Network Leadership required Making so that Site Command Roles will have terms (05/EC)

[Average member podidski]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This Suggetion makes it so that Site Command holders and future holders will have to serve a term.
The term will last 2 weeks for ECM/O5-2+ While the term for "Leaders" of O5/EC will last 1 mouth (ECC/O5-1). Term starts when they get the role/get promoted in game. After the term is over, they are striped of their role and the role opens for future holders to apply for.
Of course rules must be placed so here my suggetion for the rules:
1. The term for ECM/05-2+ lasts for 2 weeks while the term for ECC/05-1 lasts 1 mouth/4 weeks
2. The term starts when you get promoted to the role
3. After the term is over, you are striped of your role
4. You will get the cooldown when your term is over. The cooldown will be gone when someone applies for the role you been to and serves their term
5. During the cooldown. You can't apply unless its for other Site Command role (O5-2 > ECM, ECC > O5-1)
6. The cooldown can be lifted if approved by SSL+

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Nope, Didnt see any.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- The roles won't be "forever until resigned"
- The change that will be happy for mostly all players in this community
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- A risky change, if this gets added, the current holders will be mad and may cause drama
-As there will be a "timer until its over", less people will apply for Site Command

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
It should be accepted. This change will cause drama yes but least the change that will benfit both sides.
If this suggetion gets accepted and put in power after the accept or later, make it so that current holders for Site Command will be informed that their term starts now and they have to serve.

P.S: I wanted to make my suggetion prefix NL requried but didnt see any there, so if any staff sees this, please put the prefix "Network Leadership Required". Thank you.





Ah democracy. The system that everyone wants and will fight for.

 

[ionboy64]

-support

This kills any sort of actual reason to go for a role, the application/interview/expectations of the role cannot be done in the span of any sort of term. The role should be based on competency like.... every other role on the server. There's no point removing someone who's able to actually keep up to scratch and replace him with john giggleshit the IV because it's been a week!

 

[Pyrite]

It is an insult to those that put the effort in to only be allowed 2 weeks to a month in a position.
It is not the Presidential Election, there is no need for "terms." It's a roleplay position not a full-time job.

 

[Madden San Miguel]

You don't have to throw shade on the guy for coming up with an idea and presenting it... Go and make a forums suggestion right now and we'll see what you come up with

Shade? The suggestion just doesn't work. I cannot imagine anyone sacrificing a site admin or Cl4 to be ethics or O5 for 2 weeks then completely thrown into a dumpster. UK and US are completely different community wise everyone here can agree. This suggestion would completely remove the ability to somewhat change server without needing ssl approval and would limit the rp we all enjoy

 

[Elias 'Nova' Yamamara]

-Support

hell no...

 

[Rowling]

 

[Madden San Miguel]

 

[Charles "Ze" Whitmee]

It is an insult to those that put the effort in to only be allowed 2 weeks to a month in a position.
It is not the Presidential Election, there is no need for "terms." It's a roleplay position not a full-time job.

Dear lord, why are all you posts in black text.

 

[PhaseHound]

- Major Support
would've been a good suggestion if they served 4 year terms with a re-election vote afterwards

 

[Randalls]

Firstly, in order for this suggestion to work, and not constantly drain department leaders and site administrators from their positions (which would harm departments), you would have to not only make these terms much longer than just two weeks, but you would have to give all SrCL4 positions terms. I believe that would deviate too much from what NL wants SCP-RP to look like, and what most of the player base wants SCP-RP to look like.

Secondly, as somebody who has a lot of Site Command experience under their belt, Site Command is the reward for having improved the server and it's health in some capacity, its not just something that anybody who gets there is willing to rotate out of after a brief time. Some storylines and command directives take a long time, sometimes departments need help and SC needs to be there, a steady hand, to guide leaders over time. This takes longer than two weeks.

Thirdly, if this suggestion aims to get more players the opportunity of being Site Command, that's fine. Just know that as someone who has been in a site command branch three separate times, its definitely not impossible to get there. It is not supposed to be easy, there are only eight of us at a given time for a reason, but its not all that difficult if you just care about your former department as a leader before applying.

Fourth and lastly, CN SCP-RP for as long as I've known has encouraged player-base leadership in SrCL4 and CL5 positions to steer the server and it's roleplay forward. If you remove the element of a steady player-based leadership of roleplay on the server, than SCP-RP will be like every other server where SL is absolute and the players have no say; not because a given CL5 at the time is incompetent, but out of necessity for stability if the chain of command is constantly shifting at the very top.

I strongly -support this. And I encourage others to do the same.

