STF

Office of the President - Edict #5

Posted Sept. 20, 2020, 6:21 a.m. by Captain Katy Darrah (AFComm, Meridian Fleet) (Katy Darrah)

Posted by Matt Evans in Office of the President - Edict #5

Posted by Ben Z in Office of the President - Edict #5

Posted by Vice Admiral Sarah Hemenway (President) in Office of the President - Edict #5
Posted by… suppressed (3) by the Post Ghost! 👻

(snip)

Hello all. As a relatively new member, I would like to voice my concerns about this decision in a numbered list, because everyone loves numbered lists. (Also, having not posted on command much I have no idea where or how I’m supposed to post this, so apologies if it’s in the wrong place)

1.) It looks bad
To me, at least. Maybe if I haven’t been around long enough to understand the absolute authority of the president, that’s my problem. But the fact is, it just looks bad and feels bad to know that big decisions that change my experience within the club can be made with no discussion that I’m able to be a part of. Just because someone CAN do something doesn’t mean they SHOULD, and as members of this club I feel it is only fair if we get to discuss the “should” behind a decision as big as this. Even if the decision ended up being the same, it would look better and feel better if reasoning was explained BEFORE an edict, rather than after. And again even if the president CAN just drop the edict with no discussion, doesn’t mean they SHOULD, because it looks and feels bad to members like me.

2.) General sense of unease
People (myself included) like consistency. Three ships were decommissioned last term, and although I had no characters on any of them, I was left with a general nervousness that the same thing could happen to other ships I am a part of. That’s why I asked Sarah a direct question during the election about her stance on ship decommissionings. Now, I have a general sense of unease about decommissionings of ships, unease about decommissionings of fleets (which I didn’t even know was possible), AND unease about ships that I’m on being shuffled to new fleets. Whether or not that unease is justified, it still exists. This is another “feeling” argument, but I think those matter. Being nervous about changes that could happen to RP environments that I care about with no warning or chance to discuss is just unsettling as a whole, and not a pleasant feeling.

3.) It sets a precedent
If actions like these are going to be taken without a chance for discussion, what other changes will come this term? Are there other 8-month plans that we don’t know about that will only come to light in an edict? Will we have to hold our breath the entire term and hope that no other big decision is made that affects us or our ships? Whether or not there are any other big plans, it creates an atmosphere of distrust about what the administration is doing behind closed doors. If this is how the administration plans to handle these decisions, will we all need to check command regularly to calm our fears that maybe our fleet or our ship is next to be singled out?

I have no horse in this race, I’ve never been a part of Infinite Fleet in any way. And I’m not even arguing in this post that the decommissioning in of itself is a bad idea. I don’t have enough experience in the club to really know. However, the problem for me is how the decision was made and communicated to the membership. It has just left me feeling bad. And I know Sarah does not want members of the club to feel that way, but I needed to be honest about my reaction and why it is the way it is. Thank you for your time.

Hi Ben,

Is there a question that you have for Rob or I here?

Both of my lengthier posts on the subject touch on many of the topics you’ve mentioned here, so if you haven’t had a chance to read those yet, take a look and let me know if you have any lingering questions.

Sarah

Hi Sarah,

In one of your lengthier posts that I responded to with my first post, you directly say: “I hear that people would have liked the opportunity to voice their concerns with the move and I understand that. I’m glad to see that you are taking the opportunity to do so now and I’m happy to address them and go through our thought process with you all.” I am simply ‘taking the opportunity to do so now,’ as you put it.

My question (if I must have one) is although you’ve said that you ‘understand’ the desires of others in the club, are you going to change the way you go about these sort of decisions in the future? Will this experience and the response to the way you went about executing this action cause you to act differently in other instances? Or, as I’ve said in my post above, can I as a club member not with the “in-crowd” expect to be blindsided by changes of this nature throughout your term?

Ben

Hi Ben,

Rob and I are certainly keeping an open mind as we listen to people’s feedback on our decision, but no, we would not have changed the process by which we made this decision, nor the people we involved (I have no idea who the “in crowd” is in this context, given these people were the ones most affected by the ideas). In our experience, posing a question such as “should we decommission Fleet A?” in Command is rarely productive and, at times, actively adversarial; what would the end result of such a discussion be? Would it be fair to simply side with the majority when there is only a subset of the club that posts in Command? Why should the opinion of Person A, whom the decision does not directly affect, be considered stronger than Person B, a person who it does effect? If the end result is more than likely going to happen, why should we waste people’s time with the pretense of a discussion? These kinds of issues go on and on. There have already been several fantastic discussions in Command this term, where people have felt comfortable agreeing and disagreeing while posing various view points and we will absolutely continue that trend. The club membership put their trust and faith in Rob and I when we won the election and we will continue to involve the membership as much as possible, while making the difficult decisions that result in spending hours walking people through them in Command.

Sarah

Hi Sarah,

My initial post on the subject touches on many of the topics you’ve mentioned here, so if you would like to review it, it is at the top of this thread. I have clearly laid out why the opinions of ‘Person A’ matter. But, if a discussion really would be an empty gesture, a ‘pretense’ with no actual intent by you to learn and grow from a potentially constructive and enlightening discussion… then you are right, and we should all be prepared to let you do as you please point-blank-period. You have made as much clear, and I am in turn making it clear that I strongly disapprove of that method of governance.

I don’t believe that more than a ‘subset of the club’ will EVER post on Command if they have been given the clear message that their posts do not matter. You have made it very clear that ‘Person A’ does not matter to you, and there are many, many ‘Person A’s in this club. I caution against labeling anyone not directly affected by a decision as unimportant, both for the reasons I mentioned above, and for the additional reason that ‘Person B’ will then always be alone if this is the case, unable to ask for support from other members of the club whose opinion you shun (especially, it seems, if those opinions disagree with yours).

If these decisions truly are as difficult as you claim, they deserve the time and attention of all members of the club, not just you and a select few. This idea that you are saving the club by making unpopular decisions that other people are simply too stupid to understand are needed is frankly insulting. You have made these decisions not difficult… precisely because you have avoided the hardest part: managing the reaction from club members. People want to believe that you have good intentions, but having faith in your administration should not be the same as agreeing to blind obedience.

I often wonder how newer members view posts like yours above. It certainly seems to imply that you have a negative opinion of most everyone in the club, especially those that do not agree with you. I suggest that you consider the perception the less outspoken members have of your actions. Whatever your intentions, the way you go about them does matter. You have discarded my constructive criticism in that regard, and for that I am disappointed. But at least we should now all be on the same page about what to expect going forward. So thank you for answering my question.

Ben

Hi Ben,

I’m pretty sure the implications being made here are yours. If there is any negativity in the feedback given or in the way something is being read then I believe it’s being done by you. But this is my read on your several last posts and perhaps it’s me who is reading negatively into what you’re saying. What I see is a purposefully antagonistic approach in trying to defend and reiterate the crusade against a choice that was made and effectively done.

Was it the right choice? Shoot, I don’t know. I can see an argument for both sides and that was why I got on board with it in the beginning. I was one of the ones who had been a part of the discussion which should make sense since I was selected to FComm the fleet. I’m not going to go into my motivations as I covered that in a previous post, but I could’ve gone with either choice. I’m not of the opinion that losing the fleet is a big impact. I am a little concerned for the other FComms being at ‘full capacity’ and on what sort of work load that will entail for them but they were all fine with going to six ships.

Now you’ve said quite a few things as fact, at least from your perspective, so I hope you don’t mind my returning the favor. You’ve made it clear to me in your posts in Command that you see yourself a champion of the Club set against the tyranny of Government. I’m not particularly sold on that being your motivations here, but okay I can accept it at face value. Now there has been a serious issue of perceived tone versus intended tone in this whole discussion. Jerome, whose intentions I don’t want to malign, came out swinging with an emotional and dare one say righteous seeming objection. The tone perceived was one of a blowhard who was championing for others, myself misguidedly included, whose purpose was to point out that perhaps he would have been the better choice as President. His intended tone is likely not mustache twirling nefarious like that, and I can’t confidently say what it truly was, but if I’m being generous then I believe that his heart was in the right place while his emotions were running high and that led to him being more antagonistic and later passive aggressive than he truly meant. But hey, this is all text on the internet so it’s truly hard to nail down which is which without obvious subtexts. After rereading through your three posts and Sarah’s answers, my perception was of someone who got increasingly frustrated and hostile. I can understand getting frustrated and all but the perceived tone of your last post paints you in an unflattering light. My response to you here will likely do the same for me.

But hey, these are the muddied waters of Command and I welcome yours and everyone else’s entry into them. If people are going to be slinging mud around then let’s all get muddy.

Matt

While I don’t agree we needed a full-on discussion in Command, I agree that informing the club at-large prior to the edict would’ve been wise. “We’re considering decommissioning a fleet in the near future, stay tuned to Command for details.” would’ve worked. I think one of the biggest things people are trying to express is how…backstabby? I’m not sure the proper term…this is. You have 3 loyal COs, a FComm that was dedicated, the three ships weren’t failing or on the verge of decommissioning, but–seemingly out of the blue–the fleet is gone and the three ships are forcibly (with agreement from the COs, but that part didn’t come out until AFTER it was brought up during fallout discussion.) moved.

With no prior knowledge of this, that’s what it seems like–a forced move of 3 non-failing ships from an otherwise healthy fleet. Yes, the COs were informed and did not express their objections or refuse the move. You mentioned nowhere in your edict that the COs agreed. That did not come up until discussion was made about the edict. To a member who has never posted in Command, but is just lurking and checks the edicts, that looks like you just up and moved ships without provocation, which is obviously not the case.

Katy


Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.15.9