Posted Nov. 16, 2021, 6:21 p.m. by Vice Admiral Sarah M (TECH) (Sarah M)
Posted by Robert Archer in Archer/Sinclair Term Details
Posted by Fleet Captain James Sinclair (Engineering Director) in Archer/Sinclair Term Details
Posted by Vice Admiral Sarah M (TECH) in Archer/Sinclair Term Details
Posted by… suppressed (1) by the Post Ghost! 👻(snip)
The first thing on our agenda will be looking at merging the pdept and academy. This goal is to streamline the onboarding process and placement of new players; as well as make the training and graduation processes more efficient. Further in relation to the Academy we will be taking input we received from the PDept and will be addressing the seeming backlog of new members waiting for open academy spots by adding a 2nd Academy ship.
(snip)
Robert Archer (CockRoach)
Hi Rob,
As the CO of the current Academy ship, I’m curious what evidence you have regarding the necessity of a second Academy ship. Presuming that the ship is going to be filled to three cadets per department, the Challenger currently has vacancies for two medical cadets and two security cadets with potential openings in the next 48 hours for a science cadet and an engineering cadet. If there is a backlog for new members waiting for an Academy ship, I’m confused why they aren’t being assigned to these spots.
Prior to your post here, I started a discussion in the Campus Boards identifying some issues I’ve seen with the current flow; instead of revisiting this again in a few months, it might be ideal if you and James could jump in there to provide your perspective on how you think the training and graduation processes can be made to be more efficient. As someone with a perspective external to the Academy, it’ll be really helpful and informative to hear how you think these processes happen and where you see improvements to be made.
- Sarah, CO, USS Challenger
Thank you for reminding me of this Sarah, I had started to read it but had not yet had time to chime in. I do plan to continue reading and info gathering with my term coming up and will certainly chime in if I think of something worth contributing to it.
CockRoach
Hey Sarah,
Thanks for the input. I think Rob and I will hopping on that discussion once the term begins. But we also want to be sure that discussions are clear and transparent to everyone in the club, so we would be posting the results of that discussion here as well so we don’t have people trying to find discussions all over the place.
Historically, discussions specific to a particular area of the club often originated in that department’s board before making their way into Command as that allowed people with a particular interest in a given department to offer their perspective first in a smaller setting (or people who are hesitant to participate in a larger Command discussion, which was a key aspect here, when we were hoping current cadets might participate). That would then be incorporated into a proposal (or whatever output comes from the conversation, if any); I was asked to follow this by the current President. That said, it was publicized several times in Discord as well as in Command. What further actions need to be taken for something to meet the criteria of “transparent”? I’ve certainly been asking all over the place for people to participate in this conversation and haven’t gotten the interest level in it that I’d hoped.
As to the evidence we took into consideration, it was a talk with the current PDept staff that led Rob and I to take a look at that step as a solution. I’m glad we have openings right now on the Challenger, but we also want to ensure that any new players coming in don’t have to wait to begin at all. We feel that is counter-productive to getting and keeping new players in the club; and as it was an issue the past, we want to head that off before it becomes a larger problem. But if we look at it further and it can be addressed in other ways, we are certainly open to other avenues as well.
James Sinclair (Rhinoceros)
I went back through the last year of PDept reports. Here are the placement statistics for the Challenger:
Over the last year, 65 placements out of 66 requests have been fulfilled, 98%. This meshes with my gut feeling of the situation as the CO of the Challenger, as the ship roster has definitely not been full over the past year or so and so it was rather surprising to hear that there might be members being turned down. Thankfully, it seems like that’s not the case.
© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service
Version 1.15.11
RSS Feed