A gentle reminder....

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!

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 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.

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 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...

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.

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. :)

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'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.

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 :)

Quote by Soran

From where I come, everything is subject to criticism (neutral word) and can be re-debated.

Lord, coming from an Italian, that's a hell of an understatement. Especially when the alternative is to have to actually DO something. :P

I don't need to remind you that ars rhetorica was conceived here, right? :P

Quote by Soran

I don't need to remind you that ars rhetorica was conceived here, right? :P

Yes, just like you also concieved the unemployed stay-at-home 30 year old son and the mafia. :-p

And, as I already told you, the very same alphabet you're using, the ideas you're thinking and reality as you see it. :kiss:

And pasta... mmmmmmm...

Pasta is clearly the winning response. Certainly not Soran's lame attempt to take credit for ripping off a few cool ideas from the Greeks! (See: Cumaean alphabet, Hellenistic philosphers).

Ahahah! No dear, Greeks had much better ideas then ours!

Quote by Ozy

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.

As a gigantic supporter of transparency (nothing cuts through BS and the rumour mill like it), I'd support this 100%, for as many issues as feasible. Have definitely seen other fleets use the same technique. How about it? Any interest? How about we have a vote on using voting? :-D

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.

I don't want to restart this topic as it's all been taken under advisement. I could have phrased my post differently, but my point at the end of the day was that if any member had access is it fair to give them provisions they haven't earned when the rest of the fleet has been tireless working on it? This wasn't intended as a direct dig at you, but I was trying to portray a point.

The blame game, well yeah, I just interrupted the posts made and it felt like that. So forgive me if that wasn't the intention. Guess it's cultural difference and all that stuff.

The point of my last post was to simply demonstrate that although this is a debate there is certain ways of highlighting issues. Guess I just didn't interrupt them in the light they were mean't to be received.

That being said all of this has been taken under advisement.

Anyways, back to uni work.

Quote by SBOSlayer

Just while were on the subject matter how much have you contributed to the base?

Quote by SBOSlayer

This wasn't intended as a direct dig at you, but I was trying to portray a point.

Thanks a ton for this clarification SBO, and yes, please avoid the word "you" in the future when referring to a theoretical case, it does make it look quite personal. lol. Apology accepted. ;-) j/k

Quote by SBOSlayer

... my point at the end of the day was that if any member had access is it fair to give them provisions they haven't earned when the rest of the fleet has been tireless working on it?

K, don't understand this point at all. The current system is designed to move assets from hardcore gamers to casual gamers. I may build the starbase with 5m fleet credits, but I only get my tiny quota back, whereas a casual gamer can contribute the bare minimum, benefit from all my tireless work (a tier IV starbase, nice!), and get exactly the same amount. In fact, it's even worse, he can create more toons than me and withdraw MORE than I can. So are you challenging the use of quotas in the current system?? Most of the options we've been discussing so far still include quotas, so I think we're still assuming this pro-casual gamer stance. Do clarify as necessary.

Good luck with the uni!