice your communication and debating skills, have fun!

Simma down now.

*snip*

Quote by SBOSlayer

I think the logistics speak for themselves. Some members have enough Fleet Credits to diminish the store to 0 capacity. Which means the majority who are fighting for this and don't have time, much like I don't, to garner that amount of fleet credits will most likely have to wait quite a bit for replenishing.

Well, yes and no. On the leaderboard, I've got 422595 fleet credit in the Fleetbase, and 2414 fleet credit in the Embassy. This is my only fleet, and I joined before the fleet credit system began.

I've purchased:
a Fleet RSV Retro,
2 [Advanced Fleet Antiproton Dual Heavy Cannons Mk XII [Dmg]x3 [Acc]],
[Advanced Fleet Antiproton Dual Cannons Mk XII [Dmg]x3 [Acc]],
[Advanced Fleet Photon Torpedo Launcher Mk XII [Dmg]x3 [Acc]],
[Advanced Positron Deflector Array Mk XII [Inert] [CoSys] [SInt] [CMan]],
[Advanced Fleet Combat Impulse Engines Mk XII [Turn]x3 [Spd]],
[Advanced Fleet Covariant Shield Array Mk XII [Cap]x3 [Reg]],
and 3 [Advanced Fleet Antiproton Turret Mk XII [Dmg]x3 [Acc]].

7 weapons, 1 ship, and 3 Ship components. After those purchases, I'm left with only 98541 fleet credits.

That will only buy me two Fleet Consoles at the Embassy, and then leave me broke no matter how much dilithium I have; I'll have to grind a while to buy more things.

I didn't keep up with the fleet credit costs, but by my estimation there are only about a dozen fleet members that could "clear us out," and they'd only be able to do it once.

In the end, I don't know what the solution is, but I wish there were more numbers going on in this discussion.

Quote by mrgig00

I didn't keep up with the fleet credit costs, but by my estimation there are only about a dozen fleet members that could "clear us out," and they'd only be able to do it once.

My concern is not about our current fleet members, but about outsiders joining the fleet just to spend their fleet credits in our store and then quitting. I am by no means a hardcore player, but I have earned 1.5 million fleet credits. Now imagine a dozen people hearing that we have a fully-stocked fleet store with no restrictions (pardon me, voluntary quotas) on purchases. Twelve people like me, that is 18,000,000 fleet credits being spent in our store by people who promptly quit and go back to their old fleets. Is that enough numbers for ya?

Now, those arguing for fewer controls can assume that 12 (or more) such people won't appear and if they do that they won't buy up the store. But let's be clear that they are indeed assuming. They are guessing and wishing and hoping. And they swear that just because people did it to our bank is no indication whatsoever that they would do it to our store. Because people are good and should be trusted.

I, for one, am not willing to make those assumptions. They are unwarranted and contrary to the evidence. And I have made substantial contributions of my own time and treasure to our fleet provisioning projects because I knew from the beginning that our officers were actively protecting those provisions and ensuring that they were not unduly at risk of abuse. If that changes, people like me will see little reason to put so much of our effort into things the fleet isn't willing to protect. If you think you can provision a fleet of 500 players without the continuing support of people like me, then by all means go ahead. But removing these protections will be a powerful disincentive for players like me to put so much into our store.

I love contributing to our fleet projects. I love working to build up resources that we can share as a community. I love what we have accomplished together with our base and our embassy and their stores of provisions. And I feel that way in large part because I know that my contributions are valued and actively protected by our fleet. My efforts are not going to waste. The people who benefit from my contributions are my friends and fleetmates, and we have a system in place that ensures that this continues to be the case. I would suggest that most other large contributors feel the same way. The current system is a wonderful incentive for players like us to put so much of our personal stuff into these shared resources. Removing that incentive would not, in the long run, be good for our fleet.

Quote by Toddoverton

Is that enough numbers for ya?

Sorry if I offended you. You are firmly in the "Keep the limits" column. I get that. What limits do you recommend? I know there is one ship per member. What about the other items?

Let's just keep this conversation moving forward; we're all friends here. What would you say would be an acceptable quota of Fleet Credits/number of provisions each member should get to spend in a setting?

Quote by mrgig00

Let's just keep this conversation moving forward; we're all friends here.

