specious [ˈspiːʃəs]
adj
1. apparently correct or true, but actually wrong or false
2. deceptively attractive in appearance

Yeahhh... Math was never my strong suit but thankfully logic and reason always have been. Logically, if other fleets our size with our active player base had this problem, best believe they'd have made a huge racket on the forums about it by now. Has anyone heard such murmurings and if so could they please provide a link on the STO forums? If not, then one can reason that since other fleets get along just fine with balancing their provisioning projects, so too can we. Once we get to tier 5 I'm sure all of this will blow over but I really encourage others to please add your opinions as you have been invited to do so and your input is important. :)

Quote by Araa

we're only temporarily out of one provision; not a big deal and a normal part of the growing pains of the process.

Not temporarily. We cannot run enough projects to supply a 500-member fleet. As I said, this is math. So here is the math with greater specificity:

There are 4 different engineering personal provisioning projects. (One costs 200,000 dilithium for 10 provisions and is not getting filled even when we do run it, so I'm not counting that one.)

There are three others, each of which takes 20 hours to complete once we fully fund it. So the MAXIMUM number of times we could run each of those projects in a week is 8.4 times. That assumes that we instantly fund each project as soon as it is available. If we did that, and ran no other projects at all, we would make 378 engineering personal provisions each week.

And those 378 engineering personal provisions would cost us:

15,120 Fleet Marks
1,344,000 Dilithium
1,008,000 Expertise
10,080 Data Samples
6,300 Industrial Energy Cells

Those are the costs per week.

Now, considering that this would get us 378 provisions to be shared by 500 people, what are the chances that we are going to get people to contribute at this level? So we can safely project that we are never going to get anywhere near 378 provisions produced per week. Moreover, the interface doesn't allow us to run those projects that often. Let's say we managed to fund and complete each project 3 times per week (which would only cost 480,000 dilithium per week): that would give us a production of 135 per week.

On the demand side: Let's say each fleet member buys one thing a month from the store. A fleet ship weapon or whatever. That is a demand of 125 per week. Very close.

Now, what if Cryptic comes out with a new ship? Like a couple of Dominion carriers or a Breen cruiser or an Ambassador-class. Crazy, I know, but bear with me. Suddenly, people are buying alot more than one thing a month. Even if people only buy an average of 2 things from the store per month, the demand will consistently be double the available supply. This is why our ability to supply the store with provisions is never going to keep up with demand in a fleet this large. Math.

These numbers are still going to be there even after our other projects are done. It is a permanent condition. Not temporary. And that is why we need permanent controls on the store so that we can regulate access and make sure that provisions are available on a fair basis. This existed and worked before, and it will work again. But it must be permanent and it cannot be less than the full "shopkeeper" system we had before.

You have a simple choice: the inconvenience of finding a fleet captain (or other responsibe empowered party) when you want to get into the store versus perpetual and chronic shortages. There is no magic compromise where you get to avoid both of these, not in a fleet of 500 members.

We'll hopefully be back to normal and supplying everyone

It is starting to feel like it does when you are arguing against climate-change deniers or birthers. We cannot supply everyone! So stop saying that.

Quote by dtjohnsonanimated

...
Andrew Christian models are notorious in LA for a lifestyle that is entirely meaningless and physically dangerous. The worst personification of West Hollywood one could picture.

I lived in West Hollywood at Santa Monica and Kings Rd for 11 years before moving to the Valley, and I've never heard anything like you describe. What is the source of your information that holds that Andrew Christian models are "notorious" for leading lives that are entirely meaningless. Who has said these things? Just curious.

--Rob

Hee hee hee, think we can get an even longer thread? I'll be brief...

@Voleron - Sorry, you're totally right and I used sloppy language. We're not totally open, I was just poorly expressing my feeling that the two week + vetting barrier is lower than I'm really comfortable with. The bigger question is, does anyone think fraud is one of the causes of the problem?? Any weird registrations/departures? If it's not happening, then we can happily ignore the entire concern!

