Denied Locale Management Overhaul, Splitting the Difference

[Dusk]

[ INCOMING YAP-FEST ]​

@Emilia Foddg
@Niox
You're going to love this one ​

---

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Removes Site Advisor and Manager or any other redundant role of likeness
Adds HCZ/LCZ Manager and Deputy

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not to my knowledge

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Read Below

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Read Below, very bottom

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Its either adapt or fall behind. Game-Tracker is registering Civil-Networks as #7 now, as before we were holding a solid #1 & #2 slot, respectfully. The system has always had its issues and clear problems on the server are directly tied to mismanagement and overly convoluted processes that don't get problems rectified when its absolutely critical. Not to mention content that desperately requires reformatting has long seen its updates to keep it fresh and interesting. The content updates are neither here nor there, and that is simply based on the hardworking developers that create the fantastic world we all share on a daily basis.
​

---

Spoiler: yap-fest

Proposed Organizational Structure​

---

Chief Overseer and Overseers​

The highest authority in the facility. They handle big decisions, ensuring everything runs smoothly across all zones, operationally.

Chairman of Ethics and Ethics Members​

The second highest authority in the facility. This team oversees the moral and ethical side of the facility. They make sure all operations and decisions are fair and follow strict ethical guidelines.

Site Director​

The overall head of the facility. They supervise both the Light Containment Zone (LCZ) and Heavy Containment Zone (HCZ), acting as the link between zone managers, deputies, and the top leadership like the Overseers and Ethics.

LCZ Manager and LCZ Deputy​

The LCZ Manager runs all daily operations in the Light Containment Zone, ensuring departments and staff in this area are working efficiently.

• LCZ Deputy: Assists the LCZ Manager, handling smaller tasks, supporting departments, and stepping in when the manager is unavailable.

HCZ Manager and HCZ Deputy​

The HCZ Manager is responsible for the Heavy Containment Zone. They ensure smooth operations and maintain order in this high-risk area.

• HCZ Deputy: Works closely with the HCZ Manager to manage tasks, resolve issues, and provide extra oversight in this critical zone.

Regimental Commanders​

Continue their role as leaders of security and military operations but now collaborate more directly with the LCZ and HCZ managers and deputies during emergencies or drills.

Department Director​

Each department (e.g., Medical, Research) still has its own leadership, but they now coordinate their work with the zone managers and deputies to better align with the unique needs of LCZ and HCZ.

Why is this Change Important?​

---

The current system is convoluted and, quite frankly, unnecessary. There’s essentially no difference between the roles of Advisor and Manager. Managers are promoted internally, while Directors and Advisors are appointed through an application process. By replacing these roles with positions specialized for their respective locales, individuals will be able to dedicate their time and efforts to managing and improving specific areas (LCZ or HCZ) rather than being part of a redundant chain of command.

Allowing HCZ and LCZ to flourish independently will make it easier for external department and regimental leaders to coordinate their efforts with groups tailored to their respective zones. For example:

• E-11 would report directly to HCZ Managers.
• ISD would report directly to LCZ Managers.

Why is this Process Important?​

---

Currently, the chain of command is overly complicated:

1. Information is sent to a rotating list of Advisors for departments.
2. Advisors report to a Manager.
3. Managers report to a Director.
4. Directors report to a Command Member.

However, those Command Members already oversee their respective groups and departments. This makes the roles of Advisor and Manager redundant, adding unnecessary steps to get things done.

This excessive chain of command oversaturates the management pool to the point where roles have to be invented to justify lower-level responsibilities. This system slows down decision-making, creates confusion, and reduces overall efficiency.

By simplifying the structure and focusing on localized leadership, HCZ and LCZ Managers can directly oversee operations in their zones, ensuring faster and more effective communication, decision-making, and problem-solving. This change will cut out the unnecessary middle steps, streamline processes, and allow the facility to operate at its full potential.

Why HCZ and LCZ Managers Instead of Internally Delegating Responsibilities?​

---

Simply put, if internal delegation hasn’t happened already, it’s unlikely to ever happen.
On a broader level, delegating responsibilities within the current system would still fall to 15 split members of Administration and Command, many of whom already have overlapping roles. When you factor in the departments already overseeing various aspects of the facility, you end up with a chaotic "feeding frenzy" of shared tasks, unclear ownership, and constant role rotation.
Creating HCZ and LCZ-specific managerial roles would solve this problem by assigning clear, linear responsibilities to individuals with dedicated roles, rather than relying on broad, undefined tasks shared among a group. This ensures everyone knows their specific role and allows them to focus on it fully.

​

What’s the Difference Between Broad and Linear Tasks?​

---

Broad Tasks:

• These involve overseeing a wide range of responsibilities, often delegated to different groups or people in a rotating manner.
• For example, Site Administration currently “manages the facility,” which encompasses everything under the umbrella of "The Foundation."
• This includes caretaking, logistics, departmental coordination, and more—supported by Command teams as the final authority.

Broad tasks often lead to confusion, inefficiency, and overlapping responsibilities, making it harder to track accountability and maintain focus.

Linear Tasks:

• These are narrow and focused responsibilities, designed for specific roles or individuals.
• For example, an HCZ Manager would focus entirely on the operations, staff, and activities within the Heavy Containment Zone. An LCZ Manager would do the same for the Light Containment Zone.
• This creates a more straightforward chain of command, where tasks are directly tied to specific roles, making it easier for individuals to manage and execute their duties effectively.

