STF

FCOMM proposal: Fleet bases/stations

Posted April 28, 2021, 8:29 a.m. by Admiral Joe P (Librarian / TECH Chairman / VCmdt) (Joe P)

Posted by Vice Admiral Daniel Lerner (President / Procedures Guru) in FCOMM proposal: Fleet bases/stations
<snipping discussion to date, but it is all useful reading>

Thank you everyone for your input so far in this discussion.

Based on my review of the feedback, there are three points that come out:

1) Everyone is generally in agreement that role-playing can take place on an OOC ship with an FComm’s discretion, and in fact, has been the status quo (regardless of the issue below regarding the FCOMM bylaw).

2) There is a disagreement on whether it is prohibited or not prohibited in the FCOMM bylaw’s rules regarding OOC ships. The area of interpretive disagreement appears over the requirement that an OOC ship not be “the site of an actual RPG”. One interpretation is that this refers only to traditional role-playing ships with a GM and sim, does not prohibit people who just want to informally role-play, and therefore does not prohibit the status quo. The other interpretation is that this prohibition refers to any type of role-playing, and acts as a rule against the current status quo.

3) Some issues have been raised that if the bylaw is changed (and again, many people feel a change in language is not required - see (2) ) - how will we deal with MOO issues, etc.

The fact that there is a clear lack of consensus over the interpretation of this paragraph of FCOMM is troubling. And it is not a minor difference of opinion. They are both valid interpretations of the same sentence. (The opening paragraph of FCOMM doesn’t help, which contains the following sentence: “A Fleet may include non-RPG ships in addition to Role-Playing ships.”)

I don’t believe either interpretation is a fringe or unreasonable interpretation of the sentence. I’ll be honest - I still interpret that paragraph as prohibiting role-playing, even if that was not the intention of that paragraph. The fact that we have to recall intentions, etc. for over a decade ago to interpret out polices is not good, and one that can lead to more issues as we look further in the future. Clarity of our rules, policies and bylaws is crucial so that everyone is on the same page.

I am proposing the following change to the OOC Ships paragraph (current wording can be found here: https://www.star-fleet.com/library/bookshelf/charters/charter-fleets.html#idp140293027700272) (also, note that I am removing references to Executive Departments - all Executive Departments have their own individual bylaws, and cross-reference to FCOMM is not needed, and can lead to confusion).

OOC Ships

A Fleet may have a starship, starbase, or other similar division at the discretion of the Fleet Commander for the purpose of Fleet announcements, discussions and other Fleet-related activities. To the extent that such Fleet-related activities includes informal role-playing at the discretion of the Fleet Commander, the OOC Ship shall not be considered a Role-Playing Ship for the purposes of the remainder of this bylaw, and it shall not have a rostered ship crew, a CO, or a Gamemaster, and any ranks held by a role-playing character on an OOC ship is not a role-playing rank or position for the purposes of other bylaws and policies. The OOC Ship shall be managed and moderated by the Fleet Commander.

Let’s give this one more week to May 4th to see what the feedback is to this.

Daniel

I’m going to run the risk of being a bit more blunt. Is there really a lack of consensus here?

I mean, yes, you don’t agree with the opinion that these activities are permitted already and therefore no change is actually required here. Because you don’t agree, and because you’ve indicated that you want to take action, several people have made suggestions in an effort to be helpful. But I don’t read many of these posts as actually agreeing with your central claim that lots of people are confused by the meaning of FCOMM as it stands currently and it needs revision. So I don’t think there’s actually a lack of consensus; the consensus expressed (which may not be the actual state of opinion in the club) is that no change is necessary because there is no problem.

So… I think it’s very important to actually clarify whether there is a consensus at all (because I could be wrong, too) and what it is, before declaring that there’s a lack of consensus. And even then, I don’t think one person’s disagreement (read: your disagreement) is sufficient to say that there is a lack of consensus that therefore requires action. I think that’s actually more important than the wording of your proposed bylaw language (which I think has a glaring problem, but I’m not going to nit-pick it now because I don’t want to detract from my main argument that there is insufficient justification for any action here because there is no lack of consensus).

Joe


Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.15.9