Input Required: Fleet Timeline

[Fulana]

I am opposed to altering the timeline.

There are a number of factors you aren't taking into consideration.
1) The time it takes to go between destinations, which can sometimes take weeks, is never taken into account. (Granted, I don't want to be in transit for a week real time in my sim).
2) The fact that a lot of time is spent patrolling areas where NOTHING HAPPENS. Like the TV series, we don't deal with the boring stuff, just the high points.
3) It's a LOT easier to remember that you move the year ahead one every January 1. A lot of people would forget if they moved ahead LAST January or not. This is a nuisance factor. It's more of a nuisance to follow the 2:1 rule.
4) We fudge on so much in simming anyway. Promotions. Conflict resolutions. Missions. None of it is in real time. Keep it simple. Leave it as it is.
5) Why open up this particular can of worms? As has been voiced here already, this is going to cause a lot more trouble than it's worth and cause a lot of hard feelings. You want to unite the fleet, not divide it.
6) What happens if half the fleet goes with the 2:1 and have does not? Do you force the other half to comply? Do you run the fleet in two different timelines? Three years down the road, they'll be six years apart. In five they'll be ten. The fleet will be running on two separate clocks and get farther apart each year.
7) If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Leave it as it is. If individual COs feel this is a big deal, they can fudge things themselves. Don't change what's already working because you think we need to have more missions per sim year. Don't make it fleet policy.

Charlie

[Damion Wolfe]

I agree with Charlie 100% because everything else is just Epic Fail

[Yunalesca]

This is a prime example of other Fleets not bothering to learn from Obsidian Fleet's ST:2009 Failwhale. It's the kind of thing that encourages groups of simms to feel ignored, or forced in to things they don't agree with, and is the general cause for groups of simms to start their own fleet.

Epicly downvoted this epicly failwhale idea.

EDIT: It should be noted that the forums notate which IP addresses that people register/vote from. I find it rather undemocratic that someone has taken the time to report people for voting against the idea, without bothering to collect any evidence there to. This is supposed to be an open discussion about the topic. Just because someone disagrees with your point of view, does not give you the right to be a failwhale, and report their posts, rather than attempt to handle their concerns, via a reply in the post. Feel free to correct our points of view, if you think we have faulty reasoning, but harassing administrators with "Spam-Report" is just mean.

You have made me a sad, sad, Garden Gnome.
/Edit.

[Lan Parker]

Ah...shush! I just found it suspicious that so many people were registering and voting no I reported it to the moderators to check and I have been assured there is no problem. (Not that I needed assuring, I abstained )

[Mike]

I must say that I'm pleased to see that there is a strength of feeling about this. The last time we sent out an email surrounding this idea, it was greeted with a resounding silence so it's good to see that we've reached a point where everyone is finally comfortable enough to voice their opinions on matters like this.

Regardless of whether the motion passes back to the Admiralty for another round of raised voices and cookie throwing or whether it's left to wither as a testament to our bureaucracy, I'd like to assure those of you who have doubts, that the motion was put forward to you in the interests of you the players, the fleet as a whole. We're constantly trying to innovate and create something that stands out from other fleets and sure we won't always get it right- who does?- but I personally want to ensure you all that we're trying to help sims, not hinder them.

Whichever way you vote (and I hope you do vote one way or the other), I'm delighted to see discourse among the fleet. Rational discussion is the first step to greatness, as a Senator in the Roman Forum probably never said.

[Lan Parker]

>.<; Based on my Captain's advice then, I've revised my position to: "Off the fence".

[Estabar]

We're constantly trying to innovate and create something that stands out from other fleets and sure we won't always get it right- who does?- but I personally want to ensure you all that we're trying to help sims, not hinder them.

1) You cannot correctly claim to be "trying to innovate" and "create something that stands out from other fleets" by proposing a legislation that would turn Pegasus Fleet into a Bravo Fleet clone.

2) You cannot "help sims, not hinder them." by passing additional legislation that will only serve to divide.

[Mike]

I can see your point but I'm not necessarily referencing this piece of legislation. This idea is out there to be discussed and like I say, we might not have it right this time, I'm just trying to provide some reassurance that we're considering loads of different angles that could be interesting. I've had my vote and I've had my say. I'm not here to defend or detract from the legislation as a whole; that's for others to do.

If you're of the opinion that it would be divisive then that's your opinion to hold; I'm just trying to look at the positives.

[Williams]

Just wanting to offer a few reassurances or offer some alternative points regarding some of the issues that people have raised.

Just because Bravo Fleet did it isn't a good enough reason for us to even consider it.

Aside from the fact that Bravo Fleet did it isn't why this was suggested, just as it isn't reason enough to agree to it it isn't reason enough to not agree to it. PF is it's own entity and always have been, so let's just judge it on its merits or, as the case may be, demerits.

To me this is akin to when the powers that be in Obsidian Fleet forced the events of ST:2009 down their people's throats.

Prime reason why we won't force stuff like this down people's throats.

1) The time it takes to go between destinations, which can sometimes take weeks, is never taken into account. (Granted, I don't want to be in transit for a week real time in my sim).
2) The fact that a lot of time is spent patrolling areas where NOTHING HAPPENS. Like the TV series, we don't deal with the boring stuff, just the high points.

If we were just skipping weeks, or even a month here or there, then I wouldn't have even suggested this idea. But I see a lot of sims having to skip up to 6 months at a time because of how long their missions take, and that is a very large chunk of time for Ensign Newface to still be completely clueless about everything and everyone around him when most writers I know don't often develop interpersonal stuff between characters 'off-camera', so-to-speak.

1) You cannot correctly claim to be "trying to innovate" and "create something that stands out from other fleets" by proposing a legislation that would turn Pegasus Fleet into a Bravo Fleet clone.

2) You cannot "help sims, not hinder them." by passing additional legislation that will only serve to divide.

We use IFS. Does that make us an OF clone? We operate in the post-Nemesis time frame, does that make us a clone of all other fleets out there? Just because a few things we do may be the same or similar to other fleets doesn't make us a clone of them by any means. In fact, surely the way to build a strong organisation is to pick the best ideas and the best lessons from those that have come before you, and mould them together?

I wouldn't necessarily even see this as having to be a piece of legislation, even though that's what it was initially slated as. It could very well be as simple as having it as a GAC policy. Afterall, it would be no more restrictive in terms of storytelling or JMing than the fleet patrol zone is. I know very well that sims play outside of the Galactic South, and we have no right to force them not to. Hell, one might even go so far as to say having everyone stick to fleet standard specifications (which is compulsory, by the way, unless you get an individual exemption from the R&D office) is far more restrictive than something like this would be.


I just wanted to respond to those few points raised, but I agree with Mike that this shouldn't become some sort of artillery match; if you have points for either side of the view, please ensure that they are courteous and constructive to a civilised debate; afterall, it does nobody any good to start insulting an idea on an internet forum for a game we all play together, does it?

And whichever way the fleet populace decides to go on this, I just want to echo the above and just say that, regardless of which opinions they've been, or even abstentions, it is good to see so many of you responding to this, and I can already see that some of the other sections of the forum have started to pick up as well as a result of you all visiting the forums. It's gratifying to see people taking an interest

[Lan Parker]

*looks at previous post*.... Our admiral forgot one thing.

"/rant"