​

Why Is This Shift Necessary?​

---

The current system is bogged down by broad responsibilities that lack clear ownership. Site Administration claims responsibility for “everything,” but in practice, they rely heavily on Command teams and a rotating system of delegations. This results in unnecessary complexity, inefficiency, and frequent miscommunication.
Creating dedicated HCZ and LCZ Manager roles introduces linear tasking, where responsibilities are clearly defined, specific, and easier to manage. This eliminates the confusion caused by broad tasks and ensures the facility runs smoothly with a more efficient structure.
By giving managers specific zones to oversee, their focus becomes localized. Departments and teams working in those zones (e.g., E-11 in HCZ, ISD in LCZ) have a clear point of contact, improving coordination, response times, and accountability. This structure avoids the pitfalls of broad task delegation and allows the facility to function as a cohesive, well-managed entity.

Wouldn't This Just Localize Issues to HCZ and LCZ Managers Instead of Advisors, Managers, and Directors?​

---

Not necessarily. When your system operates on checks and balances designed to give people tasks simply to keep them busy, rather than assigning responsibilities that are part of their defined role, you’re more likely to run into clerical issues. This creates inefficiency and confusion, as tasks are delegated based on availability rather than expertise or focus.

By creating dedicated roles like HCZ and LCZ Managers, responsibilities are built directly into their positions. This streamlines the system and reduces unnecessary steps, allowing operations to function more smoothly. It also inspires greater confidence among departments and regimental commanders to share their ideas and opinions without feeling the need to “play the game” of popularity or politics.

The Problem With the Current System​

---

In the current system, the oversaturation of management positions—Advisors, Managers, Directors, and Command—encourages a cat-and-mouse dynamic. When everyone is trying to stand out, people are often forced to compete by:

1. Being the loudest.
2. Being the first to suggest ideas.
3. Being the most liked.

Of these, being the most liked is often the winning strategy. Popularity naturally becomes a deciding factor in who gets heard, which undermines the system’s fairness and effectiveness. If you think about it, you’d probably pick being the most liked too, most of us would. It’s a natural reaction in an environment with too many voices.

Why This Change Would Work​

---

This system allows individuals with experience in specific areas to grow within roles that align with their strengths and expertise. Instead of forcing people to adapt to an overly broad set of responsibilities, it localizes their talent, enabling them to excel in areas they’re already familiar with.

Localized Talent Development​

For example, someone like an E-11 Commander who knows the ins and outs of HCZ would naturally transition to a position like HCZ Deputy, where their knowledge is most applicable. It wouldn’t make sense for someone with expertise in HCZ operations to step into a broader role that oversees everything while still having to focus on HCZ. That would dilute their effectiveness and likely lead to burnout or inefficiency.

By keeping responsibilities focused on a specific locale, you create an environment where talented individuals can specialize and thrive, rather than being pulled in multiple directions. This also encourages a pipeline of like-minded individuals within a zone, fostering a shared goal of improving that specific area.

Creating a Bubble of Excellence​

---

With this approach, you’re effectively building specialized "bubbles" of expertise within each zone:

• HCZ Teams: Staff and leadership working to optimize operations within HCZ, leveraging shared knowledge and a common focus.
• LCZ Teams: Staff and leadership dedicated to improving efficiency and performance within LCZ.

These groups would naturally attract individuals who are passionate about their respective areas, leading to innovation, collaboration, and higher morale. Instead of competing to manage everything, people are motivated to make their specific locale or department the best it can be.

Eliminating the Disconnect​

---

Under the current system, individuals who are great at specific roles (e.g., HCZ operations) are often required to take on broad responsibilities that include things outside their area of expertise to "move up." This creates a disconnect, as their skills and focus are stretched too thin.

With the proposed structure, you:

1. Keep specialists in their zones: Talented individuals focus on the areas they know best, making improvements more targeted and impactful.
2. Streamline upward mobility: People advance into roles that build on their existing strengths, rather than forcing them into positions they aren’t suited for.
3. Encourage collaboration: Teams are built with shared goals, reducing the sense of competition and fostering cooperation.

This proposal moves away from a popularity-driven system. By narrowing responsibilities to specific roles like HCZ and LCZ Managers, you reduce the number of people competing for attention in decision-making. Instead of having a dozen different people trying to take charge, you have clear leaders in charge of their zones, with everyone else reporting to them.

This structure:

• Ensures tasks are handled by those directly responsible, rather than being passed around a chain of unnecessary steps.
• Removes the "popularity contest" dynamic by limiting the decision-making pool to a few focused, accountable individuals.
• Encourages departments and commanders to engage more confidently, knowing their ideas are evaluated based on merit rather than how loud or liked they are.

In short, by cutting down on excess and clarifying responsibilities, you create a system where people are judged on their ability to fulfill their role—not on how well they can navigate an overcomplicated chain of command. This leads to better efficiency, clearer communication, and a healthier working environment for everyone.

But Isn't the Same Thing Going to Happen to the Site Director Now?​

---

No, not at all, and here’s why:

The Role of Director is Fundamentally Different​

The Site Director (and Command members) hold positions at the very top of the facility’s hierarchy. These roles are designed to encompass enormous responsibilities because they oversee the entire operation. Their purpose isn’t to specialize in specific areas like HCZ or LCZ but to ensure that the whole facility is functioning as a cohesive unit.

This is inherently different from the responsibilities of roles like Managers, Deputies, or Department Leads, which are more focused on specific tasks or locales. A Director’s job is broad by design because it requires them to:

1. Coordinate across all zones and departments.
2. Oversee long-term strategy and facility-wide decision-making.
3. Act as the bridge between the localized leadership (HCZ/LCZ Managers) and the Command structure.

​

Why Enormous Responsibilities Make Sense at This Level​

The Site Director is one of the highest positions a person can achieve in the facility. It comes with a level of prestige, authority, and influence that naturally demands greater responsibility. Unlike mid-tier roles where responsibilities are distributed to avoid overload, the Director is expected to handle the weight of overseeing the entire operation.