 

[Grong]

-Support

It's a game not a political office

 

[Merrick Travolta]

A major attraction to the site command roles is the ability to (as kindly as possible) "Rule the kingdom" for as long as you feel comfortable and are able to.

cycling command members like this creates the following issues

- Story lines cannot last longer than the term you've allocated (storylines can inevitably be delayed due to things such as hardware issues, Server issues, GM availability, SL response times)
- Command members who come in often need a few days to a week to "adjust" to a role (or in some cases, learn how to play the character properly) This is exasperated in a position like -1 or ECC where you have to also learn to manage those under you.
- if any form of "slow period" is created you then create a void where there is zero site command members. A1 and O1 slowly grind to a halt, research RP is severely effected (as it's almost often site command pushed for the larger scale projects)
- Command members won't take the time to properly produce roleplay and will be forced to speedrun SLOP due to their limited terms, What incentive is there to create a slow burning story when you have 2 weeks to get it over and done with?
- Command have mangemental duties ontop of this, such as the observation and working with site administration

The change that will be happy for mostly all players in this community

Who is this "all players" are they in the room with us? I can't think of anyone who'd want this change in this current form at the least.

I don't know what positions you've held or hold but this feels like you taking a random stab at a position you clearly know very little about, Please try to at the very least learn about the responsibilities and experiences you gain in a position like SC (Anything senior to be frank) and you may be surprised at how awkward your suggestion sounds.

-Support as per my yap.

 

[Aphex]

I mean exploring the idea isn’t bad, maybe it could be so that there are terms for only Sr CL5 (O5-1/ECC/UNGOC COL/CI COM) and they rotate between the other CL5s, so for example:
O5-1 has been in place for 3 months or so, now they must give the position to another pre-existing O5, and take said O5s place (unless obviously nobody wants to take a -1 position and the current -1 doesn’t want to be replaced)

Now when it comes to it, my idea would essentially make O5–1 applications meaningless unless the current one resigned and 2 people are competing for the position.
Thoughts?

 

[Asmodeus]

I mean exploring the idea isn’t bad, maybe it could be so that there are terms for only Sr CL5 (O5-1/ECC/UNGOC COL/CI COM) and they rotate between the other CL5s, so for example:
O5-1 has been in place for 3 months or so, now they must give the position to another pre-existing O5, and take said O5s place (unless obviously nobody wants to take a -1 position and the current -1 doesn’t want to be replaced)

Now when it comes to it, my idea would essentially make O5–1 applications meaningless unless the current one resigned and 2 people are competing for the position.
Thoughts?

no

 

[Asteria Silver]

Never in my days have I seen a suggestion that has made me physically flinch.
The biggest -Support I may ever make.

 

[Asmodeus]

-Support, look dude many people spent a year or more in the US trying to get foundation Command, adding this to the ruleset would be extremely demoralizing for many on the server. its clear the thought process behind this is to allow more people to get Foundation command faster. I understand its difficult to get foundation command but not every random person should be able to get it. People who genuinely care for the RP going around site and want to improve the server should have the role and thats primarily why theres no timelimit because why remove good RP leaders from their roles its dumb

 

[Sindrathion]

Rather than a fixed term I think something like every 4 months all department leaders can put out a vote if they want to replace them. And if it passes there is still a month+time for a new person to be accepted for them to finish their current projects.

 

[Zack Baker]

-support

 

[YandereMuffin]

I enjoy the idea of terms as a hypothetical.

2 weeks / 1 month is insanely low though - the RP loss from limiting that would be stupid, character development, general RP, etc etc.

Frankly though as long as the person is still actively RPing and producing RP, and actively fulfilling their requirements then I think removing them isn't the best idea

 

[Remmy]

Rather than a fixed term I think something like every 4 months all department leaders can put out a vote if they want to replace them. And if it passes there is still a month+time for a new person to be accepted for them to finish their current projects.

Utterly awful take. I’m sorry but do you think the department leaders of these servers know what’s best for the health of the server, for Site Command, or even for themselves?

There’s a very good reason, at least on UK, that only around a quarter of them would ever actually be able to get into the FCOM ranks; convoluted gmod democracy like this is a waste of time.

We should ALWAYS be basing positions off of merit.

 

[Dusk]

I don’t really see an issue with this, as long as the terms are reasonable.

The whole point of leadership is to give back to the people under you and to train the next person so they can replicate, as closely as possible, what you’ve built. It’s about continuity, not control.

This also creates a healthy rotation system that brings in new blood and prevents burnout. People shouldn’t feel the constant pressure to prove their worth through nonstop work, especially when it becomes unsustainable. Another strong point here is that, historically, SSL is meant to regulate Site Command. Yet outside of two very recent situations, they haven’t actively done that. If the structure is there, it should be used. Otherwise, what’s the point?