Denied Increase O5/EC Slots to 5 each

[John Iceland]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Would change it so that O5 goes from O5-1 to O5-5 allowing for an additional Overseer
and Increase Ethics Member slots to 4 allowing for 4 members 1 chairman.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
More fluid rank progression
allows more openings in positions which increases activity in the Cl5 parts of the server

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
O5 would give off a slightly less of a "running the foundation from the shadows' vibe if more active
Might take away from SA and their responsibilities a bit

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Overall asking people who want to go into Site Command to wait for 1 of 4 slots to open in their respective side is insane, it makes going for and wanting to go for Cl5 a hassle and overall demotivating, Increasing it by 2 total site command would allow more more opportunities for people to come into these positions and share their ideas and move through the ranks of the site.

 

[Starling6]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Would change it so that O5 goes from O5-1 to O5-5 allowing for an additional Overseer
and Increase Ethics Member slots to 4 allowing for 4 members 1 chairman.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
More fluid rank progression
allows more openings in positions which increases activity in the Cl5 parts of the server

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
O5 would give off a slightly less of a "running the foundation from the shadows' vibe if more active
Might take away from SA and their responsibilities a bit

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Overall asking people who want to go into Site Command to wait for 1 of 4 slots to open in their respective side is insane, it makes going for and wanting to go for Cl5 a hassle and overall demotivating, Increasing it by 2 total site command would allow more more opportunities for people to come into these positions and share their ideas and move through the ranks of the site.

Honestly the change to 4/4 was kinda weird and has left waves as now on US and UK; There is almost no chance to rank up.

+Support

 

[Ramuh]

+Support
The change to 4/4 was stupid

 

[SamPaval]

+support

Since the update I've only seen 1 EC and ECC on

And 05-1 only.

 

[Naffen]

-support
Having limited CL5 is fine, as the more we add, it'll slowly revert back to them being more hands on which it really shouldn't be. Theres a lot of SA Positions available already and we dont need more CL5 ontop of that. Having 4/4 is fine as it is. Theres supplement space for progression and their current roles and duties dont require more people

 

[Lee Falzone]

-Support

The system that we have currently is wayyy better than last time. We do not need more CL5 whitelists due to the fact that it caused lots of drama in the sites overall. We have Server Leadership for a reason.

I do want to remind you lads that i don't have a personal vendetta against ECM or O5 but after the change things felt more calm around the site after the slots were reduced.

 

[Saphira Harlow]

-Support ^

 

[Second]

+/- Neutral support
I like the prospect of more O5 and EC, but they should also increase O-1 and A-1's limits or let them be set internally like they were before.

 

[Darren]

seems like you just want O5 or ecm

 

[Dr. Swanson]

-Support

Being a major voice in support of this when the change was initially brought before SC, I felt I should weigh in on this and share some of the reasoning.

"More fluid rank progression"/Quality and longevity​	Letting SA do their job​	RP​
This was brought into consideration briefly however was generally considered a non issue. The reasoning behind this being people should not being doing well at their job just because they want to get to a higher position, time and time again we have seen departments collapse because a director or hell even the entirety of SA soley wanted power and hopped up the ranks prematurely. The issue of rank progression is only an issue for those who don't care about the departments they oversee and instead just want power, which was not our concern.	This was an issue that had been going on for a while, the general consensus being that because their were 7 SC all of which were assigned to the exact same departments and handled the exact same issues that SA was, SA was never able to do anything as SC would just do it for them. SC is and was meant to be an absolute last resort on issues and having less of them makes it less likely that A people will see them randomly walking around as there will be less of them and B that they will entirely skip the chain of command as they have done so so many times and just go to a O5. Having such a small amount of SC means SA can actually fulfil its purpose far more effectively, if you want to run the site you go to SA now not SC.​	Tying into the previous response this was also something we had noticed and realised was a major issue, the fact that O5 were both regularly seen and interacted with on site which drastically deteriorated their RP value (seeing a O5 constantly makes them seem significantly less important and far less impactful in RP) while this doesnt totally apply for both branches of SC it does illustrate that SC should be a rare site which was the point of lowering the cap.

While im sure this was a bit overkill for your suggestion as you only wanted one extra slot I felt it best to be transparent on the issue as a whole while im already talking about it

 

[verybobby]

Suggestion Denied

---

Hi @John Iceland,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion. We do not currently plan on raising the slots for O5 or EC.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​