@Traull - Good question... my feeling is that we only put a voluntary quota on the one class of provisions that is limited exhausted. And since that's just ground weapons/shields/armor, I like the idea of returning to a max of 4 items until the provision count is stable. Then we slowly increase the number and ensure no one's using them for their BOFFs. [Edit: Just realized this is pretty much exactly what bullocaj said]

@ToddO - Yes, you do get to do a bit of an 'I told you so' dance, as the most conservative voice in the debate. But I still feel that this was the right decision with a net gain for the fleet. Resources are now being used and enjoyed rather than sitting in a bank, and the administrative burden has been lowered for everyone. And it was kind of a non-event in that we're only temporarily out of one provision; not a big deal and a normal part of the growing pains of the process. We'll hopefully be back to normal and supplying everyone as soon as the fab bottleneck issue is out of the way, potentially with some additional precautionary constraints in place [TBD]. Stay tuned, success is on the way!

As a temporary stop-gap measure I feel it is fine to re-institute the Gatekeeper..Protocol (nodes graciously at Aikune@whitonmyoji) until that department is back up to manageable levels. If it should arise again I would support this measure again if necessary but hope that with a few adjustments it will not need to be. This issue is no ones fault and a simple miscalculation in the supply vs. demand of certain fleet provisions. Now that we know we can adjust our fleet projects according to offset the imbalances.

Crows of righteous victory and vindication from the new system's nay-sayers aside bless their hearts, this truly is not the end of the world and can be attributed to simple oversight and mitigating factors that did not originally exist.

Nick clearly stated that the reason for the shortage was most likely the lack of adequate provisioning due to other active projects in other areas. Only one department of the fleet store had trouble so if statistics can be considered viable math, the new system had far higher percentage rate of success than failure and was not necessarily the result of greedy players.

We've also had a tremendous influx of new members (Yay new members! :cheer: ) since we've instituted this change and many of them were not fully aware of the previous Gatekeeper system and the great deliberations we engaged in to change it and why. Since we had so many new members at a time when the provisions were unable to be quickly and easily replenished so lets chock it up to a few growing pains and move forward.

Araa did in-fact propose a longer wait period than was decided and so did I and many others, and we were all a little surprised at how short the period decided was.

Another factor to consider is the fact that maybe so many more players (not necessarily new ones) made use of the fleet store under the new system, who under the old Gatekeeper system apparently did not. It could be considered a clear indication that many of us were uncomfortable in asking for permission from an officer for access, many that did not speak up on the forums for one reason or another.

The fact that only one department is temporarily depleted is no cause for the kind of reactionary, pugilistic rhetoric designed to change people's minds by scaring them into a more conservative stance bless their hearts. But I suppose we're all products of our environment in one way or another. I am very happy to have been invited to offer my opinion on this matter along with the rest of our wonderful community and have full confidence in our ability to solve this minor but still important issue.

That's ok Keioel, I may or may not have had a little tryst with John Blaine from the Cho Show to get back at a manipulative ex-boyfriend. ;)

We ought to all go kick it out in WeHo sometime. :)

Quote by Araa

Personally, I always prefer taking the more cautious approach, so my recommendation hasn't changed from our previous discussion, which is that, after rebuilding our stocks, we should try the open store approach with both of the above precautions (i.e., voluntary guidelines and a waiting period) and see if that will slow down demand sufficiently.

You favor the more cautious approach? Not the way I remember it. In our last round of this debate, there were calls for caution and you were having none of it. The more cautious approach was to avoid this eminently-forseeable state of affairs in the first place. We can debate what got us here, but your overabundance of caution wasn't one of them! LOL.

In any case, does this mean that this discussion has finally moved on from "trust and egalitarianism and liberty" and "allow anyone in the fleet to buy directly from the stores" and "I'd totally leave the door open" then? Thank the gods!

And, always thinking of our desire to continually improve the fleet, there may be a lesson in this outcome.

Ya think? You were the one who said "I tell ya, whenever the lowering of the gates eventually does happen, it'll be the biggest non-event there ever was." Just dying to hear what lesson you think there is in all of this...

As you may recall, every member involved in our previous discussion was concerned about this happening and suggested ways to avoid it.

