STF

Proposal: Modifications to OGRE

Posted July 9, 2020, 10:35 a.m. by Commodore Calé Reilly (STF Surgeon General / FComm, Foremost Fleet / EGO) (Calé Reilly)

Posted by Commodore Geoff Joosten (Gamemaster Director) in Proposal: Modifications to OGRE

Posted by Fleet Captain Adam W. (EGO) in Proposal: Modifications to OGRE

Posted by Melissa Aragon in Proposal: Modifications to OGRE
Posted by… suppressed (3) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Problem

STF is suffering from a GM shortage. This is an important problem to address because, well, FCOMM specifies that ships need to have a GM (or be Self-Sim) to continue to exist in the club and with two GM vacancies in the club at the moment, it needs to be addressed urgently.

Proposal

I am proposing two changes to OGRE:

  1. Removing the Lieutenant rank requirement to apply to the GM Training Program;
  2. Removing the requirement for a Gamemaster Mentor (GMM) to have served as a Gamemaster in the last 30 days

With regard to the first point, as far as I’m aware, the GMT program is the only place in STF that there is an actual OOC rank requirement on something that affects role-playing only. We have new members that have been a part of the club for six months or more now, but have not yet attained this OOC rank for various reasons (mostly that people forget to promote people and that OOC rank even means anything).

With regard to the second point, we currently only have three GMMs in the club. If we can start getting more GMTs, in order to make sure that they are getting the time and dedication they deserve, we need more GMMs. There are qualified GMMs, like myself, that may not be able to commit to actively GMing a ship right now, but who are happy to support a GMT.

Discussion

The pros of both are the potential for more GMTs and GMMs.

The cons for the GMT change would be primarily focused around a member not getting enough experience in STF before attempting to become a Gamemaster. I feel that this is balanced by the requirement for recommendations; a new member would have to be around the club for a reasonable amount of time before three different people are interested in writing recommendations for them. These individuals, given the preference for Gamemasters to write them, may not be in the position to promote that person to Lieutenant to handle it.

The cons for the GMM change would be that a GM might be out of practice if they haven’t GM’d recently. I’m not sure that this is really a big issue. I think preference should be given to those who have been GMing actively, but if those of us who aren’t ready to GM actively can take some of the burden off of them, that seems like a win in my book.

  • Sarah

Before I wade in with my opinion, I have a question:

What is the average time to get to Lt? Is it longer than six months? If so removing the requirement to be a full Lieutenant just moves the eligibility date to six months. If it takes less than six months, it… slides the eligibility date to six months. It really only accelerates the process if the time it takes to go from Ens to Lt is longer than six months. I am not saying that is a good or bad thing, just an observation.

Geoff

Hi Geoff .. the time is variable and dependent. If a person comes in as an Ensign, in a normal world it could be two sims before the person reached full Lt as promotions typically run after a sim is through. That could run as short as a year but probably longer if that is the only ship the person is on.

That can be shortened by the person by virtue of being talented and being taken on on another ship into a needed DH role where they might be put in as a Lt rather than Lt jg. Six months is far more likely to be the first objective reached, especially if that person has done time as a Cadet in the Academy.

The sense that the person needed those qualifications was not just to have attained rank and be in a lead position as a DH and so have a better idea of how delegation and working together means here, but to show a certain longevity with the club. Being a GM means sticking it through sims that can go a year or more and the time requirement was in part to see that a person has an intention to stick around - in theory that if they have suffered with us this long <G> that they are more prone to find us a fun hang out to continue.

While I can see the rank waived the time is still a good indicator.
- Gene

Waiving the GMM requirement to have actively GM’d in the last 30 days makes sense to me. As it stands, I can’t currently Mentor and it’s something I can and want to do right now. But we should guard against people returning to the club and taking on too much before they are settled (I’ve seen it happen far too often that someone returns, stays a short while and then disappears). Not sure what the ideal active time is, but maybe 60 days? 30 is too little. Most people who do AWOL after returning do so after that point.

I’m good with reducing the requirement to Lt (j.g), but torn on scrapping a rank requirement altogether. As Gene pointed out, the idea was that the Prospective Gamemaster had had at least some responsibility for other players on their ship. DHs are supposed to help keep their departments active. That being said, character can get promoted without being DHs, so… maybe instead of rank experience, we have a position requirement? Must have held at least one DH position? Not sure what the solution is, but tossing out other thoughts and ideas.

~Linds

Time could be very little, in my experience. So I would propose that the potential GM must have held a DH/Swing position for at least 30 days. We know then that they can handle a tighter posting limit and a higher level of responsibility.

As for GMMs, I don’t think they’re needs to be an immediate time requirement for those who are willing to contribute their time to training new GMs.

-Sam

For GMMs, how about a requirement that they have been active in the club (not as a GM) for 30 days? This is consistent with our definition of a member for election purposes.