For example:

• The HCZ Manager focuses only on HCZ.
• The LCZ Manager focuses only on LCZ.
• The Site Director ensures both HCZ and LCZ are working together effectively

​

Checks and Balances Prevent Overload​

While the Director has a broad scope of responsibility, they’re not expected to manage every detail themselves. Instead, they:

• Delegate localized issues to HCZ and LCZ Managers.
• Collaborate with Command members, who provide additional oversight and support.
• Work with Ethics and Overseers, who act as the highest tier of decision-making for critical facility matters.

This system ensures that while the Director’s responsibilities are significant, they’re manageable and focus on high-level leadership rather than micromanagement.

Isn’t LCZ Just a Few SCPs and Delta Wing? What About Personnel Wing, Core, and Entrance Zone?​

---

LCZ can be broadly defined to include areas like the Personnel Wing, Core, and Entrance Zone because these sections are naturally tied to the personnel and lighter containment functions of the facility. Since these areas are already loosely connected to specific departments and their leaders, folding them into the LCZ category allows for specialized oversight under the LCZ Manager. This makes the role more defined and incentivized while streamlining management responsibilities.

​

But Isn’t HCZ Just a Hallway with Dangerous SCPs?​

---

Both roles have unique challenges. For HCZ Management, the challenges include:

• Overseeing RSD and GSD policies within HCZ.
• Managing sampling and experimentation protocols as well as efficient containment procedures
• Providing E-11 supervision in a zone housing the most dangerous entities, where mistakes could result in facility destruction.

LCZ Management, on the other hand, focuses more on personnel and facility operations, such as:

• Monitoring operational efficiency in areas like the Personnel Wing and Entrance Zone.
• Handling complications from wild personnel, disciplinary issues, and CI raids.

Both roles demand accountability and specialization, tailored to their specific zones and their unique challenges.

Possible Negatives of This Change​

---

• Finding Qualified Talent
  Identifying individuals with the right expertise, leadership abilities, and willingness to take on HCZ/LCZ-specific roles may be difficult.
• Overhaul of Handbooks and Information Pools
  Significant updates will be required for all documentation, policies, and training materials to reflect the new structure.
• Resistance from Ego-Driven Positions
  Individuals in existing roles may resist the changes due to concerns about losing influence or relevance.
• Difficulty Organizing Late in the Game
  Reorganizing and localizing leadership at this stage of the system’s development could disrupt established workflows and habits.
• Role Development and Integration Challenges
  Without proper planning, there is a risk of poorly defined roles leading to confusion, redundancy, or inefficiency.

 

[Niox]

[ INCOMING YAP-FEST ]​

@Emilia Foddg
@Niox
You're going to love this one
​

Just by seeing the bottom part, yes I will. Yes I so will. And so will content team : DDDDD

ediit: i'll read it all tmr, i've drank too much to read it rn

 

[Guts]

Remove Ethics and O5, give us RAISA instead

have ethics and O5 be event only roles, as they should have been from the beginning

 

[Bill Nye The Guy]

+support/+-neutral
> "the system is convoluted and needs to be reworked!"
> suggests convoluted system

you raise some good points about the current system requiring a 'master of one zone' having to oversee all other zones even if their experience doesn't cover it, but i think another big system might fail in a similar way to the current one - there are a lot of possible failures which only get worse with the suggested system:

things would be quite annoying to deal with if there was no LCZ manager online but a HCZ manager online at high pops, who would deal with their duties in this case? what would happen when there aren't as many people on the server and only one zone manager is present?

i think splitting the zones could also make the manager/deputy position more boring in general since there's less for you to do in an individual zone rather than two- it'd also be another layer of bureaucracy if you wanted to get something like a crosstest done as you'd need to find two managers (one for each zone), answer their questions, and get permission from both while also coordinating stuff like who'll accompany you and the SCPs during the test

also, where does nu-7 lie in this? i'd imagine they'd work with the LCZ manager (maybe a name change might be in order to better show their area of control?)


i dont think it'd be the worst thing in the world to add this, imo this entire suggested system is de-facto in place already (if im being real i always thought of the highest ranking E-11 online as the 'HCZ manager' from my time playing since the majority of their gameplay time is spent coordinating others to guard, patrol, or deal with breaches in the area) - making it a full system just means a little more bureaucracy for everyone which might be a dealbreaker

 

[Dusk]

> "the system is convoluted and needs to be reworked!"
> suggests convoluted system

The suggested system isn’t convoluted but rather compartmentalized.

Currently, there are three positions (Advisor, Manager, Director) doing essentially the same thing. The only real differences are:

1. How they’re appointed (one internal, two by application).
2. Their place in the hierarchy, which dictates minor differences in approval powers.

If the only takeaway is who can approve what, it makes more sense to consolidate these roles into one specific unit to streamline processes and eliminate redundancy.

---

things would be quite annoying to deal with if there was no LCZ manager online but a HCZ manager online at high pops, who would deal with their duties in this case? what would happen when there aren't as many people on the server and only one zone manager is present?

This isn’t a new problem it’s an issue we already face with the current structure. Right now, we have three separate roles (Advisor, Manager, Director), and people still experience delays in getting things approved or addressed due to availability. My system just simply consolidates the redundancies into specific categories instead of in the same boat with varying titles.

---

i think splitting the zones could also make the manager/deputy position more boring in general since there's less for you to do in an individual zone rather than two- it'd also be another layer of bureaucracy if you wanted to get something like a crosstest done as you'd need to find two managers (one for each zone), answer their questions, and get permission from both while also coordinating stuff like who'll accompany you and the SCPs during the test

If testing in HCZ needs to be done, the process wouldn’t change much from the current system. You’d either report to the HCZ Manager or the respective department leaders, depending on the situation.

