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

[Average member podidski]

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

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

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

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

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





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

 

[Average member podidski]

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

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

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

Heh, Evil working with Evil?

 

[Remmy]

Heh, Evil working with Evil?

Might be more fitting to say retard working with retard. I’m not practicing what I preach your suggestion is shite.

 

[Bindows]

 

[ionboy64]

@Beer I take it all back.... THIS is the worst suggestion I have ever seen...

 

[Skinner]

atomic level ragebait

 

[RedMann]

This is coming from somewhat of a good intentions, but in practice it would be detrimental for a good few reasons, i'll highlight a few off the top of my head;

1. 2 Weeks as a CL5 means you get to do nearly 0 long term RP with a large amount of players unless you are absolutely ready to go from then and there, and at that youd almost have to roster in when you are online, when you need other people to be online and plan out your rp, if you're planning RP out weeks ahead, is it roleplaying or just following a script?

2. A month as ECC/-1 is already in place, at least when I was ECC, and on UK, SSL started doing monthly assessments on RP leaders, wasn't the most public thing on planet earth but it didnt need to be, and to my understanding theyre still done today and have resulted in a persons demotion or removal on at least one occasion.

3. Any CL5 want to take LOA you just dont? If an O5 gets their role and something happens IRL or hardware issue and they need say a week away, are they just meant to only get to play O5 for a few days?

4. Let's say you start the server on ISD, you get your Agent training after a week, a month later you get your first CL4 role in Inspector, 2 or 3 months later you get that commissioner promotion, then 2 or 3 months after that you finally get accepted as director, then 2 or 3 months of hard work and you get to be an ECM, but then 2 weeks later you're off the CL5 roster, but your director and comissioner roles have already been refilled, so are hard working, good roleplayers expected to go from CL5, even ECC or -1, all the way back down to Junior CL4 just because? Doesnt seem very fair nor would it make me want to try get to those high positions.

5. Theres not enough people to fill all these positions, let's do some maths, in the space of 2 months (8 weeks) we'd go through 4 players as ECC and -1 and, assuming it was a new set of 6 players filling the ECM and O5 slots every 2 weeks, thats 48 players. Thats nearly half the server capacity.

6. Carrying on from Point 4 and 5, 2 weeks is not enough time for newer players to build up enough experience to be CL5, they won't have enough time to learn what it means and takes, but if ECC and -1 get cycled out then all the slots would have to be constantly refilled, so either Site Command goes empty or they're inexperienced, I dont know what's worse.

7. To carry on from Point 6, when I was ECC i ran monthly assessments on my ECMs, and when i took on new ones they had a month of a trial period, because in my experience and based off the experience of ECCs before me, thats how long it could take for someone to slot into that role comfortably, Two weeks would be far too short.

8. I find it interesting you didnt impose the same proposition for CI and GOC Commanders and Generals, kind of leaves an impression there's some people in Site Command you dont like making decisions you disagree with.

I understand where you're coming from, its important that people get a slice of the pie, but the positions filter out at the speed they do and it works, if a CL5 position opens every 3 or 4 months that's time enough for Senior CL4 to find their footing, leave their impact and show their worth and then step up, and for their Junior CL4s to step up to director positions.

If it were to be accepted, which I doubt, but the terms should be longer, 6 months for ECC/-1 and 4 for the rest of CL5, same for GOC and CI, and instead of a full on boot off the team, just make it so that people have to reapply, open the pool up to other candidates that could take a position, also means that people aren't kicked off O5 to go back down to Junior CL4 at best and CL2 at worst.

Somewhat good intentions but far too radical with how often people would be shifted in and out, there simply isnt enough experience nor time to gain that experience if a slot is to be filled as soon as possible