Posted by Adam W. in Revision and Clarification to the GMT Process

Posted by Sarah Hemenway in Revision and Clarification to the GMT Process

Posted by Adam W. in Revision and Clarification to the GMT Process
Posted by… suppressed (2) by the Post Ghost! 👻
Fellow GMs and other interested parties:

Recently there have been many conversations around what happens when a GMT is removed from his/her training sim early, or fails the sim.

There are two scenarios here:
1. The GMT finishes the sim and fails (negative reviews from the vested parties)
2. The GMT is removed from the sim before its completion. (Often because of real life issues or the ship is a bad fit for the GMT’s style)

OGRE provides for what to do when the GMT fails:

If a Gamemaster Trainee is failed from the program or removed for any reason before the mission is completed, he may reapply to the program with a new Mentor or the same Mentor after a two week probation period from the date of his failure or removal. If the Gamemaster Trainee is removed prior to the completion of the mission, the Gamemaster Mentor is required to step in as acting Gamemaster for up to two weeks until a new Gamemaster is appointed, who may be the Gamemaster Mentor himself.

GMD Mandate 11 defines what the minimum requirements for an application consists of.

What isn’t clearly defined is, when someone is removed from a ship before the end of their training sim, what is required to be assigned a new ship?

The original intent of OGRE and Mandate 11 was that: should you fail your sim, you would be required to go back to the beginning and get new recommendations and retake the exam.

Over the last ten years, however, the precedent is that the GMT doesn’t go back to the beginning of the process because the recommendations and test scores are unlikely to change in any meaningful fashion. There are some edge cases where, perhaps, one of the recommenders changes their opinion of the candidate and retract their recommendation, but it seems onerous to legislate every permutation of possible complications when the issues can be adjudicated through the understood precedent of QDir discretion.

Therefore, the GMDept Staff are putting it forward for discussion: What should the process be for when someone is removed from the GMT sim early? Should they be made to get new recommendations and take the test again, or after the two week cool down period should the be placed on a ship that will set them up for success? Whatever decision we decide on will be codified as either a mandate or revision to OGRE

Geoff
GMDir

So I can comment from a non-GM perspective. I’ve had good and bad experiences with GMTs. I think I’ve experienced two GMT failures, both mid-mission - one I watched as JO I think, the other I had to help address as an FComm.

I can’t comment much on the first scenario: GMT fails after a sim is complete. But in the second scenario - removed before the end of a sim, I do have some comments.

The removal of a GMT mid-sim is a disruptive experience for a ship. It sometimes cannot be avoided, and it’s part of the risk in having a GMT, but ensuring we have a proper balance with our pre-sim qualifications is important to mitigating this risk.

Keep in mind that a there will usually be issues leading up to a GMT being removed. For example, the GMT is struggling with the ship’s style or in the sim itself, and the GMM is trying to mentor them through it before a removal takes place. Or the GMT has started to go AWOL, and the powers-that-be are trying to find out what is going on and getting the GMT back before the GMT is declared AWOL. So there are going to be some disruptions before the GMT is removed.

When the GMT is removed, there are further disruptions to the ship. I have yet to see a smooth sim transition between GMT and GMM, despite the best of intentions. And a CO who is trying to make sure that issue is being addressed is also at the same time now looking for a new GM. So it’s going to be bumpy for a lot of people involved.

Therefore, if a GMT has failed, I wouldn’t want to do away with the having to re-confirm the qualification requirements entirely. It’s part of the safeguard the Gamemaster Department gives the COs and FComms when they are asked to accept a GMT, and the COs and FComms are counting on the GMD doing their due diligence. If there has been a failure, that is arguably a reason to re-confirm those qualifications.

At the same time, it may be unnecessary to re-do all those qualifications. For example, if a GMT was removed because of real-life issues, it wouldn’t make sense to having to re-take the GM exam.

My suggestions would be as follows:

1) If there is a fail, the CO and GMM should be asked in their reports whether the GMT would benefit from re-doing the exam, and GM Director then has that discretion.

2) If there is a fail, the prior recommenders (is that a word or did I just make that up?) should be asked if, in light of the fail, they are still willing to confirm their prior recommendations (which should be a simple enough task).

Daniel

I say if they’ve met the requirements they’ve met the requirements. I don’t see the point in having people jump through the same hoops twice.

Adam

Regarding OGRE and Mandate #11, there was never an intention that someone should take the GM Exam again, just that recommendations should be resubmitted. The specific wording from OGRE regarding recommendations reads as follows:

All prospective Gamemasters must be members of STF for a minimum of six (6) months, have a minimum rank of full lieutenant, pass the Gamemaster exam according to the standards set by the Gamemaster Department, and 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 believe there is a lot of validity to having the GMT resubmit the recommendations. Unless they failed their sim particularly rapidly, their previous recommendations potential would no longer be valid (the Prospective Gamemaster may not have served with the individuals within the last three months). Additionally, those individuals may have different feedback for the GMDept about the Prospective Gamemaster (for example, “this person has not consistently posted on my ship, but when they do, they’re great”) that could inform how the GMDept handles another sim. Finally, if someone enters the GMT program, fails their mission due to a departure from STF, and then returns later on… why should recommendations that are (1) no longer valid per OGRE and (2) not relevant to the person’s current participation in STF be considered an accurate representation of the person’s skill and ability to contribute to STF? Historically, this later case was really the primary reason why people failed their GMT sim (and, uh, the one person that got banned from STF during their GMT mission).

Sarah

Before making a change like this that only results in negative consequences for people who are not likely to post on this board, someone should go seek out and gather an opinion from someone who might possibly have to live with the extra red tape that’s being proposed here. In addition to negatively affecting the individual it would hurt the club as you’d see prospective GM’s walk away rather than electing jump through the same hoops a second time.

I find this a very poor idea. But if you must pursue this very poor idea, then please discuss it with those who will be most hampered.

Adam

Excellent point, Adam. For the purposes of discussion this is only going to affect GMTs who fail sims after the clarification is codified. The die has been cast, as it were, on the previous GMTs and I have no intention of retroactively applying a measure to someone who labored under the previous precedent. Call it GMDir prerogative.

Geoff