---

also, where does nu-7 lie in this? i'd imagine they'd work with the LCZ manager (maybe a name change might be in order to better show their area of control?)

The connection between Nu-7 and zones like the Surface Zone and Entrance Zone has always been a bit of a grey area. There’s no solid documentation, and no one really oversees these locations except Nu-7 and General Security.

Realistically, it would make sense for the LCZ Manager to take responsibility for these areas. It fits naturally under their scope and provides clear oversight. If it feels off, you could consider a slight name change for the role to reflect the expanded responsibility.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

-Support
I understand what you're going for and I see the general spirit, but you need to think about how this would work in practice, as opposed to how you've written it. Like how the current system works on paper, but kinda slumps in practice, because it's just very vulnerable to activity lulls and poor management. What you're asking for not only has similar vulnerabilities, but replaces 2 roles with 4.

What is required, is a flexible system that can operate well even when people in important roles aren't putting in the necessary activity and/or effort to keep things running well. Additionally, when things are running well, and I speak somewhat from personal experience within E-11, having to keep that running well is very mentally taxing on the people that this system relies on, which leads to them burning out and leaving said position - And if someone of similar or greater calibre isn't around and able to fill that position, then naturally, the overall server quality takes a hit as a result. When you think about the big picture in this way, you can see the clear downward trajectory that is happening. I think that if we pivoted away from a system that so heavily relied on good people putting in this Sisyphean effort on a few high-level positions, this would prove beneficial to how the server operates.

Overall, while your idea is well-documented and eloquently detailed, it does not sufficiently address the primary problems the server is facing and unfortunately in some few cases, makes them worse.

 

[Dusk]

but kinda slumps in practice, because it's just very vulnerable to activity lulls and poor management

Well said, but the reality is that any human operated system will always be vulnerable to activity lulls and poor management, no matter how many checks or redundancies are in place.

The only way to completely avoid these issues would be to replace human roles with computers or AI designed to perform specific tasks 24/7 without fail. Since that isn’t feasible (and wouldn’t align with this system), the next best solution is to define roles more clearly, ensuring that accountability and responsibility are baked into the structure.

---

What you're asking for not only has similar vulnerabilities, but replaces 2 roles with 4.

Not really. Right now, three roles already overlap with little clarity. Splitting responsibilities into HCZ and LCZ-focused roles actually reduces the mess. Deputies aren’t just “extra” they give managers support and make the system more reliable where needed, they are also trained in the same field so if needed they can step in.

---

What is required, is a flexible system that can operate well even when people in important roles aren't putting in the necessary activity and/or effort to keep things running well.

A truly flexible system that operates perfectly regardless of people’s effort or activity simply can’t exist. As long as humans are involved, every system will face the same fundamental challenges tied to human behavior, such as inconsistency, burnout, or lack of effort.

The real solution isn’t chasing a perfect system but creating more defined roles with clear responsibilities. This ensures accountability is emphasized, making it easier to see who isn’t meeting expectations and apply the necessary consequences. By placing a greater impact on actually doing the job, the system becomes more reliable, not because it’s flexible, but because it’s structured for accountability.

---

Additionally, when things are running well, and I speak somewhat from personal experience within E-11, having to keep that running well is very mentally taxing on the people that this system relies on, which leads to them burning out and leaving said position - And if someone of similar or greater calibre isn't around and able to fill that position, then naturally, the overall server quality takes a hit as a result.

This is partially true, Site Administration rarely fails in this area because of the redundancies already in place. With three roles doing the same thing, if one leaves, another can easily step in without much trouble. It’s a system that works for continuity.

However, the problem isn’t continuity, it’s the overlap and lack of clarity. Having three roles that essentially do the same thing creates inefficiency and slows things down. While commanders and departments with LTCOMs and deputies tend to avoid this issue, problems can still happen, like when a second in command isn’t chosen. But that’s more about poor leadership decisions than the system itself.

The proposed system keeps the necessary redundancies but removes the excess overlap, making things simpler and easier to manage while still maintaining stability.

---

When you think about the big picture in this way, you can see the clear downward trajectory that is happening. I think that if we pivoted away from a system that so heavily relied on good people putting in this Sisyphean effort on a few high-level positions, this would prove beneficial to how the server operates.

I’ll be blunt here: I don’t think this server has ever relied on the kind of Sisyphean effort you’re describing from one person or department. It’s always been more of a team effort, combined with the initial hype of the "new server smell."

As the server ages and the content becomes more familiar, players ideas of entertainment shift. You’ve experienced this, and so have I, it’s an inevitable part of any game or system. Now that the initial excitement has worn off, people are starting to see the flaws in the system, and it’s turning them away from committing to roles or positions. This isn’t about effort; it’s about recognizing that the system itself needs to change to keep people engaged.

 

[Niox]

Spoiler: Chain of Command

Chief Overseer and Overseers​

The highest authority in the facility. They handle big decisions, ensuring everything runs smoothly across all zones, operationally.

Chairman of Ethics and Ethics Members​

The second highest authority in the facility. This team oversees the moral and ethical side of the facility. They make sure all operations and decisions are fair and follow strict ethical guidelines.

Site Director​

The overall head of the facility. They supervise both the Light Containment Zone (LCZ) and Heavy Containment Zone (HCZ), acting as the link between zone managers, deputies, and the top leadership like the Overseers and Ethics.

Reading this bit, it just seems like the same thing 3 times over.
O5 monitor all zones, Ethics monitor all actions across all zones, and SD monitors all zones.

If SD doesn't monitor the zones, and instead we take it literally with them purely being a link, wouldn't that take away a lot of power from SA? With them being quite separated from each other, and SD purely acting as a joining between the two?
And i say this as an issue, as the SA rework gave power to SA, and axed like, half of SC (still more SC slots than SA slots somehow still lmfao) to redirect power to SA.

