Posted by Joe P in Revision and Clarification to the GMT Process

Posted by Kate O’Neill in Revision and Clarification to the GMT Process

Posted by David Shotton in Revision and Clarification to the GMT Process

SNIP

I think in terms of a GMT failing for reason number 1, they actually failed the GMT from negative reviews, the current system should stand, a two week probation before the GMT try’s again. However, I think that instead of getting new recommendations, or using the old ones, their should be a meeting between GMdir, GMM and GMT during that two week probation to discuss points of failure and how to progress, and upon completion of that to the GMDir’s discretion a reappointment is made for the GMT with the approval of the receiving Captain being the replacement of the recommendations. The GMM and GMdir are intended to be experienced and the GMM at least guiding the GMT (lets sidestep the question of why the GMT failed if the GMM was guiding them effectively, maybe it wasn’t all the GMT’s fault). That to my mind would be far more productive and positive than the GMT finding two more random recommendations from people who are likely just the GMT’s friends in STF.

An assumption you seem to have here is that the GMT who failed is going to be chomping at the bit to try again immediately after the two weeks are up. I don’t have hard data, but I think this is rarely the case; most people who fail do so because they are or expect to be absent from the club for months, so expecting that they will be able to participate in a retrospective analysis of their experience that will be beneficial for them and result in everyone wanting to put them on a different ship at the earliest possible opportunity is a bit unrealistic.

I mean, I think a post-mortem could be really useful, so I don’t want to suggest it’s a bad idea to have one at all. But, let’s say it takes 6 months or a year before the candidate is ready to try again. The GMDir may not even be the same person in that case, and the memories of what happened for everyone are going to be fuzzy. How do you handle that kind of scenario?

Furthermore, another assumption here is that there’s a CO somewhere in the club who would able to take a GMT in this two-week timeframe. That’s a little unrealistic too, isn’t it? Most ships have sims going on with licensed GMs running them. I don’t think most COs would say “I’m totally willing to dismiss the GM I have now, who is in the middle of a sim my crew is enjoying, in order to take a chance on this other person who just failed to do that,” even if they think the GMT would be good for them, just because changing GMs mid-sim is really disruptive. So, even if the GMT is ready to go in 2 weeks, a ship that would be able to provide the extra-special support you’re talking about probably isn’t going to be ready for them that quickly.

As to point number 2, they fail because of Real Life or the ship is not suitable for the GMT’s style, I think we need a more understanding approach to why this happened. If they dropped out and went Awol due to real life, a two week probation and no requirement for new recommendations should be considered, if they went Awol that much then a two week probation is unlikely to matter (they are awol after all, for whatever reason) and the ‘recommendations’ should be switched from random ones from STF members to the agreement of the Captain the GMT would be reassigned to, the GMM who will be mentoring and the GMdir who makes the appointment. This would mean that there is more accountability and responsibility by the people taking on and appointing the GMT and invested in them doing well than relying on random recommendations (do you get the idea that I hate recommendations yet?) to do that job for them.

As for a GMT being ‘failed’ and removed from a ship because their style does not match it, that should be squarely on the shoulders of the GMDir for making the appointment in the first place and not looking at the GMT’s style of Sim plan and posting on ships before making the appointment. NO GMT should be placed on a ship just because it is ‘available’, the GMDir should be looking at the style and frequency of both the ship and the GMT before that appointment is made. In this scenario, my suggestion is that no new recommendations should be needed, nor a two week probation. The GMT should be allowed to be moved to a different ship (when available) and try again with a new or the same sim, depending on the outcome of a discussion between the GMT, GMM and GMdir.

Has someone ever actually failed because they didn’t match the ship’s style? I’ve never heard of anything like that happening. It’s not like we have GMTs placed on the Constellation.

Primarily I would like to see only the initial recommendations the GMT needs to be accepted to the program be needed, after that, the ball passes to the GMdir and GMM if any issues arise. I would really like to hear the thoughts of other people affected by any potential changes as well as Adam suggested.

