A gentle reminder....

I haven't missed a single episode, Todd, I swear! Truth is, I remember that in each and every one of them, after betrayal was discovered, team-mates realised how precious their trust was. So thanks for making my point stronger! :)

Speaking plainly, it's obvious that there are misconducts. But if we put the threshold high enough, we can achieve both a simpler and freer store-management and the needed protection from free-riders.

Cool Todd, you made your Status Quo position perfectly clear, and perhaps that'll be what the leadership team decides. Let's hope you've argued your points well enough to convince them! And I'm happy to use the word guidelines instead of quotas for the enforcement-less option if you prefer.

I do still believe stridently in my egalitarian and trust paen, it was Nick that did the pivot to mentioning how much easier an open system could be for the officers, which I've also always believed (even if that isn't as much a motivator for me personally).

Oh, and on the quotas question, it's still an open one. Don't forget that just because guidelines or quotas set a limit, all 500 people will not suddenly go out and buy their entire amount. If that was true, we'd already be out of provisions with the current system. So we can still ask ourselves, what limits do we need to set to make withdrawals sustainable?

[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

Well, see, that is where I am a little confused. Because I thought that the current system was the "balanced consensus based on compromise"; and that reopening what had been a settled matter was a little like "beating a dead targ with a pain stick". I know my initial reaction was "wait... didn't we already have a debate about this and come to a decision that seems to be working?"

I am all in favor of "peaceful and balanced consensus based on compromise". But resolutions should have some degree of finality to them. It isn't much of a "peaceful and balanced consensus based on compromise" if you are just going to bring it up again and again and again for reargument.

Why are we having this debate? Is there some goody in the fleet store that you just can't get your hands on? Is there anything in there that you have to have instant access to 24-hours a day? Are the officers barring you from buying something you desperately need? What is it???

Since you yourself say that we have "moved on" from the original stuff about "egalitarianism and trust" (although Soran seems not to have done so), exactly what is the reason for revisiting an issue on which we already had a "peaceful and balanced consensus based on compromise"?

My position is that we respect and abide by the "peaceful and balanced consensus based on compromise" that we reached before. Why you wish to throw out that decision remains a mystery. I am happy to abide by our original compromise.

Quote by Soran

I haven't missed a single episode, Todd, I swear! Truth is, I remember that in each and every one of them, after betrayal was discovered, team-mates realised how precious their trust was. So thanks for making my point stronger! :) Speaking plainly, it's obvious that there are misconducts. But if we put the threshold high enough, we can achieve both a simpler and freer store-management and the needed protection from free-riders.

I'll agree to blood-screenings. Just like they had in the Federation where everyone trusted each other so much.

As previously covered in this thread that agreement was made early on while we were still figuring out a new Fleet Provisions system. We have a much better understanding of that system now and a valid and apparently popular argument is being made that the system could stand to be reformed without incident. I have never once purchased nor requested to purchase any item from the fleet store whatsoever, perhaps I just enjoy a lively debate as you do. I agree with the merits of the idea and would be more likely to make a purchase from the fleet store if the restrictions are relaxed. This rather hard-line lonestar stance does not seem to have gathered many supporters. And I, for one do not feel I need to argue this point any further. See you in game :)

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.

Quote by Araa

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.

Yep. That's where I am. I don't think #4 is an especially good idea (it is a distant third place behind your option#3 in my book), but if that's what the fleet decides to do, I'm not gonna ragequit or anything.

I think we should stick with our original compromise decision, but if ya'll change up the system and we get raided, I'll be happy to say "I told you so"... so it is really a win-win from my point of view. :lol:

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!

Quote by Jacien

perhaps I just enjoy a lively debate as you do.

Yes, there is that. The most perspicacious thing you've written yet! (Now who is going to complement me on my brilliant use of a big word? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?)

K Todd, this post wins as the my favourite in the debate, for the following two reasons:

Quote by Toddoverton

I think we should stick with our original compromise decision, but if ya'll change up the system and we get raided, I'll be happy to say "I told you so"... so it is really a win-win from my point of view. :lol:

This is BRILLIANT, and a perfect opportunity to use schadenfreude. I'll be more than happy to take the blame (and we can throw in a public flogging if you like), unless we don't end up putting in a mandatory minimum waiting period. In that case we can BOTH say "I told you so", and then hit the bar for an extremely smug, self-satisfied drink. lol.

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?

Snaps all round to one of the most constructive and productive debates I've seen on the Internet! ;-)

And sorry Todd, it doesn't count if you use made up Texan words. Perspicacious. As if.