Spoiler: "Why is this Change Important?"

Why is this Change Important?​

---

The current system is convoluted and, quite frankly, unnecessary. There’s essentially no difference between the roles of Advisor and Manager. Managers are promoted internally, while Directors and Advisors are appointed through an application process. By replacing these roles with positions specialized for their respective locales, individuals will be able to dedicate their time and efforts to managing and improving specific areas (LCZ or HCZ) rather than being part of a redundant chain of command.

Allowing HCZ and LCZ to flourish independently will make it easier for external department and regimental leaders to coordinate their efforts with groups tailored to their respective zones. For example:

• E-11 would report directly to HCZ Managers.
• ISD would report directly to LCZ Managers.

Going to be mentioning the reply you left to Emilia, but surely LCZ manager would have 10x more work to do than HCZ manager? Especially with having to deal with EZ/SOP.

HCZ:
>GSD (During Tests)
>RSD (During Tests)
>E-11
>Nu-7 (During CI raids)
>DEA (During CI raids)
(Last 2 are a bit more meh than the rest)


LCZ:
>GSD
>RSD
>Medical
>ISD
>ET&S
>Nu-7
>DEA

The duties of a LCZ manager outweigh the duties of a HCZ manager by a lot more. Having them be 2 sides of a coin is strange, since 1 definitely has a lot more authority than the other.
HCZ is also just.... Boring. Nothing interesting happens there often, while LCZ has consistent activity.

Spoiler: "Why is this Process Important?"

Why is this Process Important?​

---

Currently, the chain of command is overly complicated:

1. Information is sent to a rotating list of Advisors for departments.
2. Advisors report to a Manager.
3. Managers report to a Director.
4. Directors report to a Command Member.

However, those Command Members already oversee their respective groups and departments. This makes the roles of Advisor and Manager redundant, adding unnecessary steps to get things done.

This excessive chain of command oversaturates the management pool to the point where roles have to be invented to justify lower-level responsibilities. This system slows down decision-making, creates confusion, and reduces overall efficiency.

By simplifying the structure and focusing on localized leadership, HCZ and LCZ Managers can directly oversee operations in their zones, ensuring faster and more effective communication, decision-making, and problem-solving. This change will cut out the unnecessary middle steps, streamline processes, and allow the facility to operate at its full potential.

If you go down to the lowest level, yes, SA's report to SM's. But if there's something that an SA wants done by an SD or O5, surely they can just go directly to them. Don't believe there's anything stopping them from just skipping the middle man.

And I don't want to justify the existence of SM (As from what I've seen it's just a normal SA but again), but it's there as a reward for long time SA, to motivate them more and show that they aren't just being left to rot.

Spoiler: "Why is This Shift Necessary?"

Why Is This Shift Necessary?​

---

The current system is bogged down by broad responsibilities that lack clear ownership. Site Administration claims responsibility for “everything,” but in practice, they rely heavily on Command teams and a rotating system of delegations. This results in unnecessary complexity, inefficiency, and frequent miscommunication.
Creating dedicated HCZ and LCZ Manager roles introduces linear tasking, where responsibilities are clearly defined, specific, and easier to manage. This eliminates the confusion caused by broad tasks and ensures the facility runs smoothly with a more efficient structure.
By giving managers specific zones to oversee, their focus becomes localized. Departments and teams working in those zones (e.g., E-11 in HCZ, ISD in LCZ) have a clear point of contact, improving coordination, response times, and accountability. This structure avoids the pitfalls of broad task delegation and allows the facility to function as a cohesive, well-managed entity.

Valid. I feel like SA activity may be an issue for people wanting to go to SA about things, but instead have to go to SC, but this point is still valid.

Spoiler: "The Problem With the Current System" / "Why This Change Would Work"

The Problem With the Current System​

---

In the current system, the oversaturation of management positions—Advisors, Managers, Directors, and Command—encourages a cat-and-mouse dynamic. When everyone is trying to stand out, people are often forced to compete by:

1. Being the loudest.
2. Being the first to suggest ideas.
3. Being the most liked.

Of these, being the most liked is often the winning strategy. Popularity naturally becomes a deciding factor in who gets heard, which undermines the system’s fairness and effectiveness. If you think about it, you’d probably pick being the most liked too, most of us would. It’s a natural reaction in an environment with too many voices.

Why This Change Would Work​

---

This system allows individuals with experience in specific areas to grow within roles that align with their strengths and expertise. Instead of forcing people to adapt to an overly broad set of responsibilities, it localizes their talent, enabling them to excel in areas they’re already familiar with.

Localized Talent Development​

For example, someone like an E-11 Commander who knows the ins and outs of HCZ would naturally transition to a position like HCZ Deputy, where their knowledge is most applicable. It wouldn’t make sense for someone with expertise in HCZ operations to step into a broader role that oversees everything while still having to focus on HCZ. That would dilute their effectiveness and likely lead to burnout or inefficiency.

By keeping responsibilities focused on a specific locale, you create an environment where talented individuals can specialize and thrive, rather than being pulled in multiple directions. This also encourages a pipeline of like-minded individuals within a zone, fostering a shared goal of improving that specific area.

I feel like the popularity thing will always exist. Say 2 people with experience are applying, it the more liked one will get it. Although this does do a decent job limiting that, so someone can't just come out of the blue with it, although -
The change in looking for specific people is always quite limiting in my eyes. If you want to be a HCZ manager, you are many times less likely to get it than an E-11 applying, even if you enjoy HCZ a lot, but not E-11. Quite limiting, but it's still possible if they are good enough, and it's efficient.