I heartily agree ;)

If, in addition to a fleet cred/provision minimum requirement we also instituted a 3 month waiting period in which the new member would have to ask permission from the fleet leadership to access the store; would that not be an acceptable compromise for all concerned parties? It would serve to discourage any potential boogeymen circling our fleet like vultures to spend an inordinately unprofitable amount of time away from their own fleet to try and scam us.

I recommend we do a poll. We've done them in the past and it's a good way to get a general idea on where we collectively stand on these issues by voting on what each person thinks of each option presented without having to constantly debate or defend the merits of their stance.

Is it possible for someone who has racked up over a million fleet credits to join and drain us dry? Yes, of course it's just as possible as it never happening. However, no one in this thread has been arguing for wide open access to the fleet store, if you're going to argue against what people are suggesting, it would behoove you to actually counter their points instead of an argument that no one has made. Personally, I think a 3 month window would be a good compromise on security and inclusion of new members.

Edit: I'm adding a smiley face because text is rather impersonal and is usually read in the worst possible interpretation ;)

Actually Keioel, your edit is quite insightful. I'd like to add to it by mentioning one of my tricks with these discussions... if you read a thread worried that "oh my god, these people are going to get angry and argumentative", then the posts actually start LOOKING angry. As Keioel mentions, they're read with a negative interpretation.

Personally, I always read these things thinking we're a bunch of cool people having a witty conversation at a cocktail party, and then the posts all start LOOKING friendlier, by giving them a positive interpretation. It's a great trick, and it means I've really enjoyed all the discussions above, and am quite surprised when someone interprets the same discussion as an argument. Give it a shot if you haven't tried it, it's like having your own personal rose-coloured glasses and makes the world MUCH happier than if you're using the dark-coloured ones.

Todd, you raise the important question, as did SBO and mrgig, of whether we can adequately provision a fleet of 500 members. Totally fair question, and this is where we can distinguish between quotas (i.e., how many x's you can buy) and controls (i.e., go see an FC to get access to the store). I'm against the controls, although I'd support a waiting period to reduce the chances of fraud by fly-by-night members*, but I have no problem with quotas to address exactly your concern, particularly if we loosen them slowly over time as we test the process.

So what's a reasonable amount to ensure there's enough for everyone? I'd actually prefer setting them per person rather than per toon (why give more resources to someone just cause they have 15 toons? And why prevent people from tricking out their main with all of their allocation?), but would do something like the following to start (just putting this out there):

Ships: 3 per person (i.e. 1 for 3 toons, or 3 for 1 toon)
Ship components (weapons/consoles/...): 8 per person
Ground items: 8 per person
Buffs: Your discretion, but don't go crazy

We could then loosen them further if, after three months or so, we're still doing well with our provisions.

Reactions?

* ASIDE: On having a member cooldown period to avoid fraud by people joining the fleet just to shop, you and I and most of the others in this chat seem to support it, but it sounds like some of the leadership team doesn't. I don't think they yet understand how it can be structured to be easily managed, esp vs. the current system! It partially involves making the req. rank permanent, and if necessary, I can outline the simple process that can make it super simple to manage. Certainly we have no problem at all doing it in other fleets, and I don`t think SW is any less capable ;-). At the end of the day, it`s a net reduction in effort to do this vs. the status quo, guaranteed.

Quote by Keioel

Is it possible for someone who has racked up over a million fleet credits to join and drain us dry? Yes, of course it's just as possible as it never happening.

Under the current system, someone with millions of fleet credits coming in and buying up our store is not possible. That is what makes the current system, which was debated and thought-out and agreed-upon, so attractive.

What you, and others, are saying is that someone coming in and doing that after we open up the store is not likely. And I simply don't think you have any evidence to back up that position. You say it isn't likely, but you don't really know. Like I said before, you are wishing and hoping and guessing. Well, I'm not inclined to gamble based on your hopes and dreams about the goodness of humanity nor on your guesses about what people are likely to do. The bank has been robbed. And it was robbed by someone who had played with our fleet for a while and was trying to get himself made fleet captain (and had others suggesting that he should be!) so that he could rob us more completely. You saying the store won't the target of similar players be is just completely contrary to the evidence. But, there is none so blind as he who will not see...

However, no one in this thread has been arguing for wide open access to the fleet store, if you're going to argue against what people are suggesting, it would behoove you to actually counter their points instead of an argument that no one has made.

