TODO: Update Rules

User avatar
Verran
Commander
Commander
• Event Manager
• Game Manager
• News Manager
• Red Dragons
• Senior Officer
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

TODO: Update Rules

Postby Verran » Sat Dec 26, 2015 4:10 pm

Rules need to be updated to specifically state that only active members may sponsor/vouch.
User avatar
Verran
Commander
Commander
• Event Manager
• Game Manager
• News Manager
• Red Dragons
• Senior Officer
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Verran » Fri Jan 01, 2016 12:22 pm

Make Turkey Shoot rules a bit more clear for folks.
User avatar
Verran
Commander
Commander
• Event Manager
• Game Manager
• News Manager
• Red Dragons
• Senior Officer
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Verran » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:06 pm

If a Senior Officer steps down, should they be allowed to vote for a new Senior Officer? Pigmy pointed out the rules are not clear on this.

I am thinking: by default, they shouldn't, but they are allowed to request to be able to vote. If they don't request voluntarily, they will not be included in the vote.

Pigmy also pointed out there are no rules about ties. What decides a tie breaker? I say the Commander has the final decision. Or the XO if the Commander is unavailable or abstains. Or, a randomly selected Lt. Commander if Commander/XO are not either available. Something like that.
User avatar
Icewolf
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
• Black Lions
• Junior Officer
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: ISD-II Avenger TIE/x1 Squadron

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Icewolf » Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:10 am

User avatar
Verran
Commander
Commander
• Event Manager
• Game Manager
• News Manager
• Red Dragons
• Senior Officer
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Verran » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:52 pm

User avatar
Verran
Commander
Commander
• Event Manager
• Game Manager
• News Manager
• Red Dragons
• Senior Officer
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Verran » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:09 pm

Another, bringing in from recent SR Officer emails, initiated by me:

Update the rules to state JR Officers should NOT, by default, invite new associates to join their own squad (if the associate is undecided). Rather, recommend both the JR Officer and associate look at which squad needs activity/help and go from there. But, ultimately, the decision IS up to the associate to finally decide.

After several back and forth discussions and communication clarifications, it sounded like Icewolf, spud and Tigeron agreed with this change / perspective.

Leaving this open for a bit in case any more discussion should take place. If not, rules will be updated and will ask Icewolf to update his tutorial and contact JR Officers with the clarification. Will email SR Officers with link to this forum topic.
User avatar
Icewolf
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
• Black Lions
• Junior Officer
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: ISD-II Avenger TIE/x1 Squadron

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Icewolf » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:06 pm

User avatar
Verran
Commander
Commander
• Event Manager
• Game Manager
• News Manager
• Red Dragons
• Senior Officer
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Verran » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:39 pm

It isn't a limitation. It's a default guideline that provides a recommendation towards balance.

For example: right now, if I were on Mumble and working with an associate who wasn't sure on a squad yet, I'd point out Blue and Red need help. I wouldn't immediately invite them to Red because I'm in Red. But if they were on and playing while a bunch of us Red folks were on, I wouldn't be surprised if they picked Red on their own.

That's how I attempted to address it in the write up.
User avatar
Icewolf
2nd Lieutenant
2nd Lieutenant
• Black Lions
• Junior Officer
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:52 pm
Location: ISD-II Avenger TIE/x1 Squadron

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Icewolf » Sat Jan 09, 2016 5:08 am

Sure, such guideline should be there.
User avatar
Tigeron
Lt. Commander
Lt. Commander
• Event Manager
• Game Manager
• Gold Phoenix Guard
• News Manager
• Senior Officer
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:40 am
Contact:

Re: TODO: Update Rules

Postby Tigeron » Sun Feb 05, 2017 3:40 pm

1. Sponsor/Vouch: I agree. Your status must be Active before you can sponsor or vouch.

2. Turkey Shoot: I agree. Anytime a statement is made that may potentially unclear, it should be changed or text added to be more specific or more clear to reduce any doubt as to what is actually being said.

3. Voting: If a Senior Officer steps down and his reduced rank does not entitle him to vote then he should not be able to vote even if a request to vote is submitted. If his reduced rank still allows him to vote then he can vote.

4. Voting Ties:
Option 1: If the total possible number of votes that may be cast is an even number then the commander should abstain from voting.

Option 2: If the vote results in a tie then further discussion is necessary and another vote is cast. If the second vote also results in a tie then the item is tabled for 30 days. Another discussion follows and a third vote is cast.

If the third vote also results in a tie then the highest ranking Junior Officer below Captain from each squad is submitted for selection. If more than one person holds the same rank below Captain then the person holding that rank the longest is submitted. If it cannot be determined who has held the specific rank the longest then the Squad Leader will select one individual of that rank to vote.

Until the item on the table is resolved, no promotions to Junior Officer status may take place in any squad. This means from the first voting which resulted in a tie.