That is an actual word. Synonym for discerning or keenly perceptive.

But then again maybe u were just being adorably coy

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.

I like the current system because it is the result of a serious discussion and compromise, it is accomplishing it's stated goals, and it is completely fair by applying to everyone without regard to how long they have been in the fleet or what they have contributed (mine is the only truly egalitarian option that has been discussed).

But I will state my reasons for supporting our current compromise by responding to your reasons for opposing it:

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

Yes... I remember that one person complaining about how hard it was to buy fleet provisions! First he wanted free access for everyone, and when he was told that we weren't going to do that, he asked to be promoted to fleet captain, and when he was told that we weren't going to do that, he robbed the bank and quit and joined another fleet. I will confess that knowing how badly our system inconvenienced our bank robber doesn't make me feel very sad. Does that make me a bad person?

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!

As was mentioned before, there is some evidence that people are waiting for the upgrades so they can buy the elite level gear. I know that is what I am doing. Once we have access to the top-of-the-line equipment and ships, I believe we will see people start spending. I would be open to revisiting this debate at some point after we have maxed out the base and see what people are or are not actually buying. People like me are deferring our purchases, not declining to purchase at all.

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

That has not been my experience. When I have asked for access to the fleet provisions, it took very little time and the fleet officer seemed very happy to help me out. So it hasn't been a drain on this member's time, and I haven't heard any fleet officers complaining about the drain on their time, either. This one just isn't borne out by the evidence.

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

No... calling some people members and some people officers places a divide between them. This is the nature of any organization: some people have positions where they have greater power and greater responsibility. You can't get around that. Why not just make us all Fleet Admirals and be done with it? I'll tell you why not: because that would be stupid and wouldn't work out. We already divide recruits from cadets from members from captains from admirals from fleet admirals... and you guys are suggesting dividing people who have been in the fleet for 89 days from those who have been members for 91 days? Your proposed system or windows is actually more heirarchical than the current system.

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)

So we should replace it with one that tells the member who has belonged for 89 days that he is less trusted than the one who joined two days before he did? Do you TOTALLY realize how preposterous that is? At least under the current system, everyone is treated the same. No member is more trusted than any other. The fleet distrusts me and thee in equal measure. I, for one, like it that way.

The current system is fair. A "window" where we distrust anyone inside it and trust everyone else is simply arbitrary, and thus inherently unfair.

a cooldown period to prevent random fly-by purchasers and guidelines to prevent over-purchasing.

Cooldown periods are arbitrary and divisive.

Guidelines, by definition, don't prevent anything, ever. Let's assume that everyone already knows that stealing is wrong... a "guideline" is not going to prevent anyone who wants to steal from doing so. Or is it your theory that thieves will think to themselves "I would like to steal that, but that guideline is blocking me! Aaarrgh! Curse you, guidelines! Foiled again!"?

Guidelines preventing overpurchasing? Srsly? The best you can say is that guidelines disapprove of overpurchasing. Controlling and monitoring access to the store prevents overpurchasing! That works. We know it works. Guidelines are just finger-wagging and tut-tutting. Never. Prevented. Anything. Ever.

Quote by Araa

And sorry Todd, it doesn't count if you use made up Texan words. Perspicacious. As if.

See, that's just mean. Why you gotta be a hater? I guess it's true what they say about Canadians...

And here everyone thought Jacien was going to be the one to make me cry...

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

Todd I'll ask that you read this previous post on the boards to verify that this is indeed an actual glaring problem for those that don't play with the North American Peak Time group.

http://fleet.stonewallgaming.net/forums/ten-forward/49945-off-shift-fleet-captain

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. ;)

This system has been discussed for months. Without pure numbers and statistics we can only assume the effect that the opening up the Fleet Provisions would be. We found this effect to be negative and as a result we concluded that there was no justification to change our current system until now. This was not precluded by Araa or anyone else, it has been in discussion for a long time. The failure to realize we do not consider all of options before making our decisions is stringent, what i mean by this is we do not just conform to the regulations set, we actively debate them until everyone is happy. This decision isn't being challenge in my view, it's being viewed and debated in order to make everyone happy, which is ultimately what we want.

We have been discussing making this move and the debate is helping that along as we need input before we make rash decisions making everyone unhappy, but here's the niche we can't make everyone happy at the end of the day.

I just hope there isn't any complaints if we do run out or provisions, this may or may not happen, but that's the whole point of a trial and error system ;)

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.

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

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.

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.