Spoiler: "But Isn't the Same Thing Going to Happen to the Site Director Now?"

But Isn't the Same Thing Going to Happen to the Site Director Now?​

---

No, not at all, and here’s why:

The Role of Director is Fundamentally Different​

The Site Director (and Command members) hold positions at the very top of the facility’s hierarchy. These roles are designed to encompass enormous responsibilities because they oversee the entire operation. Their purpose isn’t to specialize in specific areas like HCZ or LCZ but to ensure that the whole facility is functioning as a cohesive unit.

This is inherently different from the responsibilities of roles like Managers, Deputies, or Department Leads, which are more focused on specific tasks or locales. A Director’s job is broad by design because it requires them to:

1. Coordinate across all zones and departments.
2. Oversee long-term strategy and facility-wide decision-making.
3. Act as the bridge between the localized leadership (HCZ/LCZ Managers) and the Command structure.

​

Why Enormous Responsibilities Make Sense at This Level​

The Site Director is one of the highest positions a person can achieve in the facility. It comes with a level of prestige, authority, and influence that naturally demands greater responsibility. Unlike mid-tier roles where responsibilities are distributed to avoid overload, the Director is expected to handle the weight of overseeing the entire operation.

For example:

• The HCZ Manager focuses only on HCZ.
• The LCZ Manager focuses only on LCZ.
• The Site Director ensures both HCZ and LCZ are working together effectively

​

Checks and Balances Prevent Overload​

While the Director has a broad scope of responsibility, they’re not expected to manage every detail themselves. Instead, they:

• Delegate localized issues to HCZ and LCZ Managers.
• Collaborate with Command members, who provide additional oversight and support.
• Work with Ethics and Overseers, who act as the highest tier of decision-making for critical facility matters.

This system ensures that while the Director’s responsibilities are significant, they’re manageable and focus on high-level leadership rather than micromanagement.

If SC's job in this is to just authorise what is above the SD (Who already will oversee most of the site and duties), why so many of them? Currently SC have a decent amount to do because of the confusion of who to go to, so they're available a decent amount of the time, but having them only deal with 1 guy needing something is strange to me.

Or I could just be going schizo and I'm wrong about what I said, idk man

Overall +Support leaning towards +/-Neutral, I like where your head is at big man, I just have a few questions and what not about the system you're proposing.

 

[Dusk]

Reading this bit, it just seems like the same thing 3 times over.
O5 monitor all zones, Ethics monitor all actions across all zones, and SD monitors all zones.

If SD doesn't monitor the zones, and instead we take it literally with them purely being a link, wouldn't that take away a lot of power from SA? With them being quite separated from each other, and SD purely acting as a joining between the two?
And i say this as an issue, as the SA rework gave power to SA, and axed like, half of SC (still more SC slots than SA slots somehow still lmfao) to redirect power to SA.

I’ll admit, I tend to ramble and repeat myself it’s just how I think when putting ideas down. But you’re right to question the structure, because the more we try to mix realism with roleplay, the less sense it actually makes. For all intents and purposes those three groups do exactly that, minus information barriers for larger things.

Realistically, Ethics and Overseers wouldn’t be tied to just one facility. They’re supposed to oversee things on a much larger scale. If we followed true realism, Site Administration would be the actual CL5 authority, with the Site Director at the top and managers filling out the CL4 SR positions.

General Security would probably take on most of the responsibilities around the facility, like escorts, protection, and even surface work—basically what E-11 handles now. But let’s be real: roles like Ethics and Overseers weren’t added to make things realistic. They’re there to make the game more fun and give players something to strive for.

At the end of the day, the system we’re using was never built for realism. It’s a mix of lore and gameplay mechanics meant to keep people engaged, even if some of the roles don’t make complete sense from a practical standpoint. Technically speaking "Site Administration" would cover any facility leadership that isn't a dep director or regcom, so HCZ/LCZ managers would fall under Site Administration. The only thing is that we would need to revamp how SA is looked, remove and add in position that makes sense to back it up and Director is back to being that top position. There needs to be substance, however.

---

Going to be mentioning the reply you left to Emilia, but surely LCZ manager would have 10x more work to do than HCZ manager? Especially with having to deal with EZ/SOP.

HCZ:
>GSD (During Tests)
>RSD (During Tests)
>E-11
>Nu-7 (During CI raids)
>DEA (During CI raids)
(Last 2 are a bit more meh than the rest)


LCZ:
>GSD
>RSD
>Medical
>ISD
>ET&S
>Nu-7
>DEA

The duties of a LCZ manager outweigh the duties of a HCZ manager by a lot more. Having them be 2 sides of a coin is strange, since 1 definitely has a lot more authority than the other.
HCZ is also just.... Boring. Nothing interesting happens there often, while LCZ has consistent activity.

To start, yes, the LCZ Manager would have more constituents and therefore more delegation responsibilities compared to the HCZ Manager, and that’s intentional. LCZ is naturally busier, with more departments and activity funneling through it.

The challenge for the HCZ Manager isn’t necessarily about the amount of work, it’s about the scope of their responsibilities. HCZ houses facility destroying entities, which means their focus is on the highest-risk aspects of containment. They’re responsible for overseeing the most critical security measures, as well as ensuring external and internal threats don’t breach the area.

Yes, HCZ might seem less exciting on the surface, but that’s part of the job. A lot of important roles are “boring,” but they exist because they’re vital. It’s up to the HCZ Manager to make the most of their position, especially since they have complete control over that zone.

There’s definitely room to expand the HCZ Manager’s responsibilities outside of HCZ itself, but the current bureaucratic ladder makes that difficult. Power is scattered in too many directions, and the lack of tied accountability for specific zones adds to the issue. By giving each zone a clear, accountable manager, both LCZ and HCZ get the focus they need instead of just slapping a stamp on tasks and hoping for the best.