The original post in this thread, the one that got it all started, flat-out said that we should "allow anyone in the fleet to buy directly from the stores". There was nothing in the original post about waiting periods or windows or anything else. Just that we should let anyone in the fleet buy whatever they wanted because we should have "egalitarianism and trust". And that was what I was reacting to. I don't like that idea. I haven't expressed an opinion about windows or tiers or anything else because I don't really have an issue with any of that. What I took issue was was the original demand that we open up the store to free access by anyone in the fleet and just trust everyone to do be on the honor system. Presumably, that includes people who joined yesterday, because the original posted did not say it didn't.

So please reread the entire thread and note that "wide-open access" was indeed the suggestion to which I was and am responding.

Now, if everyone has, as you say, backed away from that first idea, I will declare that no one is happier to hear it than I am... although it isn't terribly egalitarian or trustful of you. But if you are saying that the idiotic "honor system/voluntary quota" plan is off the table, then I'd say my work here is done.

:cheer:

I'm participating to the debate with a constructive attitude. There are no numbers here, but working with them every day I came to believe that they make you loose the right perception of things way too often. Be cool and, please, don't tell me my phrasing's too flamboyant: you Anglo-Saxon are so touchy. :P

I've been part of SW for one year and a half, participating quite regularly to our joint efforts as a Fleet. Until now, I haven't done anything but pouring in resources for the fleet both in terms of time and raw materials for projects.

I've participated to only one meeting on-line and we talked about store-restrictions. They had to be temporary and allow us to better understand how the system works. I wasn't completely satisfied with the reasoning then, and certainly I'm not now.

I believe that a policy is also (actually I should say first and foremost) the expression of an attitude and of a weltanschauung. I don't like to be told that someone (I, for instance, or anybody else here) joining and staying in the fleet for a prolonged time could be dangerous to the others. It's arrogant and frankly quite offensive too. Keeping a long-standing fleet member in the condition of needing to ask for something that's rightfully his/her/hir does something terrible: it makes our bonds as a group weaker.

In any Star Trek series, you can count a number of episodes in which crew members trust each other and security protocols are for outsiders. Thus, I back the proposal to reform the store-restrictions to a temporal cap. I understand that it could be a new burden for those who manage the Fleet, but I don't think it would be that much worse than promoting a new member from recruit to cadet and then to member.

Quote by Araa

Todd, you raise the important question, as did SBO and mrgig, of whether we can adequately provision a fleet of 500 members.

Well, under your suggestion, I guess we can provision a fleet of 500 people if each person contributes enough resources to provision 3 ships, 8 ship components, 8 gound items, and as many consumables as they will consume. Under any other conditions, the answer would be no.

Totally fair question, and this is where we can distinguish between quotas (i.e., how many x's you can buy) and controls (i.e., go see an FC to get access to the store). I'm against the controls, although I'd support a waiting period to reduce the chances of fraud by fly-by-night members*, but I have no problem with quotas to address exactly your concern, particularly if we loosen them slowly over time as we test the process.

Quotas without controls are called "suggestions". If you don't have controls, then it isn't a quota. By definition. Pick a different word, because at this point you and I are not talking about the same thing.

So what's a reasonable amount to ensure there's enough for everyone?

There seems to be plenty under the current system. Let's stick with that!

I'd actually prefer setting them per person rather than per toon (why give more resources to someone just cause they have 15 toons?

Because people with more toons are in a position to contribute more. I've probably put into the main starbase projects 100 prisoner and colonist doffs that my Klingon toon mailed to my Fed toon.

Reactions?

I have no opinion on what the limits should be, just as long as there are actual enforced limits.

On having a member cooldown period to avoid fraud by people joining the fleet just to shop, you and I and most of the others in this chat seem to support it, but it sounds like some of the leadership team doesn't.

I don't think that is an accurate assessment of either my position or of the officers'.

I don't think they yet understand how it can be structured to be easily managed, esp vs. the current system! It partially involves making the req. rank permanent, and if necessary, I can outline the simple process that can make it super simple to manage.

Yes, this [strike]10-page[/strike] [strike]11-page[/strike] 13-page debate certainly suggests super-simplicity...

Certainly we have no problem at all doing it in other fleets, and I don`t think SW is any less capable ;-). At the end of the day, it`s a net reduction in effort to do this vs. the status quo, guaranteed.

