Changes to Fleet Stores

Starting Monday, December 9^th, we'll be enabling the "Purchase from Fleet Store" permission to the Member rank in Stonewall Fleet, Deep Space Stonewall and House of Nagh reD. This will allow Members to purchase items from the Fleet Store on the Starbase and Embassy in all of our fleets. As well, we'll be lifting the previous limits. We only ask that Members consider the needs of their fellow fleet members when purchasing items in large quantities.

The rank progression will then be as follows: Recruits can neither donate to Projects or purchase from Fleet Stores, Cadets can donate to Projects, but not purchase from Fleet Stores, Members can donate to Projects and purchase from Fleet Stores.

If you're currently a Cadet and would like to become a Member, please make an introductory post in the Start Here section of our forums. After that, if you've already had a character in the fleet for two weeks or more, upon request, we'll bypass the normal two-week waiting period and promote you to Member.

In the event that we drop below 25 Fleet Ship Provisions, Engineering Personal Provisions or Science Personal Provisions, we'll revert back to the current system while our supply builds back up. We're aware that we're currently below that limit for our Embassy provisions and we hope that with the assistance of our membership we can quickly build one up for all members to enjoy.

On another note, I want to thank everyone who made their position on this matter clear in the "A Gentle Reminder" thread. You're thoughts and positions on matters that affect the fleet are always important to us. Although, a debate of that magnitude is not necessary to elicit change in fleet policy. Bringing attention to the issues that may trouble our membership and possible solution that you'd like to see only need to be brought to our attention.

Awesome :)

Thank you Nick and thank you to the rest of the leadership for this decision.

I feel this is a great decision, which I fully support. Thank you Officers. Thank you Nick.

I'd like to reiterate my earlier thanks for the outcome of the fleet store discussion, it's quite incredible to see us take on such a huge change so quickly!

There was one point mentioned above that did spur some additional thoughts for me.

Quote by NicholasJohn16

On another note, I want to thank everyone who made their position on this matter clear in the "A Gentle Reminder" thread ... a debate of that magnitude is not necessary to elicit change in fleet policy. Bringing attention to the issues that may trouble our membership and possible solution that you'd like to see only need to be brought to our attention.

This does beg the question, why did the debate end up being that length? And how could it have been avoided, focused or reduced?

Well, for the sake of brevity, I won't go into detail as to why I think the answer is not just bringing an issue to the attention of the leadership team, although that's obviously a helpful and essential part. For example, the thread was a great constructive discussion that reached all sorts of interesting compromises, resulting in three potential safeguards being identified (i.e., temporary quotas/guidelines, 3 month membership cooldown and a slow roll out beginning with DSS and HNR), but we had no idea that the leadership team's approach had changed so significantly that they no longer felt fraud was a problem at all! How could we have shortened it, given the same circumstances? I think it's a poignant question with potential for some concrete, constructive thoughts about the fleet's continual self-improvement.

So feel free to TOTALLY ignore everything that follows. These are just some thoughts that occurred to me as I thought about that quote above, and that I can't help but share. We will continue to be a great fleet without any of the stuff I mention below, and these comments are simply intended in the vein of constantly striving for a 'more perfect union', as I think somebody said at some point.
___________________

So once again, the question posed: "How could the members' debate have been avoided, focused or reduced". Some ideas, in no particular order:

Increased transparency - Why not make all* fleet discussions visible to the whole membership? Invite everyone to weekly meetings, publish all leadership discussions in a special forum on the site, solicit everyone's feedback! This would have been an awesome way to cut down that store thread down to its very core... imagine if we had known that leadership was converging on a solution that was far more radical than any member was proposing? We could have been much more focused (and even more useful to you guys) than we were! It`d also be great team building exercise, helping us members to get to know you guys better.

Leverage members - As a fully volunteer organization, I think there's huge potential to be tapped by getting members to contribute more to the fleet in general. Think through all of our recent projects and ask yourselves, how many non-leadership team people were involved in putting it together? How did we solicit members' help? I think a great example of this was Ozy publishing his PVE meetings... why not make that the exception rather than the rule? The more it's done, the greater the response likely will be as it beomes part of the culture. In addition to lightening the leadership team's workload and generating additional ideas, you get to groom future leaders and increase everyone's commitment to the fleet. It's win/win/win!

