Discussion Topic: Balancing the Fleets

Posted Feb. 19, 2020, 8:04 a.m. by Lieutenant Commander Katy Darrah (Personnel Officer) (Katy Darrah)

Posted by Adam W. in Discussion Topic: Balancing the Fleets

Posted by Vice Admiral Daniel Lerner (Personnel Director) in Discussion Topic: Balancing the Fleets
Discussion Topic: Balancing the Fleets

As you will see from my intro post, for non-Academy ships, the second most important tie-breaker is to see which fleet has received the fewest placements in a calendar month.

Why did we have this as a priority? The idea was to try to keep the number of new members balanced between the fleets, to reduce the workload in each fleet.

STF has changed a bit since we added this to the policies.

First, measuring by calendar months is kind of silly these days for non-Academy placements. It’s usually between 1-3 non-Academy placements per month (less since we made changes about alt-RPGs on the application form). So even if balancing the fleets is still important, I think we need a better measure than calendar months.

Second, is this still important? I would really like to hear from FComms/AFComms - current and former. Right now, the only thing more important than this is the size of the department. It is higher in priority than the size of a ship or how long a ship has gone without placements.

Another interesting point as a result of changes to STF is how to address the fact that there are alt-RPG ships that can accept new members (Chernov and Ogawa). A new member must specifically request this for us to place them on the ship, but let’s say we do place them on an alt-RPG ship. Is that a placement that calendar month for that fleet? I guess it depends on what our current purpose is if we keep a balancing tie-breaker.

What do others think?

Daniel Lerner
Personnel Director

I don’t feel balancing fleets matters. And if someone requests a specific ship (alt-RPG or not) then to the degree possible we should honor that request.

Adam W.

We try to–at least for the most part from my understanding. The biggest problem with not balancing the fleets is that, using the rest of the tiebreakers, you can end up with the same ships getting new non-academy members until their departments are full. At some point we’ll end up with the problem of “all the qualifying ships are full” due to various things, including if we happen to get a large influx of members. What would we do then?

I, personally, believe that we should change from “calendar month” to 28 or 30 days (28 might be better, I’m not sure) for the balancing time period. This would allow us to continue to keep the rest of the tiebreakers intact if we so choose.

Katy

Previous post | Parent | Reply | Start New Thread Next chronologically Next in Location

Posts on Personnel Department

RSS Feed