What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Remove the chain of command section in the rules, or rework it to say:
"Foundation Command hold ultimate authority over all other Foundation staff. Foundation Command also have the authority to delegate the Chain of Command as they see fit, given that Site Administration is above all other site staff."
From the previous rule:
4.01 Global Base Hierarchy - The following chain of command applies at all times. Foundation Staff in higher positions in this table can give orders to those in lower positions.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Similar suggestion here
I am suggesting that SL should have no part in how the chain of command is set on either server, besides the absolute fundamentals (Foundation Command must be at the top, Site Administration must be above all site staff, and obviously you can't have an Nu-7 CPL overrule and Nu-7 CSG). This is quite similar to the linked suggestion, however I believe it was a mistake to deny that suggestion in the first place.
Currently, if you disobey an order from someone higher in the chain of command, it is technically a rulebreak. This is pointless, as we already have IC ways to handle disobedience. As well as this, there have been times that changes in the chain of command would have been useful, but could not be implemented due to being in the rules and having to ensure cross server parity.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Roleplay will be generated from meetings discussing the chain of command, as well as the effects of those changes.
- Less ruleplay when disobeying the chain of command.
- Ease of change when needed (for instance, deciding that an MTF needs more authority over combative situations than the Director of Research).
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Possibility for abuse of power. Somebody could use it to put someone down on the chain of command due to OOC dislike.
- CL5 might make subpar decisions leading to sitewide confusion.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Overall, this is a positive step in giving our roleplay leaders more influence in how roleplay is conducted across the site. This removes unneeded barriers for positive change, and removes a strange piece of ruleplay that has been in place for too long.
Remove the chain of command section in the rules, or rework it to say:
"Foundation Command hold ultimate authority over all other Foundation staff. Foundation Command also have the authority to delegate the Chain of Command as they see fit, given that Site Administration is above all other site staff."
From the previous rule:
4.01 Global Base Hierarchy - The following chain of command applies at all times. Foundation Staff in higher positions in this table can give orders to those in lower positions.
Overseer Council | Ethics Committee
O5/Ethics Assistants (when under direct orders from O5/Ethics)
Site Administration (Site Director, Manager and Advisor)
Department Directors | Department Chiefs | MTF Commanders
DEA Managers | ISD Commissioners | MTF Commissioned Officers (Major)
O5/Ethics Assistants (when not under direct orders from O5/Ethics)
Executive Researchers | Medical Consultants | Inspectors | Special Agents | Security Captains | MTF Commissioned Officers (LT and CPT)
Internal Security | External Affairs
MTF Operative
Security Staff
All other personnel
O5/Ethics Assistants (when under direct orders from O5/Ethics)
Site Administration (Site Director, Manager and Advisor)
Department Directors | Department Chiefs | MTF Commanders
DEA Managers | ISD Commissioners | MTF Commissioned Officers (Major)
O5/Ethics Assistants (when not under direct orders from O5/Ethics)
Executive Researchers | Medical Consultants | Inspectors | Special Agents | Security Captains | MTF Commissioned Officers (LT and CPT)
Internal Security | External Affairs
MTF Operative
Security Staff
All other personnel
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Similar suggestion here
I am suggesting that SL should have no part in how the chain of command is set on either server, besides the absolute fundamentals (Foundation Command must be at the top, Site Administration must be above all site staff, and obviously you can't have an Nu-7 CPL overrule and Nu-7 CSG). This is quite similar to the linked suggestion, however I believe it was a mistake to deny that suggestion in the first place.
Currently, if you disobey an order from someone higher in the chain of command, it is technically a rulebreak. This is pointless, as we already have IC ways to handle disobedience. As well as this, there have been times that changes in the chain of command would have been useful, but could not be implemented due to being in the rules and having to ensure cross server parity.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Roleplay will be generated from meetings discussing the chain of command, as well as the effects of those changes.
- Less ruleplay when disobeying the chain of command.
- Ease of change when needed (for instance, deciding that an MTF needs more authority over combative situations than the Director of Research).
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Possibility for abuse of power. Somebody could use it to put someone down on the chain of command due to OOC dislike.
- CL5 might make subpar decisions leading to sitewide confusion.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Overall, this is a positive step in giving our roleplay leaders more influence in how roleplay is conducted across the site. This removes unneeded barriers for positive change, and removes a strange piece of ruleplay that has been in place for too long.
Donator