-Dave

I have been following this thread and agree with Dave and Adam. While I am not the only teacher on STF (to my knowledge there are several of us that are actually in the classroom from the primary to collegiate level) it does give me a unique perspective because of my profession and specifically the area I teach and work in. I work in special education which teaches teachers to teach very differently. We are taught to look at any lesson plan and break it down to the level so that the student understands
when they are not successful. As I read this debate what I noticed was a focus more on recommendations than a pointed look at fixing why someone was not successful. As Dave stated above, from a purely educational standpoint if you have a student that wants to learn it is on the teachers to present the material in a way for the student to understand it. In reference to the question:

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).

I think a far more productive conversation would be to look at the players on a ship past the CO and the GMM to get their opinions of why the sim was not as successful as it may have been. Yes the CO and GMM are critical because they are the teachers in a sense guiding the GMT in a task but there are far more people on a ship. I want to clarify that I am not suggesting we poll every crew member and get their opinion. I am suggesting that maybe you:

1). Ask the CO who was the most active and who was the least active.
If these players were willing you could as them what they thought of the sim. Asking these players their opinion could provide a more data-centric (albeit subjective) reason as to why things went the way they did. Maybe the most active person loved the story. Maybe they just happened to know a lot about pulsars. Maybe they just fit a nitch in that story. The less active player could be one of the best RP’ers on the ship yet the story did not click with them or real-life had them super busy so they posted less in order to not stall the sim. This information is far more important I feel from an educational perspective than just the teachers (ie: GMM or CO/XO) or recommendations for others.

The implication here is that a decision would be made by “the teachers” to terminate a training sim without already knowing this information. I find this to be highly unrealistic. Further, if the GMT is actually functioning effectively as a Gamemaster, they should already be gathering this sort of feedback during the sim themselves, and making adjustments on the fly. If a GM needs to be told this by a third party because they can’t figure it out while being active on the ship, they’re probably not cut out to be a GM.

2). Have a “suggestion box” that is anonymous. I am not sure if this is possible for TECH but people can log in and leave unbiased comments to the GMDir only about their experience. We are all friends here and it is hard to take criticism at times so a way to offer real feelings without the “you hated my sim” attached to your name might give people the desire to produce real feedback on a topic instead of polite nods.

If the feedback is anonymous, how do we know it came from someone who actually participated in that sim?

As to the first question:

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.

Redoing the exam is a waste of time and simply busywork if they have passed.

I have immense respect for the time and effort all GM’s invest in a ship. They devote a lot of time and effort to making a main sim enjoyable for a wide range of interests which is at times I think an impossible task yet they do it and work very hard at the job they were assigned. I think the focus should be on how to make GMT’s more successful than asking people if they think the GMT in question should get a second try at it through a recommendation. If the person wrote you a recommendation and saw the potential in you the first go-around why would they suddenly change their mind and now recant on that recommendation? If they believe in the person enough to write the initial recommendation then it would stand to reason they would still believe and support in the potential of that person in light of an unsuccessful first attempt? As with a job or college, recommendations should only be to get someone into the program in the first place. Once there it is the responsibility of the place to teach that person what is needed to complete a task successfully.

~ Fleet Captain Kate O’Neill

People might change their minds on recommending someone based upon their observations of that person’s unsuccessful attempt, because they have new information they didn’t have when they wrote the recommendation.

Joe

I am purposefully avoiding putting my thoughts out there except to moderate the discussion. I do have to interject one thing however, in response to David:

I have pretty broad shoulders and don’t mind being blamed for things, however, I don’t think that the blame for a GMT failing his sim due to conflicts lies with the GMDir, for a number of reasons:

1) We don’t do the appointments. We can make recommendations but we don’t have the final say. The FComm is ultimately the one who signs off on it and they should be consulting the CO of the ship in question.
2) I don’t know every CO in the club. Heck I don’t know all the GMs personally. It is unrealistic to expect the GMDir to have indepth knowledge about all the ships and all the COs in the club. Now we do have a list of ships we purposely avoid for a variety of reasons most of which are self evident: No academy ships, no alt-RPG areas, etc

I also want to say looking at the list of GMMs, there isn’t a single one there that isn’t someone I consider a stilled GM and excellent mentor. Many of them are more experienced and just plain better human beings than me.

So while the GMDir and GMM shoulder some of the responsibility for poor ship placement we have a lot less power than people imagine. We have influence, sure, but no real power.

Geoff