View Single Post
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 258
# 28
05-10-2013, 01:28 PM
My comments in red, inserted in-line in the quotes.

Originally Posted by xtern1ty View Post
Section 1 - Articles of Fellowship
United principles which serve all players and fleets.
You are not entitled to speak for all players or all fleets, and have yet to show any moral high ground from which to make these proclamations.

~ 1.1 -
Fleet play enhances and maintains a better STO. So I, as a solo player, detract from STO as a game environment? I think not, and it's arrogant to suggest that Fleet play is the only play that enhances or maintains the game.
~ 1.2 -
All players have the right to participate in any fleet of their choice, with that fleet's approval. No player has a right to participate in any Fleet, even one of their own creation. Players have the privilege of creating a Fleet, accepting a Fleet invitation, or applying to join a Fleet of their choice. This is a privilege that can be revoked at any time, so caveat emptor.
~ 1.3 -
Practice of good relations towards other fleets provides a less stressful community experience. While cordial relations can be a productive part of community building, so can competitive relationships. PvP Fleets wouldn't be as motivated without rivalries, for instance, and there are many aspects of the game in which Fleets can have valid competitive or adversarial relationships.
~ 1.4 -
The community system should be used to unite players, not initiate discord. As long as conduct doesn't violate the Terms of Use, it's fair game. If people want to have rivalries and antagonistic relationships, they should be allowed to do so.
Originally Posted by xtern1ty View Post
Section 2 - Articles of Community (Fleet Law)
Common principles for all players in fleets.
Again, this comes across as being arrogant and speaking for/to all Fleet players from a position of authority.

~ 2.1 -
All fleetmembers should treat their associates with respect, mindful there is a real person on the other end of the computer screen. Yes, common courtesy is a good thing.
~ 2.2 -
Though the fleet player is primarily responsible for their game character's welfare, they should be freely provided with aid and support should they request. No one is entitled to handouts of any sort be they temporal, financial, or material. People can ask nicely, but should definitely not expect to get such handouts, or feel entitled to them.
~ 2.3 -
No fleet leader in a multi-leader fleet should change fleet settings, including forum, logo, bank and rank settings, without prior consultation and approval of fellow leaders, unless that leader is primarily in charge. This is up to individual Fleet policy, and is what permissions are for. If someone's overstepping their bounds, it's the job of the other leaders or the Fleet founder to take action and reduce their permissions. This can be solved in-game without resorting to a document such as this.
~ 2.4 -
Fleet recruiters, especially in already large and established fleets, should not overzealously pursue players or engage in disruptive recruitment practices such as spam recruiting. Recruiters will do what they will do, and if obnoxious, the game has the "Ignore" and "Report Spam" features to prevent intrusive chat use. Also, players have the option to turn off the ability to be invited to Fleets, thus countering the tactic of blind invites.
~ 2.5 -
New fleetmembers should be given a minimum 1 week trial period to assess their harmony and comfortability with the fleet before advanced rank adjustment. This is up to each individual Fleet, and their metrics may vary drastically from what you've suggested here while still being valid. Examples include requiring a certain level of contribution to Fleet starbase projects before rank advancement, participation in a certain number of Fleet events (PvP or PvE) before rank advancement, or simply participating actively in Fleet chat prior to rank advancement.
~ 2.6 -
Fleet exclusion or kicking should be an option of last resort, implemented only upon Leader or responsible administrator approval, for provable actions that are notably hurtful. Fleets are social clubs, not employers. They do not have to provide notice or justification for the removal of a member. It might not be fun, but that member can try to find a Fleet that better suits their needs next time.
~ 2.7 -
Players should not join a fleet to engage in any action undermining that fleet's stability, such as befriending members to leave for their own fleet, otherwise known as fleet luring. While this isn't as free-form a game as EVE, social competition is still a valid form of gameplay. Some people enjoy it, some people don't. Also, situations like this can arise naturally, without it being the initial intent - how do you propose discriminating between the two occurrences?
~ 2.8 -
A player should not intentionally use a fleet for game financial advancement, such as by tricking leaders into granting a rank of responsability, then using that rank for a hostile takeover. Again, this is the sort of gameplay that MMOs can, and sometimes do, encourage. It's up to the leadership of the Fleet to impose sufficient barriers to entry/oversight/responsibility on higher rank positions to deter would-be thieves, and having a caveat in a document like this will do literally nothing to prevent this from happening.
~ 2.9 -
Fleets should not engage in collective disruptive behavior towards other fleets or players, such as deliberate stalking, trolling, griefing or any other form of harassment. Any behavior that violates the Terms of Use should be reported. There is already a mechanism to handle this issue in-game
~ 2.10 -
Inter-fleet disputes should be settled peacefully upon a negotiated settlement or by choice of game combat. What inter-Fleet disputes could possibly necessitate this sort of resolution? If two Fleets have irreconcilable differences, they can just as easily elect not to interact with one another.
Originally Posted by xtern1ty View Post
Section 3 - Articles of Leadership
Advice and strategies for leaders or any in charge of a fleet from those who've been there.

