Posted Aug. 14, 2019, 7:33 a.m. by Fleet Admiral James Sinclair (President) (James Sinclair)
Posted by Rear Admiral Daniel Lerner (Personnel Director, EGO) in A thought on the Supervisor of Experiments role
Posted by Admiral Joe P (Librarian / TECH Chairman) in A thought on the Supervisor of Experiments role
Posted by Captain Owen Morgan (TECH) in A thought on the Supervisor of Experiments role
Recently I have been looking back over my time in the club, most importantly my one as the supervisor of experiments and what I actually did during my time in that spot. That’s when I realised that during my time I was effectively a LOA monitor for the ships that exist, which is more evident at this point with the application form being non-existant.With my raised points I think we should look at dissolving the position “supervisor of experiments” from the cabinet as the limited duties that accompany that position are not worthy enough of a cabinet role.
Captain Hexagon,
TECHSOX isn’t a cabinet role, but an Executive Assistant position. It’s a distinction that matters in a lot of ways. It was never intended as having as much work or as much prestige attached to it as being a Fleet Commander. It’s kind of an anti-FComm, considering that BOXES is sort of an anti-FCOMM.
There are still ships to monitor, so there is still work to do. There could still be X-Ships created in the future even without the application form being present. The Application form is not required to request an X-Ship. The fact that this isn’t much work compared to, say, actual cabinet roles, doesn’t change that it’s still work that needs to be done and that a human must do it.
If we want to automate the SOX out of existence because we feel that a computer is more capable of being an LOA monitor than a human, that is something I would probably agree with, current TECH workload notwithstanding. That is much closer to what the original proposal of X-Fleet was and something I’d like to see us go closer to instead of further from.
– Joe
I agree with Joe that SOX was never meant to be considered a cabinet role, and it is not considered a cabinet role. It is a semi-permanent EA position, with a set of administrative responsibilities, but little decision-making required.
However, I disagree with automating SOX out of existence. One administrative task that SOX has that cannot be automated is reviewing the X-Fleet ships on a regular basis to ensure no TOS violations. A computer cannot do that. There is no one else to do that or delegate that to as X-Fleet ships intentionally have no “official” CO - it’s just a group of random members who want to play some oddly-themed ST role-playing idea, regardless of those members experience level or ability to take on administrative responsibilities.
There’s also some non-official stuff that SOX can do to help remind the club what X-Fleet is, give opportunities for members to share X-Fleet ideas to see who else is interested (rather than it just being through Discord DMs), etc. But even withouth the non-official stuff, the ship review for TOS violations at a minimum makes it necessary to have a human administrator in that role.
Daniel
I agree with Daniel that the SOX is a role that should not be automated. Just having a person as a touch point for questions while on an X-Fleet ship I believe is necessary, especially considering it’s existence outside of the normal club operations.
And I, for one, have never thought the SOX was a Cabinet position. It is an Executive Assistant position only.
James
© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service
Version 1.15.11
RSS Feed