The actual selection of the individual to cast the tie breaking vote will be selected by lot. There will be no discussion with the individual concerning the item to be voted on. Arrangements will be made with the individual to attend a Senior Officer meeting and at that time the individual will be informed that their input is needed.

A short discussion concerning the item on the table will commence and either an entirely new vote is cast (as always another tie may result depending on who is at the meeting) or the individual selected will cast their vote to break the tie. It is not necessary to actually tell the individual that their vote will break a tie. Just allow the individual to cast a vote and excuse them from the meeting.

Option 3: The Commander will vote and if the vote results in a tie then the Commanders' vote will take precedence and automatically break the apparent tie.

Notes:
Option 1: Since by default the number of Senior Officers are an even number it is not entirely fair to the Commander not to allow him to vote. It must be assumed that all Senior Officers will cast a vote. There have been times in the past with no Captain in a squad which will result in an odd number of votes. But this does not happen very often.

Option 2: This is not a selection by chance as the Junior Officers are prime candidates for Senior Officers. Final selection of the tie breaker by lot is one way partiality can be avoided since prior selection by rank and/or term of rank criteria has been met.

Option 3: This is the most simple and straight forward path that we can take.

5. From Icewolf: "Squad's captain should be nominated automatically."
It is a reasonable assumption that normally the Captain would be in a good position to take over a squad as Squad Leader. So I will agree.

6. From Icewolf: "Squad leader nomination should include officers only, since those should be the ones who expressed the will to support the league in many ways and were accepted (promoted) - by definition of junior officer." I do not agree.

I know of at least one circumstance where a Junior Officer was in conflict with their squad leader that resulted in a demotion. The individual had no chance of becoming a Junior Officer again under that squad leader. This would have precluded this individual from being nominated if we incorporate this in the rules.

7. I agree with Icewolf to only publish nominee nicknames without reasons. If it was a general election where all members would vote then publishing the reason would be warranted.

8. New Associates: When I first joined the Rangers we had well over 100 active members. I would say that maybe 50 were very active, another 30 played several times a week and the remainder played every now and then. Today I think our membership may top out around 80 with only about 15 being very active and another 10 or so playing several times a week with the remainder playing every now and then.

Even without using any numbers, it is apparent that membership and activity has dropped off from what it was years ago. Coupled with that, we are playing a game that is not available in retail stores and now not even online. So the opportunity for new members arriving to join our ranks are getting few and far between.

There have always been Associates that have not completed the membership process but it is more noticeable today. When an Associate becomes a Cadet, many only play a few games or a few months and then we do not see them anymore. Then we have members that join a squad but are not interested in playing Ranger games. They play DCL or other games instead. The lack of activity in a squad is much more apparent and each member plays a greater percentage role in over all squad activity or lack thereof.

If you have a dozen members in your squad and half of them only play every now and then, that only leaves half of your squad being spread out between the very active players and the ones that only play several times a week at most.

People play Descent for various reasons and most have responsibilities that prevent them from playing more. Then again most people will not want to live on Mumble sitting and waiting for a game. I use to take vacations days from work just to stay home and monitor Kali to play Descent but I don't do that anymore.

Anyway that you slice it, the process of selecting a squad to join is not working any more as the imbalance between squad activity shows. We need to maintain activity balance between squads as much as possible. Without a good foundation of activity from squad members playing, squad activity is going to suffer. When squad activity changes, be it more activity or less activity, we need to make changes to help maintain a balance of activity across all squads.

The first responsibility of each member should be the league and not the squad. With this in mind I present the following recommendations:

Take the squad with the lowest overall activity and put them on deck (next in line to receive a Associate). If there are 2 squads with about the same overall low activity then place both squads on deck.

This will require a initial assignment of a Associate to a squad. The suggested term is for 6 months. After 6 months the member may if desired apply for transfer to another squad. If a transfer is desired during the 6 month period, it must be approved by the Commander or if not available, the XO.

Example: At the present time Red Squad has the lowest activity and they would be on deck. It looks like at this time they could use 2 more activity members. Lets say even after getting 2 more members, the activity is still very low. They would continue getting new members until their activity increased on par with Blue Squad (the next lowest active squad).

At this time both Blue and Red Squads would be put on deck. Also at this time a new Associate would be allowed to choose between these squads as to which they would prefer to join. This would continue until the activity of both squads increased to be on par with Black and Gold squad. At this time the choice of available squads to join can be opened up to all squads as it is now. This will help in maintaining across the board activity between squads which will benefit the league in the long run.

The selection of which squad or squads to be on deck, can be done through a simple email of the Senior Officers. As activity increases or decreases, the squad on deck can be changed in a few days at most.

The 6 month term was chosen to give ample time to determine if the new Associate was going to maintain activity. It does not help squad activity if they receive 2 new members and the new members fail to have a decent amount of activity. It would be as if the squad did not receive any new members at all.
Tigeron

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users