~ 3.1 -
Be active, preferably playing daily to keep in touch with members and remain relevant to the fleet. No person should be expected to play a minimum amount, regardless of their position in a Fleet. Dictating people's real world schedules is intrusive and rude.
~ 3.2 -
Uphold and follow your own rules. Do not engage in behaviour you prefer other fleetmates not practice. Hypocrisy is not a popular position for leadership to take. I would imagine that this would be a self-correcting issue, as people would be more likely to leave a Fleet with an actively hypocritical leader.
~ 3.3 -
If given a position of trust, do not abuse that trust or credibility in one's character will suffer as a result. How on Earth will "'s character... suffer as a result"? There's no way to impose sanctions on a given character, other than socially, which is handled adequately by current in-game systems. If you mean that one's moral character or reputation will suffer, well, that should be readily apparent - lying and cheating don't earn you friends.
~ 3.4 -
If word has been given, engage action as said or explain good reason why not, to further maintain credibility.Again, a common social convention whose violation is self-correcting. This line is useless, as there's not a social situation in which you can toss your obligations out the window without good reason and without loss of face.
~ 3.5 -
Do not accept bribes, engage in rulebreaking, entertain in futile and timewasting fights with players or put oneself in a position by which another player may ascertain moral high-ground. Who really cares about any of this? If it's a violation of the Terms of Use, it should be addressed using in-game means. If it's not, it should be resolved between the players involved, not a one size fits all charter document. Especially funny, since you seem to be approaching this whole thing from a position of having the moral high ground over others.
~ 3.6 -
Remain composed in situations of drama, do not be offended by personal remarks, sarcastic behaviour or taunts, in order to think clearly for appropriate action. - Very hard to master.Legislating emotions now, are we? Interesting choice. Anyway, tolerance for 'drama' will vary from one group to the next, and should be handled by that group's common consensus/internal rules, rather than a one size fits all document.
~ 3.7 -
Be protective of account(s) you hold and one's game character when playing, at all times. Being protective of your account details is intrinsic to playing an MMO, and most of them have a clause in the Terms of Use about just such issues. This is already handled there.
~ 3.8 -
If a leader wishes to leave their office, they must specifically delegate another member or members to undertake it. Why? Obviously it sucks to have a Fleet go derelict, but it happens and can't honestly be prevented, since there are lots of conditions that can and do contribute to things happening.
~ 3.9 -
Do not be dismayed if members undervalue your service to the fleet. A true leader is one who does the dirty work, so everyone else can enjoy their time. Much of what you do are little things others take for granted. A good leader must maintain a steady course of accomplishment, regardless of popular opinion. "Keep your head up" is good social advice in general, but a leader should definitely pay attention to public opinion. If, for example, you take it on yourself to fill all Fleet Mark requirements personally and people have a problem with that, it's not "maintain[ing] a steady course of accomplishment", it's running roughshod over your Fleet members.
~ 3.10 -
Be rational yet think with heart, calm but decisive, honest to your friends and fellow members and protective of fleet's best interests. Philosophizing is all well and good, but isn't what a charter is generally for.
Originally Posted by xtern1ty View Post
Section 4 - Articles of Enterprise
Universal goals that endure.

~ 4.1 -
Fleets that utilize the Code are dedicated to maintaining STO's enjoyable community environment. Fleets that don't use the code are dedicated to maintaining STO's enjoyable community environment as well, but not necessarily in your narrowly-prescribed manner.
~ 4.2 -
Remain active and be the best you can be by virtue of quality deeds. Define 'quality deeds' in a manner that encompasses all types of gameplay and interpersonal interaction, please. Too vague otherwise.
~ 4.3 -
Be not afraid to reach out to other fleets if you are unable to reach your fleet goals on you own. I have no idea what you're trying to say or accomplish with this line, so I can't comment on it further.
~ 4.4 -
The measure of your fleet legacy will be defined by your actions as a fleet and by the benefit you bring in maintaining a sound fleet system and thriving game. Sorry to be nihilistic, but the measure of your Fleet legacy will be nothing. There are over 15,000 Fleets in STO, so any one is a drop in the ocean at best. Even disregarding that, the legacy of all but the most dedicated multi-game Fleets will be nothing, as the servers will one day come down or be reduced to a tiny, insular population. And the dedicated multi-game Fleets certainly don't need a document like this one - they're all but guaranteed to have something more robust and functional of their own.
~ 4.5 -
Remember the future will always be open to new members, new endeavours and activities. The future will always be open to new members up to the cap of 500, of course.
All righty, then, since you wanted direct focus on the issue at hand, I've gone through line-by-line and commented on why I agree or disagree with each article in your proposed charter. I still disagree with the whole thing on principle, and for much the same reason that I disagree with morality legislation and clauses in the real world. You can try to regulate human behavior, but you'll almost always wind up stepping on someone's toes or rights in doing so.
Joined January 2010.

In regard to hating Star Trek 2009
Originally Posted by kain9prime View Post
IDIC fail.

Last edited by darkkindness2; 05-10-2013 at 01:43 PM.