LCZ will always have more activity, but HCZ’s responsibilities, while narrower, are far more critical in terms of risk management and security.

---

If you go down to the lowest level, yes, SA's report to SM's. But if there's something that an SA wants done by an SD or O5, surely they can just go directly to them. Don't believe there's anything stopping them from just skipping the middle man.

And I don't want to justify the existence of SM (As from what I've seen it's just a normal SA but again), but it's there as a reward for long time SA, to motivate them more and show that they aren't just being left to rot.

I think you're spot on here. We’ve all grown used to this system, so it feels natural to treat these roles as a reward, but that’s where the problem lies, they shouldn’t be a reward, they should be an achievement. There’s a big difference between the two.

My dad used to say something similar: "If you want to get by without stepping on fingers and toes, just outlast the shit." The point is, simply outlasting doesn’t mean you’re the best choice for a role. If anything, it can mean you’re less motivated and less qualified. You didn’t rise because of skill or drive; you stayed because you weathered the storm longer than others. That’s not the same as breaking through and proving you’re the better option for the job.

At its core, the system should reward the right person for the role, not the one who just happened to stick around the longest.

---

I feel like the popularity thing will always exist. Say 2 people with experience are applying, it the more liked one will get it. Although this does do a decent job limiting that, so someone can't just come out of the blue with it, although -
The change in looking for specific people is always quite limiting in my eyes. If you want to be a HCZ manager, you are many times less likely to get it than an E-11 applying, even if you enjoy HCZ a lot, but not E-11. Quite limiting, but it's still possible if they are good enough, and it's efficient.

The popularity issue really comes down to how visible certain positions are. Let’s be real, if you’re applying for something like Ethics or Overseer with a big server population, it’s going to come with more attention. That naturally creates connections and favoritism, and it’s hard to avoid in roles like that.

If you focus these roles on specific responsibilities, though, it’s easier to figure out who’s actually the best fit. Instead of picking people based on how well they’re liked, you can look at how well they’d handle the job itself. It also gives more people a shot at stepping into leadership roles instead of sticking with the same group all the time.

Right now, applying for these positions usually means writing up huge documents to prove you’re qualified, but a lot of people still end up learning as they go. That’s fine to some extent, but it’s not the best way to guarantee the right person gets picked. Making the process more about actual experience cuts out some of the noise and gives the person reviewing applications, like a Director, a better way to decide who’s right for the job without relying on how long they’ve been around or how many roles they’ve had.

At the end of the day, it’s about simplifying things so you can make sure the right people get into the roles that suit them best.

---

If SC's job in this is to just authorise what is above the SD (Who already will oversee most of the site and duties), why so many of them? Currently SC have a decent amount to do because of the confusion of who to go to, so they're available a decent amount of the time, but having them only deal with 1 guy needing something is strange to me.

Or I could just be going schizo and I'm wrong about what I said, idk man

If we really want to break down what Site Command's role is, they’re supposed to be the leading body for Role-Play. They’re the ones responsible for maintaining the server’s integrity and health, ensuring everything functions properly while introducing improvements to make it better.

Realistically, it’s not that Site Command doesn’t fulfill this role, it’s just that their impact often isn’t enough to outweigh the server’s bigger issues. Over time, as more people take these positions, the roles become diluted with old information and outdated responsibilities. Instead of evolving, people tend to repeat the same behaviors over and over again.

Site Command isn’t meant to be a body you casually interact with. They’re supposed to work in the shadows, projecting that "final boss" aura. You interact with their subordinates, not them directly, Site Command communicates through their team.

As for why there are four SC slots for each position, I’ve never thought it made much sense. From a server perspective, it’s probably to ensure coverage across timezones and appeal to players at all hours. However, as I mentioned earlier, it doesn’t seem to function that way in practice.

 

[Niox]

I think you're spot on here. We’ve all grown used to this system, so it feels natural to treat these roles as a reward, but that’s where the problem lies, they shouldn’t be a reward, they should be an achievement. There’s a big difference between the two.

My dad used to say something similar: "If you want to get by without stepping on fingers and toes, just outlast the shit." The point is, simply outlasting doesn’t mean you’re the best choice for a role. If anything, it can mean you’re less motivated and less qualified. You didn’t rise because of skill or drive; you stayed because you weathered the storm longer than others. That’s not the same as breaking through and proving you’re the better option for the job.

At its core, the system should reward the right person for the role, not the one who just happened to stick around the longest.

i know i just posted the response like 30 minutes ago, but saying they get it for being in SA for a long time is a bad example from me. Realistically it's more so "Oh this person is doing good, so let's promote them". I even follow that sentiment, and although yes, some are promoted for their time in the DPT, they can still be promoted for other reasons too (Although from what I see, it's usually for the reason I originally mentioned, which is more of a leadership issue imo.)

And for it being a achievement and not an award, eh. People want to enjoy themselves, so why can't it be both? Where it's an achievement to get, yes, but it's a reward for the effort and work they've put in, or how long they've endured it.

Not going over any other points because they're all valid.

 

[Dusk]

i know i just posted the response like 30 minutes ago, but saying they get it for being in SA for a long time is a bad example from me. Realistically it's more so "Oh this person is doing good, so let's promote them". I even follow that sentiment, and although yes, some are promoted for their time in the DPT, they can still be promoted for other reasons too (Although from what I see, it's usually for the reason I originally mentioned, which is more of a leadership issue imo.)

And for it being a achievement and not an award, eh. People want to enjoy themselves, so why can't it be both? Where it's an achievement to get, yes, but it's a reward for the effort and work they've put in, or how long they've endured it.

Not going over any other points because they're all valid.