I hadn’t thought about the higher posting requirement for GMs, but that’s a good call and something that needs to be considered. My concern with restricting it to DH-experienced players is that there is every chance a high performing new member might not get a DH position because of circumstances out of his/her control. I feel like we should make the qualifications to be a GMT as much in a person’s control as possible. I think the six month minimum combined with the need to get three recommendations covers any concerns about a player not being ready to take on the GM role.

Sarah

[Witty banter].

-Daniel

I expect that to be PROPERLY RECORDED on The Spreadsheet(TM).

Sarah

I agree with the suggestion that Linds made. Switching to having been active a certain length of time rather than currently being a GM makes a great deal of sense to me.

Adam W.

I agree that time, rather than rank, is an acceptable goal to holding a position. Taking the test, passing, getting the proper endorsements, etc. as well. I don’t think those things need to be changed.

But perhaps not count time in the Academy? Academy is where they learn to be on the boards, where ships are them experiencing it without the help of the instructors. I worry that some will count their time in the Academy then post for the higher and more responsible ranks and positions in the club and still lack experience. It’s not hard for a good student to get three recommendations because they excelled in their ‘lessons’ but still be unfit to run an entire ship for 6 months or more thru a Sim. (Bonnie’s sim was 2 yrs long) I know that’s a RARE thing indeed, but I don’t see a new Cadet (even as an Ensign) being able to handle that.

So perhaps 6 months on the boards with at least one promotion? And recommendations from more than one location (meaning two of the three can’t be from the Academy ship, or their current ship). I understand the shortages of GMs and GMMs but I also don’t want this to be a ‘well it was a good idea at the time and helped in a pinch’ type of decision. Because then we end up down the road with ‘well you let so and so do it’.

So proposal (cause it’s 4 am and I worry I rambled)
1. To be GM you need 6 months min and at least one advancement outside of the Academy, 3 recommendations (no two from same location/ship)
2. GMMs to have been GMs for at least Active on boards for last six months, held GM position for at least 6 months and having completed at least one complete sim on their own.

Meli the Mobstress

I’ll strongly disagree with time served in the Academy not counting. Time outside the Academy is not more valuable than time inside the Academy for learning how STF works.

Adam W.

Meli,

The requirements in OGRE already require GMMs to hold the classification of Full Gamemaster. The full section of OGRE that relates to the selection of GMMs is:

*A Gamemaster Mentor is an experienced Gamemaster actively assisting a new Gamemaster through the Gamemaster Training Program. A Gamemaster Mentor must be of Full Gamemaster standing or higher, and have served as a Gamemaster on a Ship within the last 30 days of his appointment to a Gamemaster Trainee.

The Gamemaster Mentor will be responsible for assisting the Gamemaster Trainee in planning a mission as needed, for providing the Trainee with advice and assistance as appears necessary and as is requested by the Trainee, and for reporting back to the Gamemaster Department on the Trainee’s progress and performance when necessary. The Gamemaster Mentor will be required to read the ship in question regularly and coordinate with the CO as necessary.*

A Full GM is defined as:

Upon the successful completion of three (3) missions or eighteen (18) total months as an active Gamemaster, not including the training mission, and positive comments from the relevant COs, a Gamemaster is eligible for Full Gamemaster Status.

That promotion is at the discretion of the GMDir, of course. Prospective GMMs also must comply with the GMDept Mandate #18 which requires recommendations, and would need to be updated if OGRE is updated but that is another issue.

In short, your observations in your second point are spot on! Like where your head is at! But I think A Gamemaster Mentor must be of Full Gamemaster standing or higher, and have served as a Gamemaster on a Ship within the last 30 days of his appointment to a Gamemaster Trainee should be updated to read:

A Gamemaster Mentor must be of Full Gamemaster standing or higher, and <strike>have served as a Gamemaster on a Ship within the last 30 days</strike> be a member of this club as defined in Member Order and Organization (MOO) at the time of his appointment to a Gamemaster Trainee

Geoff

I ain’t agree with the same ship thing, what if the person is only on one ship as a character and only wants to stay on that one ship and take on one GM role? I worry that such a limit is actually punative for those players who aren’t maybe as involved as some are or in as many ships. This may just be me however.

Also, while I know that OGRE already says this

… provide to the Gamemaster Department three (3) recommendations from licensed Gamemasters with whom the prospective Gamemaster has served within the last three (3) months for a minimum of one (1) month. A recommendation from a prospective Gamemaster’s CO and/or XO may be substituted in situations where the prospective Gamemaster does not serve with three licensed Gamemasters.*

I wonder if given the shortage of GMs and such if we maybe make that last line more obvious and that have say two (2) recommendations from either licensed Gamemasters or a commanding officer with whom the prospective Gamemaster has served within the last three (3) months for a minimum of one (1) month?

Calé


Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.15.9