Definition of fleet values/mission statement - I've heard people talk about some really fantastic fleet values, but as far as I know they haven't been captured somewhere in a fleet charter or mission statement. Given that they affect the decisions we make and govern the way we deal with each other, why not form a charter committee to write them down? We currently have a lot of detail in our Code of Conduct on how people can be censured, but little on the values we want to embody and the mission we want to fulfill. Yes, we want to be a respectful LGBTQS-positive fleet, but should we also agree and commit to how things like egalitarianism, communication and debate, personal initiative and fun play a role for us as a community?

Value of intellectual diversity - I've seen confusion in this fleet between debate and argument, with well meaning exchanges of opinions being taken very personally by people, ironically, usually not involved in the debate. The store debate was significantly longer than it needed to be because of this phenomenon. I feel the fleet needs to make sure it enjoys and encourages well-behaved discussions of differing opinions if it wants to innovate and grow. You need only look to examples like Lincoln's "Team of Rivals", and this quote, to understand the huge importance of this:

Quote by John Stuart Mill

It is hardly possible to overrate the value...of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they are familiar...Such communication has always been, and is peculiarly in the present age, one of the primary sources of progress

On a very practical level (and something very useful IRL), here's a trick to see if you're comfortable with this, as it's not easy. Always make sure you're discussing the ideas and not the person. The moment you start judging an idea based on the person it came from, you know that either you're losing impartiality, because you don't respect the person, or it's cognitive dissonance fighting back.

___________________

I don't really expect to have any impact with this, but as I implied at the beginning, I feel I should at least put this out there for you guys, in case it's of any use.

Much thanks all, thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed!

Official troublemaker,
John/Araa

This post sponsored by Tribble 17 of 45512 and the letter Q.

* The only reasonable exceptions to this I can think of are discussions related to censure or promotion, which should be a small minority of cases.

P.S. Phew! Much better already. Back to pew pew. :-D

Araa,

You state that you don't understand why the posts were so lengthy and how they could have been reduced? Really? Here are some thoughts on that. The best way to approach a topic of change is to suggest an idea, wait for feedback from multiple other sources, and then once you feel you have made your points by responding once or maybe twice to the entire thread, to escalate to an admiral if one hasn't already chimed in. There were a number of people who camped this thread. Camping a thread or responding to a post over and over again couldcome across as bullying or being overly aggressive depending on the circumstances. It might deter more passive members from participating. That is why as a courtesy, we ask that people don't camp threads or spam the forums with lots of posts or replies to a topic. It also extends the courtesy to other members to offer their opinions before they are seemingly shut out. And with most things "less is more".

I'm happy the restrictions are lifted too! It makes the purchasing of things from the fleet store much more available to all members of the fleet.

Thanks!
Jamie.

Now now..

To clarify I believe he said the thread was rather lengthy not the posts, Freudian slips.. they happen to the best of us.

I remain quite heartened by the "A gentle reminder thread" as a good example of the fleet as a community's heretofore underused capacity to constructively debate, compromise and solve vital issues.

Granted there were some glaring examples to the contrary but the majority of the participants worked together to try and reach a compromise and were willing to alter their positions accordingly.

So I feel that there may have been some feelings of wasted effort on the part of the participants because the leadership chimed in here and there on the thread stating that our debate was of great interest to them, and that they were very nearly close to a decision. The implication is that our debate might effect the outcome of that decision. Thus the participants were spurred to debate their positions with even greater vigor in hopes of influencing that outcome.

Then, come to find out that the decision reached is far more accommodating/radical than the original proponent of the change on the thread originally proposed let alone the rest of us who participated.

Then a gentle admonition is made that such a lively and constructive debate- which IMHO was more positive than negative- is unnecessarily superfluous to the decision-making process and "only" ought to be brought to the attention of those who're actually in a positin to effect that change. If that be the case, why encourage the debate in the first place by stating your interest in it? (makes a weighing motion with both hands and shakes his head) I'm sorry fellas but you can't have it both ways.

You can either make your position known and invite support or contention scary as that my seem. Or you let the debate run its course and step in to moderate if things get too ugly.

I'm sorry to play Devil's advocate here but I cant abide a double standard (implied or otherwise),be it intentional or unintentional merely for the sake of operational convenience. This is an amazing community and I vehemently believe in its potential to continuously better itself.