Rule Suggestion Changes to 4.1 & 4.2 Regarding Chain of Command (Change Control of CoC)

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Emilia Foddg

Emilia Foddg

CG Diamond VIP
Donator
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Jul 15, 2023
1,367
308
41
UK

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:​

Rewrite server rules 4.1 & 4.2 such that the explicit global base hierarchy and/or departmental hierarchy are not decided by staff as part of a server rule, but rather decided by IC roles - For example, it could be something along the lines of
Site Command may create a convention on what the overall Chain of Command is - Following SL+ approval, this would be the authoritative source for the Chain of Command.
Click to expand...
If SL+ approval is too low, could be raised to SSL+ - Whatever staff are comfortable with. The exact wording of it isn't that important, the intention is just to put the control of what the actual, final Chain of Command is, in the hands of IC leadership positions. Doesn't even have to just be SC that deal with it (not as explicitly worded in the rules, this would just be an implicit effect of making this change) - It could be SA could convene on an alteration to the Chain of Command, bring that to SC, who then goes over it and raises it with SL+ (or whoever, again).

For this purpose, remove the Chain of Command as listed in the server rules, instead make sure RP leadership make it available as a public resource for people to access - This could be stipulated as part of the revised rule.

To be clear, this is not suggesting to make the Chain of Command a purely IC thing that can only ever be discussed or interacted with IC. This is only referring to who decides what it is.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:​

Previously accepted suggestion from Second on changing 4.1 to address concerns about Agency Mangers outranking MTF Officers,
Previously denied suggestion from Claire! on changing 4.1 to address Assistants outranking MTF Officers - Assistant abuse, etc.
This suggestion isn't related to the subject topics of either, however it would make these kinds of thing more of an IC matter that you bring up to SC positions and not an OOC matter that needs a suggestion.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):​

  • Staff no longer have to deal with suggestions about changing server rules 4.1 or 4.2 - Instead becoming a matter that gets brought up to whoever staff decide on that it gets approved by, by someone in an RP leadership position, that wants to make a change to the Chain of Command.

  • Chain of Command can be slightly different between US & UK if and where needed.

  • Chain of Command can be more easily and reasonably updated in a timely manner to be what is situationally necessary and in accordance with how things actually are on the server.

  • (Zen's find) Allows for easier and more flexible creation/removal/adjustment of positions in roleplay & how they fit into the chain of command.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:​

  • Trusting RP leadership with the Chain of Command.

  • Onus on maintaining this is on RP leadership.

  • More responsibilities for RP leadership positions.

  • More external documents that Ventz needs to own.

Potential Arguments Against Implementing Your Suggestion & Rebuttals To Them:​

  • At that point, why even HAVE the chain of command? I maintain that it would be easier from a staff perspective to just let this be controlled by RP leadership than an outside "These people can give orders to these people". The reason those policies even have power in the first place is because they are backed by the Chain of Command, like ZJP is delegated power from Site Administration, for example.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:​

Ok, real quick. Why exactly is this decided this way and why is it where it is? The Chain of Command appears to have zero bearing on other server rules and only serves a roleplay purpose. The only explanation for why anyone is in a higher position than anyone else rule-wise is so they "can give orders to those in lower positions." ...But again, that has no bearing on anything. It doesn't appear to intersect with any other rule. The only possible reason i can think of is so that "Structure can be authoritatively determined and stated OOCly" but that is still possible the way I mentioned. It would make sense if this was like an artefact left over from copying things over from MRP, but; It's just not needed. There is no reason for the Chain of Command to be a server rule - What possible staff sit could the phrase "I was ordered to do this by a superior officer" apply to? And we certainly don't give people actual like, staff warnings for insubordinating...?

Like if it's a question of deciding who has authority in roleplay... Then just say "Site Command has authority" and have that power trickle down, have them design, decide & maintain, the final Chain of Command.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zack Baker
Upvote 7 Downvote
Emilia Foddg

Emilia Foddg

CG Diamond VIP
Donator
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Jul 15, 2023
1,367
308
41
UK
Niox said:
View attachment 13138
+Support

no but i assumed SC would have some common sense to do this
Click to expand...

some corrections to this summary:
  • all chain of command changes would be subject to SL+/SSL+ or whatever staff rank decide is the best staff position rank to approve changes, so you don't get O5s doing stuff like what bill said

  • chain of command wouldn't be entirely an IC matter (because there's parts of chain of command that lower clearances can't know about, at least on UK - such as EC being the other side to O5), but i mean it more like... think like, regimental leadership policies. you don't make a suggestion to staff to change how E-11 or Nu-7 run a tryout, right? ...so why would we need make suggestions to change the IC authority of certain jobs? the point is that it's not a discussion that needs to happen here. it doesn't make sense.

  • the part it summarised and somehow turned into "lacking staff enforcement mechanisms" was where i said
    What possible staff sit could the phrase "I was ordered to do this by a superior officer" apply to? And we certainly don't give people staff warnings for insubordinating...?
    Click to expand...
    like, just generally questioning why this is part of server rules? what server rules can you think of that change depending on what roleplay rank or job's authority you have?
 
Last edited:
Zen

Zen

Active member
One Year Club Community Engager Conversation Starter Chemical Weaponry
Sep 16, 2023
607
189
21
This would also make it possible for RP leaders to essentially create roles and insert them into the chain of command. So e.g. even if an IA Senior Agent job wasn't added, the RP position could still exist and be properly part of the chain of command and the like. This would make things much more flexible and new roles be able to be added in RP without SSL having to add new roles for everything (though actual jobs would be still be useful, for loadouts, models, titles, etc.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom