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.

 

[Jeager]

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.

Site Admin takes care of problems between or involving leaders of departments. We issue department wide projects, such as Project Fix-it, Project Mentality, and the recent Fentanyl crackdown. Senior CL4 promotions almost all go through us. There is one person per department in SA so your 5 man solution here doesn't work.

Otherwise, player counts are historically down, so whatever it is you guys are advocating, it's not working.

Its not Site Admins job to keep player counts up. We are RP Leaders. We make sure people are able to roleplay around the site and have the tools to do so.

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.

That's the point of a game, to have fun. If its not fun people won't play. If there's no goal why try. We are not a realistic server lets all be honest. There's tons of way more immersion breaking things that happen on the daily here.

There may be issues with UK Site Admin I'm not aware of but a full SA rework is not the solution. That effects both servers. Again, be a part of Site admin and understand the actual role of it before making a suggestion like this.

Also I'll leave this here

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

Let me make it clear. I'm not concerned about losing influence or relevance. Its an unnecessary change that copies the old system another server used before it shut down. You making a low jab like this only speaks to your own character.

 

[Jeager]

burn them at the stake

hey frick you buddy

-support lets kill jeager and walter

 

[Marvin Garden]

Warning: This is the perspective of a USA Server Former Site Director. It will not reflect how SA is handled on UK side.
Proceed at your own risk.

Hello,

People who know me well know that I am quite candid about my opinions, since I really just don't have time to be petty and beat around the bush, so apologies in advance, but a lot of what is said here is quite blunt.

Spoiler: Marvin's "Yap Fest"

When I read this, it reads like you've never actually been a member of Site Administration.

Designating an LCZ and HCZ manager sounds good in theory, but would ultimately be limiting in terms of reach, and would likely cause issues related to oversight in terms of overstepping boundaries. This specifically seems like it would pull power away from Department Leaders, which is antithetical to their role as capable managers of their sectors already. Speaking about the chain of command as well, it is very incorrect to how it is handled. In my experience, what usually happens is you go to a member of Site Admin, and they either exercise their independent authority to move it along or approve it, as they should, or they bring it to the group, and discussions happen. Because that is what Site Admin is, a group. Made up of independent individuals. A situation in which something is brought to Foundation Command should be rare because Site Admin ideally handles most matters independently unless it is a sitewide change, again, using their independent authority they are granted.

Site Administration consists of 7 members for many reasons, one of which is to have coverage. The server operates 24 hours, and not every member will be on-site at the same time. Designating an HCZ and LCZ manager would prevent actions being taken during differing hours when they aren't there to manage. The broad scope of their role allows SA to step into any given situation, whether LCZ, HCZ, or facility wide. Your proposed change would limit facility wide RP to just the Site Director and Foundation Command, which is stifling.

Site Admin also plays a bigger role in RP for the day to day operations, existing as an oversight in which a broad scope is actively needed. Most of the frustrations you seem to be having are related to the bureaucratic nature, which can be part of their activities. But that in itself is a type of RP. I would argue, that more often they are engaging with members of every department, providing a holistic RP experience rather than a bureaucratic one. You will find it bureaucratic if you make it so.

The assumed "Redundancy" of the role of Advisor vs Manager is reductive to their actual purpose which is to achieve checks and balances. Director does what you have already suggested, the selection of "Talent" with the manager positions, as well as the final decision on the Advisors. And ultimately, the distinction of what a Manager vs Advisor does can be realistically changed and decided by the acting Site Director.

Here are a couple of responses to some individual aspects of your aptly named "Yap Fest"

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 is not how SA functions, at least from a U.S. perspective. Site Admin is granted INDIVIDUAL authority for each member. Foundation Command acts as an oversight for the Site Director and designators for CoE and CoC, not for specific oversight of departments. They can certainly keep an eye on departments, but ultimately it falls to SA to step in, not Command.

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.

SIte Admin does delegate duties, specifically the oversight of certain departments. This does not mean that they are not granted individual authority, however, because they are TRUSTED to be able to make those decisions.
You also speak of overlapping roles, however the duties of the Council, Commitee, and SA, are quite clearly defined in multiple handbooks, and also provide different kinds of RP engagement for their roles.

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.

Again, availability is something integral to the server because shockingly, people have lives outside of a video game. We cannot be available 24/7 for every single little thing, which is what your suggested managers seem to be encompassing. Instead of a person going to one of SEVEN people, they are forced to go to TWO, who may not be explicitly available in their timezone.

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.

If this is genuinely a problem you are having, its a problem with the people. Ideally discussion is had openly among SA members so that the best decision can be made. While being likeable is fine, when you reach to leadership stages its selection due to competence. If an idea is good, it should be implemented or at least tested. And, I would again emphasize that SA is a GROUP. They work together, while still maintaining individual authority, which allows them to pursue their own RP and manage the site.

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.

When someone moves to SA, its not like they suddenly lose all knowledge of their previous roles. And I would argue, that the departments are where these bubbles are and should be, since Department Leaders are given the autonomy to manage their zones, and develop the "Talent" that seems to be so prevalent in your writing.

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."

Correct. It's called learning.

competing for attention in decision-making

I don't really know where the perception that bring up an idea is some kind of battle that must be won is coming from, maybe its a UK thing.

• 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

Citing your own argument earlier, "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."
Would this not make this worse for the Site Director?

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

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

Addressing both these sections, what you are proposing sounds like it HEAVILY dips into the roles of the Department Leaders. I think what people don't often realize is that Department Leads can just make changes. And if someone has a problem with a change, it can then be discussed, like changes should be.

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.

• Assuming talent is a requirement underestimates the ability for people to learn and change.
• Most handbooks are under the control of Department Leadership, because they are the ones that make changes. Most others are under Foundation Command such as the CoE and CoC, which grant authority to Site Admin. All others are changed with Group SA Discussion, because SA is a GROUP.
• Your proposed changes would still have the Site Director making the final hiring decisions, except in SA you have the benefit of advising on that decision.
• I agree with this point
• I also agree with this point.

For my final note, I will say three things.
1. There seems to be a perception that Site Admin hiring is a popularity contest. At least for USA side, discussions were always about the capability of the individual. In fact, support for applications has very little bearing on the actual hiring decision.
2. These positions have authority because the point is to have it. They are supposed to be in charge of managing the site, and creating large scale RP during their online hours. If people are power tripping, that in itself creates RP. As long as you deal with it in-character, it is encouraging the performance that RP servers strive for.
3. Not to doubt you, but the amount of nonsense verbiage and significant misunderstanding of the server's RP dynamic makes me quite suspicious of how this suggestion was generated.

Apologies for the somewhat hostile tone, but I genuinely believe most of what is written here would be a waste of time to implement, when the existing system could be tweaked and improved by the players already acting in those positions, using their own free time to dedicate themselves to this server.
This is not a job. We are not paid to be here. The "Talent Hiring" you speak of assumes that people who play Gmod all day are instantly talented, when really most of us are idiots, myself included. Instead, we learn the game, learn to RP, learn to create things that are truly great.

Signed,
Marvin Garden

 

[Dusk]

Site Admin takes care of problems between or involving leaders of departments. We issue department wide projects, such as Project Fix-it, Project Mentality, and the recent Fentanyl crackdown. Senior CL4 promotions almost all go through us. There is one person per department in SA so your 5 man solution here doesn't work.

If those projects were really aimed at making the server more enjoyable, then I’ll give credit where it’s due, at least there was an attempt. But honestly, I’ve never heard of ‘Project Fix-It’ or ‘Project Mentality,’ and I can’t say I’ve noticed any changes because of them.

Just rotating people through departments doesn’t fix anything. If you’re going to assign people to these roles, they need to actually be in the trenches, learning about the departments, understanding what’s wrong, and figuring out how to fix it. Speaking from personal experience as both a Chief of Security and an Agency Manager, this system rarely works unless the person in the role already knows the department inside and out. Without that, it’s just moving pieces around without addressing the bigger problems.

---

Its not Site Admins job to keep player counts up. We are RP Leaders. We make sure people are able to roleplay around the site and have the tools to do so.

You said it yourself, you’re RP leaders, and that role is directly tied to the new player experience and the overall environment for everyone on the server. If that environment isn’t inviting or at least enjoyable, people leave. It’s as simple as that. Which is the current case for the server, from my general observations of player counts and interest in specific departments.

---

That's the point of a game, to have fun. If its not fun people won't play. If there's no goal why try. We are not a realistic server lets all be honest. There's tons of way more immersion breaking things that happen on the daily here.

There may be issues with UK Site Admin I'm not aware of but a full SA rework is not the solution. That effects both servers. Again, be a part of Site admin and understand the actual role of it before making a suggestion like this.

I completely agree with what you’re saying. But there’s a catch when it comes to having fun and making sure others are enjoying themselves too. Sometimes, you might have to sacrifice a little bit of your own fun to create a better experience for everyone else. I know that’s not the most popular opinion, but it’s something that really matters.

As leaders, whether for the facility or the server as a whole, your main goal should be making sure everyone is able to have as much fun as you and your friends. It’s not always easy, but that balance is what keeps the environment enjoyable and inviting for everyone involved. The main point is that at times, making the system too convoluted and too expansive can create a domino effect that effects others in ways you may or may not recognize. My personal opinion is that giving roles to specify authority would create a more controlled environment, which in all cases would highlight accountability.

Let me make it clear. I'm not concerned about losing influence or relevance. Its an unnecessary change that copies the old system another server used before it shut down. You making a low jab like this only speaks to your own character.

As stated in the original post, it is a highlighted negative. If you think this point is a low jab, I cannot convince you otherwise. I apologize you feel this way but my point still stands.

 

[Dusk]

Hello,

People who know me well know that I am quite candid about my opinions, since I really just don't have time to be petty and beat around the bush, so apologies in advance, but a lot of what is said here is quite blunt.

Spoiler: Marvin's "Yap Fest"

Apologies for the somewhat hostile tone, but I genuinely believe most of what is written here would be a waste of time to implement, when the existing system could be tweaked and improved by the players already acting in those positions, using their own free time to dedicate themselves to this server.
This is not a job. We are not paid to be here. The "Talent Hiring" you speak of assumes that people who play Gmod all day are instantly talented, when really most of us are idiots, myself included. Instead, we learn the game, learn to RP, learn to create things that are truly great.

Signed,
Marvin Garden

Absolutely not, I really do appreciate the constructive criticism and the fact that you took the time to share your thoughts!

That said, I think the point might’ve been misunderstood. I’m pretty sure I explained what talent acquisition would mean for this system, and it doesn’t have anything to do with "how long you play GMod." Allow me to clear up any confusion because of the ramblings of an idiot as well.

The idea behind this change is to bring in people who have specialized knowledge in certain areas rather than trying to force everyone into the same mold. While Site Administration is definitely multifaceted, it’s not set up in a way that lets someone thrive if they’re stronger in one area than another. For example, if someone from E-11 Command wanted to take on an administrative role, the position of HCZ Deputy would be perfect for them. They already know HCZ policies, how things run there, and the entities housed in that zone, it’s a natural fit.
To clear this up a bit more, imagine combining combat skills and roleplay elements for the LCZ Manager and Deputy. Honestly, what a great mix! You’d get the best of both worlds, people who can handle action but also know how to shape their area at an administrative level. It’s way more impactful than just sticking to departmental tasks, which, let’s be real, rarely make a big difference when you look at the bigger picture.

Right now, though, people moving from more focused roles into Site Administration often burn out. They might be qualified, but the extra responsibilities just pile up and make it feel more like a chore than something they’re passionate about. What used to be enjoyable for them starts to feel like a grind, and they lose the excitement they had in their previous role.

This change isn’t about saying, "Get rid of all Site Administration." It’s about breaking things down from three broad jobs into roles tied to specific zones and areas. That way, people can focus on what they’re good at and actually enjoy, while also improving how things run overall.

 

[Jeager]

As stated in the original post, it is a highlighted negative. If you think this point is a low jab, I cannot convince you otherwise. I apologize you feel this way but my point still stands.

Its not the point itself that's a low jab, it was linking it in the reply. Its a completely valid point but to link in reply to criticism of your suggestion because the person criticizing is a high position is just you trying to wave a flag and say hey look I was right the high ranking guy did the thing.

If those projects were really aimed at making the server more enjoyable, then I’ll give credit where it’s due, at least there was an attempt. But honestly, I’ve never heard of ‘Project Fix-It’ or ‘Project Mentality,’ and I can’t say I’ve noticed any changes because of them.

Thats a UK v US server thing. They were specifically for US E-11 which you have no involvement in which is why you would have never heard of them. A lot of stuff SA does isn't exactly seen by the public.

Just rotating people through departments doesn’t fix anything. If you’re going to assign people to these roles, they need to actually be in the trenches, learning about the departments, understanding what’s wrong, and figuring out how to fix it. Speaking from personal experience as both a Chief of Security and an Agency Manager, this system rarely works unless the person in the role already knows the department inside and out. Without that, it’s just moving pieces around without addressing the bigger problems.

Lets break this down a bit. Being in the trenches is not what site admin does, that's what the department leaders and their command teams are supposed to be doing. Finding the issues and fixing them. If it is something out of their hands such as a site policy or a bad director that is when it is elevated to Site Admin to fix. We are here to advise and assist, not to run departments. We are not a third director or second commander. The rotation of site admin serves to bring fresh perspectives to what the department leaders could do to fix issues they are having trouble tackling. It also serves to help prevent corruption or bias from taking root in departments at the highest levels. The system works if the people working within the system and under the system are doing their jobs.

You said it yourself, you’re RP leaders, and that role is directly tied to the new player experience and the overall environment for everyone on the server. If that environment isn’t inviting or at least enjoyable, people leave. It’s as simple as that. Which is the current case for the server, from my general observations of player counts and interest in specific departments.

This also seems like a US v UK issue. I cannot comment on UK issues much here as I am not a part of that server.

I completely agree with what you’re saying. But there’s a catch when it comes to having fun and making sure others are enjoying themselves too. Sometimes, you might have to sacrifice a little bit of your own fun to create a better experience for everyone else. I know that’s not the most popular opinion, but it’s something that really matters.

Sacrifice of our own fun is almost all of what SA is. We do boring paper work and policy work all day. The little reprieve we have is interrupted every 10-15 minutes by either a CI raid or SCP breach which can last up to an hour, granted that's a problem for all non-combatives not just SA. Its an opinion I wholeheartedly agree with though.

The main point is that at times, making the system too convoluted and too expansive can create a domino effect that effects others in ways you may or may not recognize. My personal opinion is that giving roles to specify authority would create a more controlled environment, which in all cases would highlight accountability.

You have mentioned that the current system is too convoluted and expansive though the entire thread. Simply put I don't agree. Site admin watches over the site as a whole. Each member has one or two departments they watch over each month, and at the end of the month they choose to either keep their current one or swap to one that someone else had the month before. If there is something you don't understand about the current system I'm happy to answer any questions you may have but it may not be 1 to 1 with the UK side. Your suggestion on the other hand is very expansive for each person. HCZ manager realistically would just have E-11 they are watching over, while LCZ manager would have every other department. Another issue is ISD. ISD is so entwined with ethics(atleast on the us server) that to make them report directly to the LCZ manager would destroy so much built up infrastructure that it would take months to recover, not to mention the fact that ISD can investigate Site Admin and having them report directly to them even in a different form would completely shut down that entire facet of RP potential.

In any case I still believe you are trying to take a sledgehammer to a problem that only needs a knife. A full SA rework is not going to solve the problem of miscommunication and people violating treaties.

Edited to add some stuff I thought of after I originally posted the thread

 

[grunger]

This was the system implemented on GamingLight's SCP:RP servers and they average ~0 players nowadays. Granted, it was a grossly mismanaged and greed-driven server, but if anything is a threat to CN's longevity, an administration overhaul isn't it. The activity decrease you see comes down to player numbers never being as high as they are in the summer, with influxes of people with spare time to try out new servers.

I like the three-tier Site Administration structure. I like seeing an active advisor on site who can field departmental concerns, who can then share it with the rest of administration. This is possible with the existing hierarchy because responsibilities and concerns are basically common from advisors to the director themselves.

I'm not opposed to the idea of managerial zones, but having the same administration overseeing a department for the entire duration of their position may get old after a few months. It would be comparable to holding a rank above a departmental director; climbing your way up a department, only to sit right at the top of it. No matter how you try to approach the issue of burnout, there will be some level of counterintuition to the proposal. If the entire point of progressing into Site Administration is to eventually graduate into Site Command, well, you're going to have to endure departmental and GOI politics across the entire site.

 

[Dusk]

Its not the point itself that's a low jab, it was linking it in the reply. Its a completely valid point but to link in reply to criticism of your suggestion because the person criticizing is a high position is just you trying to wave a flag and say hey look I was right the high ranking guy did the thing.

I wouldn’t say that exactly. The main point I was trying to make is that I put a lot of thought into the post, made it detailed, and included important material that answers a lot of potential questions. But from what I’ve seen, people clearly skimmed over those parts. Your initial response, which I do appreciate, grotesque or not, felt like it came from a surface level place of misunderstanding. That gave me the impression that you prioritize the image of Site Administration over the actual duties which this post attempted to clean up and clear up. That said, now that we’re having a civil conversation about it, I’m inclined to think otherwise.

---

Thats a UK v US server thing. They were specifically for US E-11 which you have no involvement in which is why you would have never heard of them. A lot of stuff SA does isn't exactly seen by the public.

Again, the main point is there was really no discernable changes regardless of the targeted audience. From the time I started playing which I'm assuming this project was created before, E-11 has been in the same rough state since the time I left, this project was assuming after SL intervention.

---

Lets break this down a bit. Being in the trenches is not what site admin does, that's what the department leaders and their command teams are supposed to be doing. Finding the issues and fixing them. If it is something out of their hands such as a site policy or a bad director that is when it is elevated to Site Admin to fix. We are here to advise and assist, not to run departments. We are not a third director or second commander. The rotation of site admin serves to bring fresh perspectives to what the department leaders could do to fix issues they are having trouble tackling. It also serves to help prevent corruption or bias from taking root in departments at the highest levels. The system works if the people working within the system and under the system are doing their jobs.

You guys are the enacting bodies of the facility, so why have rotating Administrative personnel unless the goal is to fix specific departmental issues that department leaders can’t solve on their own? Otherwise, it just feels redundant—like saying, “I’m here to help, but you guys got it. Don’t worry about me.” That doesn’t bring a fresh perspective. Sure, it’s a helping hand, but I wouldn’t call it fresh insight. It goes back to my original point: you need to actually understand the department to be a helping hand, otherwise, you risk being a liability instead of an asset.

As for the idea that this “helps prevent corruption or bias from taking root at the highest levels”, correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t Server Leadership had to step in multiple times this year to resolve departmental or regimental issues at the highest level? And I’m not talking once or twice, this has happened at least twice within four months, right? That just circles back to my point: if the people assigned to oversee departments don’t understand how they function, or aren’t confident in their knowledge, things slip through the cracks. When that happens, leadership ends up stepping in to clean up the mess anyway. My goal of this change is to have individuals already in their respective positions at the Administrative level, so we don't have to rotate people to be a helping hand, they're already there fixing the problems.

---

This also seems like a US v UK issue. I cannot comment on UK issues much here as I am not a part of that server.

I can’t speak SUPER in depth about this either, but from what I’ve consistently heard from leaders over on the UK server, it seems like they’ve taken the opposite approach to what the US server has adopted. The UK server leans heavily into being lore, and RP driven, which might lead to less initial player interest but seems to help with player retention because there’s always more depth and activity going on to keep people engaged.

On the other hand, the US server has definitely gone for a more "shoot first, ask questions later" vibe, which seems to resonate negatively with players in departments like Internal Affairs or Research that focus more on roleplay as you can tell by the wasteland in some cases that is those departments. That theme works for a lot of people, but it also creates a very different culture between the two servers.

---

Sacrifice of our own fun is almost all of what SA is. We do boring paper work and policy work all day. The little reprieve we have is interrupted every 10-15 minutes by either a CI raid or SCP breach which can last up to an hour, granted that's a problem for all non-combatives not just SA. Its an opinion I wholeheartedly agree with though.

I completely agree with what you had to say.

---

You have mentioned that the current system is too convoluted and expansive though the entire thread. Simply put I don't agree. Site admin watches over the site as a whole. Each member has one or two departments they watch over each month, and at the end of the month they choose to either keep their current one or swap to one that someone else had the month before. If there is something you don't understand about the current system I'm happy to answer any questions you may have but it may not be 1 to 1 with the UK side. Your suggestion on the other hand is very expansive for each person. HCZ manager realistically would just have E-11 they are watching over, while LCZ manager would have every other department. Another issue is ISD.

So, expansive and convoluted relative to what ties the position together. You have your three main bodies that all function as the same unit the only difference is the internal barriers you put up to delegate who does what, there's really no difference in position outside of a information barrier and authorization barrier which again is more of an internal decision instead of a baseline responsibility. My suggestion takes that away, splits that responsibility up and hands the leadership over to the subordinates of the initial site administration. Sure you can argue that you'd eventually be a leading body over something you were once a Director for, but now you have to do the same for another department you may not be familiar with. Why cut out the middleman limit and potential; instead put the person already fixing the problems into an elevated position to fix the problems with more scrutiny?

I wouldn't necessarily say its more expansive my suggestion. You'd have your respective leaders in Administration already doing what they were doing, and now you could have a deputy that is more knowledgeable about a field you may be unfamiliar with, its the best of both worlds. You're put into Site Administration with the idea that you're overlooking EVERYTHING, HCZ and LCZ would be overlooking only their respective locales and groups in-between.

---

ISD is so entwined with ethics(atleast on the us server) that to make them report directly to the LCZ manager would destroy so much built up infrastructure that it would take months to recover, not to mention the fact that ISD can investigate Site Admin and having them report directly to them even in a different form would completely shut down that entire facet of RP potential.

I’ve actually argued against this before, Site Command should not be a group you casually interact with. That’s the whole point of having a Site Director who already has access to CL5 information. Ethics might seem to overlap with certain groups or favor them, but that’s because they inherently share the same ideals, not because they’re the same type of organization.

While Ethics may have most of their information declassified, it doesn’t change the fact that they are an entity that oversees everything, not just one aspect of the facility. It’s important to maintain this standard so that there’s a clear line of authority. This also ties back to my original point: Site Command exists more as a position for enjoyment and for individuals who aspire to it as a goal rather than as a core necessity.

That said, I’m a little confused by your argument. How would this restructure lead to a catastrophic difference? ISD would still report to Site Administration for surface level operations and normal facility behavior, just as they do now. And for matters that specifically require it, they’d still escalate to Ethics. Changing the structure of Administration wouldn’t inherently alter these reporting lines, it would just reframe who handles what. The core operations remain the same.

In any case I still believe you are trying to take a sledgehammer to a problem that only needs a knife. A full SA rework is not going to solve the problem of miscommunication and people violating treaties.

I wouldn’t call it a sledgehammer, maybe more like a roofing hammer. But really, every system has its own problems and solutions, and this one is no different. From what I’ve seen during my time on the server, the same rotating list of issues just keeps popping up over and over again.
The difference is, when a change is made, it either sticks or mutates into an old problem with some extra layers. If the changes do stick, the server runs great for a while, but then things eventually start to slide back to how they were before.

At the end of the day, the system doesn’t work as smoothly as people like to say it does. No matter how well changes are implemented or who’s responsible, the pattern speaks for itself. Past incidents show that the problems are still there, just wrapped in different packaging.

 

['Dutch']

I cant believe I actually read all this yap. It seems to me that you do not understand what SA do. Also, I think it is different on UK then US. Seeming as we here on UK are focussing more on RP creation, instead of having a random war with goc.

 

[Dusk]

I cant believe I actually read all this yap. It seems to me that you do not understand what SA do. Also, I think it is different on UK then US. Seeming as we here on UK are focussing more on RP creation, instead of having a random war with goc.

I’ve got a pretty solid idea of how Site Administration works. Out of all the groups, their workload isn’t all that complicated. To be successful as an Administrative leader, it’s more about being diplomatic and interpersonal than anything else, it’s not overly technical or demanding in other ways.

That being said, it’s not fair to let one group fall short just because another one is doing well. Both need to be held to the same standards, with a focus on making sure everything runs smoothly.

To clarify, this suggestion isn’t about getting rid of Site Administration. The whole idea is to prioritize roleplay while keeping a strong system of checks and balances in place. It’s about finding a way to maintain authority and accountability while making things more engaging for everyone. It’s about improving the system, not tearing it down.

 

[Dusk]

This was the system implemented on GamingLight's SCP:RP servers and they average ~0 players nowadays. Granted, it was a grossly mismanaged and greed-driven server, but if anything is a threat to CN's longevity, an administration overhaul isn't it. The activity decrease you see comes down to player numbers never being as high as they are in the summer, with influxes of people with spare time to try out new servers.

I’ve never played GamingLight, but the fact that they’ve fizzled out while we’re still going strong says a lot about how much people still enjoy this game. That being said, there’s definitely a downside, we’re losing new players, unique visitors, and even retention for those who stick around. Previous years, Summer and Winter were always busy, with servers maxing out during peak times and never really dipping too low during downtime. I honestly can’t remember a time when either the US or UK servers were running at just 5-15 players, even during the slowest hours, and they always hit the cap during highpop times. Now, though, it’s clear things are changing.

The player data is all public, so if you haven’t looked at it yet, I’d suggest taking a look. It’s really interesting to see how the trends have shifted and what that could mean going forward.

I like the three-tier Site Administration structure. I like seeing an active advisor on site who can field departmental concerns, who can then share it with the rest of administration. This is possible with the existing hierarchy because responsibilities and concerns are basically common from advisors to the director themselves.

The major takeaway from this is you like administrative presence. Everyone does, the only issue is appealing to this 24/7 will never be the case.

I'm not opposed to the idea of managerial zones, but having the same administration overseeing a department for the entire duration of their position may get old after a few months. It would be comparable to holding a rank above a departmental director; climbing your way up a department, only to sit right at the top of it. No matter how you try to approach the issue of burnout, there will be some level of counterintuition to the proposal. If the entire point of progressing into Site Administration is to eventually graduate into Site Command, well, you're going to have to endure departmental and GOI politics across the entire site.

I’m a bit confused about how this ties into my suggestion. The whole point is to keep Site Administration, but to break up the redundancies and make the roles more specialized. The duties aren’t going anywhere, they’ll still exist. If needed, names and roles can be shifted around to fit the changes. At the end of the day, every role comes with a certain level of monotony. The real difference is what you’re doing to break that up and stop people from burning out. That’s exactly what this suggestion is aiming to address.

 

[Sebastian]

holy shit the amount of Yap

Anyway, -support changes to make things more complicated has never helped anyone; everyone is used to the current system, and it works well enough.

 

[grunger]

Previous years, Summer and Winter were always busy, with servers maxing out during peak times and never really dipping too low during downtime.

Oh no, CI Commander Putin is threatening to detonate 5000 Alpha Warheads on the US and UK, guess that means CN SCPRP will be down for a while!! 1 day without CN SCPRP:
I'm all for trying new things, but don't expect such a system to suddenly draw in 128/128 players every waking hour like it used to. There are greater things to worry about, more interesting hobbies to take up, and endless social media doom scrolling that people busy themselves with now that we aren't locked inside.

 

[YandereMuffin]

This idea is an interesting change, but truly I don't see how this would be that large of a difference than what we currently have - but instead of specific SA being tied to specific departments, they would basically be tied to locations instead?

I simply just don't see any positives in the change that is this idea, other than just bringing something new into the server - which isn't a very good reason to massively change things in my opinion.

I'm not gonna lie, I haven't read every single comment here so maybe something interesting/cool has been said, but just based on the idea alone I dont see how this would really fix anything or make anything better.

 

[Wulfric]

-Support

 

[Aithaed]

Suggestion Denied

---

Hi Dusk,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.

This suggestion would overhaul the various roles that Site Administration fulfills for minimal practical benefit. Adjusting the areas that SA can oversee into your replacement of "X Roles in LCZ/HCZ and Y Roles when in LCZ/HCZ" arbitrarily limits their authority within the site, splitting it into impotency and potentially creating friction between the now-defined "factions".

Among other issues, your suggestion also intends to address corruption, mismanagement, accountability, and "Ego-Driven Positions". No element of this suggestion would quantitatively improve such issues.

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