You’re right, it should be fun and rewarding to create an environment people actually enjoy being part of. But the problem is, systems like this often create silent bubbles where people think, "If I just follow these steps, I’ll get what I want." It becomes more about skating by than actually earning it. I personally don't believe that in the server, certain roles achieve this 'fun and rewarding system', its more based on accolades and bright and flashy documentation, what they did and who they're with, which for all things considered is the more enjoyable path. Enjoying the game with friends and creating a community within the community, but that doesn't always create the best environment. The main goal should be enjoying the game with friends, but priority #1 is overall server prosperity and enjoyably for OTHERS not just your circle of friends.


The real issue is accountability, who’s being held accountable, and how often it’s happening. If someone is messing up or stagnating and nobody calls it out, they’re just going to keep doing it. If there’s no accountability, things never change.

From my time in Server Leadership, I’ve seen how rewarding effort can make a huge difference. If someone does good work, they should be recognized for it. You do good, you get good. It’s simple, but it fosters a positive environment where people feel appreciated and want to do better.

It’s also about creating a space where people can share ideas or opinions without feeling like they’ll be shut down just because it’s different or challenges the norm. When people feel safe to contribute and know there’s fairness in how things are handled, it builds trust and makes everything run smoother. Accountability and fairness make all the difference.

*edit
I appreciate the rational conversion, it really helps to review both sides of the story, and some points I've made are already being overlooked based on valid criticisms you guys have made towards this suggestion.

 

[Sceptre]

- Support​

Haven't read your entire yap-fest admittedly but rather skimmed over key points. You say the current system is convoluted, and then recommend a convoluted solution. I don't see this working in practice and feel it will create unnecessary divide.

Its either adapt or fall behind. Game-Tracker is registering Civil-Networks as #7 now, as before we were holding a solid #1 & #2 slot, respectfully. The system has always had its issues and clear problems on the server are directly tied to mismanagement and overly convoluted processes that don't get problems rectified when its absolutely critical.

This has to be one of the worst takes I've ever read. The server is dying and has problems, yes, we can all agree - it's not because Site Admin exists, and this suggestion won't fix it and it's inappropriate to suggest that it will. The server is dying from a lack of RP opportunities and gameplay loops becoming too stale. This modifies existing roles and splits responsibilities up to be even more confusing than they are now and offers limited RP creation opportunities.

 

[Dusk]

The server is dying from a lack of RP opportunities and gameplay loops becoming too stale.

You’re right, this is all tied to mismanagement and overly complicated processes that drag things out and stop critical issues from being fixed when they really need to be. It’s not just Site Administration causing this, either, it’s a collective mess of mistakes that keep piling up. The suggestion is simply a start to refining the roles on the server.

The problem is, there’s no real accountability and no effort to streamline the system to actually make changes happen. Without that structure, things just keep repeating. It’s not about one specific group dropping the ball, it’s the whole system failing to step up and get things done the right way.

---

This modifies existing roles and splits responsibilities up to be even more confusing than they are now and offers limited RP creation opportunities.

I don’t really see how splitting up three overlapping jobs and giving them specific focuses would limit RP or make things more confusing. If anything, it feels like it would make things clearer. Right now, having three people doing basically the same thing just adds overlap and blurs the lines of responsibility.

By tying a role to one specific demographic or area, it’s easier to understand who’s in charge of what. It’s not confusing, it’s just more focused. A role with a clear purpose and a direct scope makes things more linear and gives people better opportunities to specialize and create RP around that. Instead of everyone scrambling to do everything, you get clear, structured responsibilities, which just makes more sense.

 

[Arthur 'ISD']

+ Support i've seen this type of rp before and really liked it

 

[Jeager]

Major -Support. This grossly misunderstands the point of site administration and what we do. We overview all departments on the site outside of SC and A1/O1. Site Admin works with the department leaders to change things about the department and work on site wide policies. This also reads like a robot wrote it. Become a part of SA and understand what we do before making a suggestion like this please.

 

[Big Iron]

from what little I have seen of this post, you do not understand what site admin does nor do you know how it works, your solution to "fix all the problems" from what I have seen is stuff that site admin already does and is required of them. -support lets kill jeager and walter

 

[Walter Unrich]

Is this Border Patrol? -Support

Anyway, +Support, I wanna sit at HCZ Border to LCZ and scream at the LCZ Manager about how these guys are in my Territory now

 

[Niox]

-support lets kill jeager and walter

burn them at the stake

 

[budderdousgames]

-support
....but.....I dont want advisors or managers to deal with anymore...maybe this is cooking?

 

[Dusk]

Major -Support. This grossly misunderstands the point of site administration and what we do. We overview all departments on the site outside of SC and A1/O1. Site Admin works with the department leaders to change things about the department and work on site wide policies. This also reads like a robot wrote it. Become a part of SA and understand what we do before making a suggestion like this please.

Name one instance where efforts from Site Administration have improved the overall quality of the server. This does not include:

1. Rehashing words in already existing rulings.
2. Negotiating the same two treaties with the GOC or CI, only to go against them within two weeks and start a war.
3. Making announcements about existing content and policies that no one engages with because it’s too convoluted.

If you can provide something tangible to back up your points about department work, misunderstanding of SA, or site policies, I’d be more than happy to have a rational discussion about why I believe breaking up and transitioning into a multifaceted administration would be the better approach. Otherwise, player counts are historically down, so whatever it is you guys are advocating, it's not working.

*edit
I’ll leave this here because I know most of you probably didn’t read the full post. As individuals who are part of an Administration that focuses on clerical and interpersonal responsibilities, I want to ensure the points are clear.

• Resistance from Ego-Driven Positions
  Individuals in existing roles may resist the changes due to concerns about losing influence or relevance.