At 5/10/08 04:36 AM, Hemlok wrote:
I remember the DEFCON system. I hardly remember it being used in the Barracks, something we should be more aware about.
There's a reason: I've never been around... :-/ Generally I'm the only one that did the DEFCON system, so I think it's time to make things a bit more official. If people feel the DEFCON really needs to be changed, and I'm not around, it follows the chain of command down from me to the 2IC, then the 3IC. If none of the three are on, then it defaults to the Portal Ops. If the Portal Ops isn't on, it finally goes to a consensus of all online officers. I updated the DEFCON guide and the Officer Guide to reflect this.
Even my own friggin officers haven't seen the DEFCON...jeez... :-)
Yeah I've been inactive for awhile now, just recently came back a week ago. I don't plan on leaving again any time soon, but I completely understand if my role as Advancement Officer is given to someone else who has been hanging around here for awhile now. Looks like those Operation Officers are inactive. Those roles are in need for some changes.
Well, I tend toward keeping an officer in position rather than swapping them out at the first chance. Since you've returned and plan on staying active, I don't plan on changing you out anytime soon. Only those officers that don't really post anymore (and don't seem to have intentions to do so) really will get swapped out. I try to be fair in that regard and not penalize people for actually having lives. :-)
I agree with some the idea of more active members becoming Officers. As I recall you did make good decisions in the last Officer enrollment. Not just choosing active users, but people who had some experience with the role they were going to be assigned. I'm sure you will do the same again.
Your vote of confidence is encouraging :-)
Congratulations Joshiwa! I'm sure you and NEVR will do a fabulous job on our rosters.
From the conversations we had last night, I trust fully that they will.
At 5/10/08 05:35 AM, TheNossinator wrote:
EagleRock,
I'm quite interested in the NGPD Liason position, listed as inactive.
I started the roster for the NGPD and also wrote a theme for them, so I thought I'd apply.
Thanks.
While I'm generally not the biggest fan of self-nominees, I do have to say you sound right for the position. I will be keeping my nominees in the air as I feel out who is right for the roles. I like to get feedback from all my members on who they feel should be in what position. As with all the other positions, I'll be feeling things out first before I make any final decisions.
At 5/10/08 10:32 AM, NEVR wrote:
Everyone should read these through, especially if you're not sure about any of these aspects of the Barracks. If you have any questions, you can always ask EagleRock, or any other officer. :)
All looks great, sir. Like you said though, you DID go to grad school ;P
Yeah, go figure. Six years of grad school so I can type up stuff for the Internet. :-)
At 5/10/08 11:02 AM, DBlach wrote:
Due to your inactivivy (no offense) no one around here used the DEFCON levels in your absence, so I had no idea what they meant. Thank you for clearing everything up!
None taken. I know I'm inactive, and I never claim to not be. :-/ And yes, that is the exact reason why noone knows about the DEFCON...it is ultimately all my fault. That's why I've make it more clear who is in charge of the DEFCON, what it is, and all that jazz for when I'm not around. That way THIS time, it won't get lost in the mix.
Also I've noticed that the discipline, activity, and post quality in the NGPD has taken a dramatic turn for the worst. Talking about nothing, tons of one liners, and other unacceptable behavior is rampant. I believe in TailsPrower, he is a great leader, although he can be a little lax at times, It is my belief that if some one high ranking in the barracks (such as yourself) would make an appearance and let them know what the expectations for a good barracks member are, then they might shape up a bit.
I appreciate your concerns for the NGPD, and I like your suggestions. However, they really don't fall into my rhetoric, and I'll tell you exactly why. When the NGPD was created, it was created specifically to differentiate the Police Officer ranks and the Elite Guard ranks. They always were their own club, and were never part of our own. While I agree that it's a good idea to have more official Barracks face time in the NGPD (via Laisons), I don't necessarily agree with strolling in and saying what we expect from them. I do have a deep respect for TailsPrower and the way he runs things, as he has done the most for the NGPD than I would imagine anyone else. I'd say by now, he's even passed Peregrinus' contributions there. Since doing that would really be trying to usurp his power and acting like we're better than the NGPD, I really don't want to roll on in and tell everyone how they should act, as it is unfair to him, and I certainly would not like him to do the same.
That being said, it was a good suggestion, and I do like the way you think. :-)
At 5/10/08 12:19 PM, PossiblePancakes wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?
Again, more great suggestions. I think that their recruitment system is a bit more formal than I'd like ours to be, but it does bring up a good point. Traditionally our recruitment system was Slash or I would review the person, post history, flash, reviews, etc. and feel out the person. However, if both of us are inactive, it kinda falls apart. I'm not saying that our recruitment system is bad, it just needs to be more robust, and has more people involved. This way, if neither of us are posting for some time, we don't just let everything fall apart.
At 5/10/08 12:46 PM, NEVR wrote:
Actually, the DEFCON levels have been used during EagleRock's absence, but they were mostly decided by Slash, and once he became slightly less active, there was nobody to raise or lower it.
I did notice him doing some DEFCON updates too here and there. Either way, now the system is a bit more transparent how it works, so noone will be confused.
Personally I don't think that the NGPD's week-long trial does a whole lot for weeding out good members from potentially bad ones. They don't do extensive background checks, but often just take the members at face value - just checking their stats and most recent posts, etc.
I agree. Trial periods aren't usually the way I did things. If they were not good for the role, I said no. if they were, and needed to shape up a bit, I told them to shape up and apply again. However, since noone is really disallowed to post here (with some exceptions), they can post here if they really want to, which makes for an informal "apprenticeship." However, if you're in, you're in, and if you're out, you're out.
I think that our current recruitment procedures are good, although the discussion period could stand to last a bit longer. As it is, it's only approximately 24 hours, so a lot of members don't actually get a say on the new member whilst they're under discussion. I'd suggest extending the validation period to something along the lines of 48 hours - it's a bit longer for the recruit to wait, yes, but it gives more people the chance to go have their say.
Speaking of which, I'd like to see more members getting involved in the discussion and background checks on new recruits.
I agree. Like I said, it'll take me a bit of time to think about how this will work, but I do want more people involved in recruiting. However, if we know the person is good for the job, I don't like the idea of making the person wait for the sake of waiting.
Wow, long post...
OK, I'm done here. I'm going to be out for the day (my mother's birthday), but I'll be back later. I'd like to hear more discussions like this and nominees for the various roles that need to be filled.
*salutes*
