STF

Question regarding the requirements to serve as Fcomm or AFcomm

Posted May 10, 2019, 7:09 p.m. by Jerome Davis

Posted by Fleet Captain Adam W. (Former Ruler of the Club) in Question regarding the requirements to serve as Fcomm or AFcomm

Posted by Captain Christopher Bennett (FComm, Black Fleet) in Question regarding the requirements to serve as Fcomm or AFcomm

Posted by Rear Admiral Krystelle McLean (FComm, Infinite Fleet / CMM) in Question regarding the requirements to serve as Fcomm or AFcomm
Posted by… suppressed (4) by the Post Ghost! 👻

SNIP

Anyway I think that as our membership has shrunk some, and fleet identity isn’t as important as it once ways, I would say CO or XO in the fleet should be given preference, followed by former COs or XOs. I would just encourage some sort of wording that excludes former COs or XOs that were removed for cause.

Geoff

Geoff, you haven’t lost any eligibility that you once had. If you were a CO at one point in Fleet 5, you’re still eligible there. It doesn’t matter what happened to the ship since.

I don’t believe I have any objection to Joe’s suggestion. I would however object to wording excluding CO’s and XO’s who were removed for cause. There’s a lot of different situations where people lose positions. In my opinion such a rule would exclude some who should not be excluded.

Adam

We could add an exception clause to the wording. That would at least give those you are referring to, Adam, a route to petition for exception to the rule. But I do think we need to ensure that those who were found to be too challenged (in whatever form or fashion) in a CO / XO role don’t find themselves in a similar situation where it could effect an entire fleet.

James

So, here’s the problem I see with this idea: When on earth do we ever remove anyone “for cause”? I mean, I can think of very few times, where someone is removed “for cause”, and they’re typically cases that are either a) are just going AWOL, or b) there is some specific problem, but the smart thing to do is to deal with quietly rather than publicly announce in a fashion where everyone knows exactly everything about why someone was sent packing. We don’t usually record decisions to fire people in a way that those decisions can be subject to review in the future (I don’t think we should necessarily start doing that, either).

Joe

I have to say that I agree with Daniel and Sarah, I don’t see the necessity of adding more restrictions to make the job of finding people willing to serve harder. I think we’d be kicking ourselves in the backside with that. In the time I’ve served as FComm the number of applications for anything is very small if any. I’ve had to go begging for a CO to take a ship. I would agree though with removing the prior command of a Fleet to any CO/XO broadening our candidate pool. We should be doing that rather then shrinking it again by adding more restrictions.

Krys

A couple thoughts on my end. I agree that the current wording of the rule seems out of date, and on the AFCOMM side, can limit the choices of the FCOMM. With that in mind, I do have some suggested changes.

For the FCOMM position, I suggest that we say something like: “Preference should be given to a current or former CO/XO of the fleet, however it is the presidents discretion on who is selected, provided they have the rank of at least Captain, have been a commanding officer and have been active in STF in the last 3 or 4 months.”

On the AFCOMM side, I think we can change it to something like: “To qualify for the AFCOMM position, the candidate must have a member rank of at least Commander, and have an active character in said fleet in the month prior to selection.” We might even consider adding something like preference should be given to existing CO’s and XO’s of said fleet, but the FCOMM, with the presidents approval has final selection decision.”

Just my two cents.

-Christopher

I’d rather see it continue to be based on if someone has had an XO / CO position than to change it to be based on rank. I especially dislike having the requirement be a Commander rank. That is a really rare rank to achieve in STF and it would eliminate many who should be AFComms. I know that would have prevented me from having one of mine. The concept currently is that you should run a ship before running a fleet and that you should assist running a ship before you assist running a fleet. We’re doing ourselves a disservice if we block up-and-comers from having a chance to try out a lower level governmental role, particularly those who’ve held a similar position already at the ship level.

I also object to adding that Presidents would need to approve aFComms. We don’t need extra hoops for the President and the FComms to jump through.

Adam

Literally one of the most antiquated rules still in place in this club and should have been scuttled years ago when we first started playing the shell game with the Fleets. The “Fleet Identity” excuse for limiting Command of a Fleet is nonsense and has zero foundations in any naval-structure based organization in the world… except ours. Absolutely pointless.

Jerome
Cantankerous Condor


Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.15.9