If the fleet officers aren't unhappy with their current level of required effort, I will restate my opinion that you are trying to fix something that isn't broken. But I do think that going from "We need egalitarianism and trust!" to "Let's make it simpler for the officers!" is a clever pivot.

Our fleet is at the maximum level of members and is staying there. Our base and embassy projects are advancing as fast as any other fleet's and faster than most. We have plenty of provisions in the store. Anyone who wants to access the store is free to do so by following a simple procedure that applies equally and fairly to every last one of us. Our store is completely secure from ne'er-do-wells like the ones who robbed our bank. Our fleet officers are not complaining about the system being too onerous or complicated for them to manage.

I fail utterly to see the problem with all this, especially since you seem to have dropped your pean to egalitarianism and trust.

I remain convinced that the current system is w.a.d. and needs no altering. I am personally quite happy with the way it works. When I wanted to buy a ship, it took me 2 minutes. When I want access to the store, I have never had trouble getting it. And when the fleet asks me to put my own resources into the provisioning projects, I am happy to do so because I know those provisions are secure and will be used and enjoyed only by my friends and fleetmates. Change makes no sense to me.

Quote by Soran

In any Star Trek series, you can count a number of episodes in which crew members trust each other and security protocols are for outsiders.

Eddington. Seska. Admiral Cartwright. Valeris. Calvin Hudson. Leyton. Red Squad. T'Pel.

Yay, I love Star Trek trivia!

(Soran, I think you missed quite a few episodes there...)

Quote by Araa

It was like a little kick in the teeth every time I heard a fleet recruiter say "and of course we allow anyone in the fleet to buy directly from the stores....". Why not us?

I believe that's more of a question than a declarative statement. If any one's got an HK51 droid perhaps they'd be good enough to have him check?

I must applaud Araa on boldly yet articulately challenging what may well be an unnecessarily strident system. Not only that, but I must give props for his and others enlightened ability to move beyond their initial arguments by recognizing the merits of points of view different from their own; of havingopinions on the alternative options hoping and dreaming that we could move this debate forward to better foster a fair and equitable resolution through compromise. Of not beating a dead targ with a pain stick over an idea that had been moved on from in the spirit of cooperation and in truly egalitarian fashion, to move beyond petty bickering and attempt to find a peaceful and balanced consensus based on compromise, respect and mutual understanding which is what this wonderful fleet has always been about and should always be.

Now, as then, 'tis simple truth.. Sweetest tongue has sharpest tooth. ;)

First of all, Soran, I love you for putting the debate in Trek terms AND using the word weltanschauung perfectly. Masterful. (And hopefully you won't suffer from schadenfreude at the end of this debate)

And to our incredibly happy and well mannered Todd (and I'm even not being sarcastic!), you're totally right that you HAVE moved the debate for some of us, and almost no one's talking about the wide open model. Here's where I think the various thread responders are, for all of your feedback:

Option #5 - Open access to all members (possibly with voluntary quotas, but open to abuse from fly by members): The only person that supported this view in this thread is Nick, who seemed to feel that it was the most feasible alternative to the status quo. Most of the thread responders seem to be with you Todd that there should be at least a mandatory waiting period and/or minimum contributions, so I guess the next step is to understand why Nick thinks a minimum waiting period/contributions would be difficult to implement, as there are simpler methods than the one he described. Again, all the fleets I'm aware of use this system without any issue at all (SBO's fleet experience notwithstanding), and, in my experience, it takes much less effort than the current system.

Option #4 - Member cooldown period and quotas - It sounds like the majority of us are landing on this Todd-enhanced compromise, and I was looking to discuss what the quotas should look like for any of these options.

Option #3 - More requisitioning sub-FCs - Think this one has been shot down, which doesn't worry me as much if Options 4 or 5 are acceptable, we essentially won't need them.

Option #2 - Loosening current quotas - Think this has been discussed as a bare minimum if Options 3-5 are unacceptable.

Option #1 - Status quo - Think you and 1 or 2 other people favoured this option. Don't know if you're still here or could support option #4 with its various restrictions.

Gigantic apologies if I've mischaracterized anyone's part of the debate, I've tried to be as objective as possible, but that's usually impossible. Please speak up if you think clarifications are needed!