That's not how I recall it at all. Luckily, we don't have to rely on our recollections, we can go back and read what people wrote. And that is not the way it was. People were saying things like "you can't walk in to the provision store and empty it" and "because our provisions continue to increase over time, so we don't really need the quotas" and "I do not see the harm [] if we opened up access to the fleet store" and "personally, I feel there's so little actually worth buying in fleet stores that it shouldn't be [a problem]". Oh, look at that, we can also cut-and-paste what they actually wrote! The wonders of modern technology!

While I was highly impressed to see the leadership team take a much more bold and risky decision than any of the members were comfortable taking

Baloney. They did exactly what you demanded they do.

I am glad we have gone back to the "gatekeeper" system, because it eliminates the risk of raids on the store and and discourages over-consumption. Also, it was working just fine before and didn't need fixing. I hope and pray that we keep it that way for good. We cannot run enough projects to provision a fleet of 500 people without strict controls. That is not opinion, that is math. Supply will never, ever meet the demand in a fleet this large. And that, John, is the lesson in this outcome, in case you were unclear on that point.

Oh, and just one more time for fun...

Quote by Araa

I tell ya, whenever the lowering of the gates eventually does happen, it'll be the biggest non-event there ever was.

I think it might be a good idea to start out with limitations on some items, just so we can build up our supply of engineering provisions. Once we're stable again we'd be able to lift some of those restrictions. My 2!

Holy Shit, he debased himself in front of the entire company and he still has a job? ::mindblown::

On a side note I may or may not have made out with Bobby Trendy before he was Bobby Trendy.

I was specifically referring to having a sense of ambition or desire to better oneself, I find OC to have far more of them in the gay community then LA. Now the I can see why you had a much worse experience in OC then LA when it comes to the "scene." It's gotten better, especially in Santa Ana thanks to Vlvt, but if you attend any of the "mainstream" gay community parties or clubs it's even worse then LA.

I don't agree with your post about Laguna and Costa Mesa being where the current generation is headed, we don't know what they're going to be like at that age because their experiences have been radically different.

Quote by mrgig00

C. Is there a particular number limit on items this time (i.e. one ship per person, 8 weapons, 1 engine/shield/deflector, etc...) or is it just a general "discouragement" for the armor, weapons, and engines provided by Engineering Personal Provisions? :

This has been brought up and is being discussed.
Tell me, what do you think would be a good limit? Or would a limit be a good idea at all?
This is an open discussion:) looking forward to your input

I see method and keep thinking "Rhythm Method" Can we call it the Provision Protocol?

Speaking of Twinks (not that I have a problem with people who have that body type, just not my cup of tea.)

I think the another major issue in our community is how we appear to the outside world because of the actions of this younger and intensely vapid subset of our community who are obsessed with being the next Bobby Trendy or Perez Hilton. Who only gossip, throw shade and say or do whatever the hell is on their mind regardless of who they might hurt or alienate.

Example: There's a guy named Johnny who works in the JustFab division of my company. That's basically like Shoedazzle but Kimora Lee Simmons is our "creative director." She doesn't design the shoes and handbags and accessories, she just signs off on them like most celebrities-turned-fashion-designers and probably cant sow a stitch. I work in the skincare/cosmetics/haircare division DSBeautygroup so I don't have much dealings with him. He's in his early 20's, tall, skinny and of Phillipino descent and his fashion role models are Michael Jackson, Kurt Hummel and Peggy Bundy (we're talking leopard jeggings and heels).

Now if you act or dress contrary to your gender I don't have a problem with that. And I might actually like this guy and "as Cher Horowitz says:" give him snaps for his courageous fashion efforts, if it wasn't for the extreme ego that colors a caustically vapid personality. Everything this guy says and does is designed to draw attention to himself. Catty shade-throwing and random non-sequiturs laced with vulgar profanities is how to interacts with everyone in the company, even the CEO.

At the company Holiday party we had a dance off and he made it to the final round. As the competition wore on he started stripping off his cute little ensemble until he was just in his skinny jeans with his Andrew Christian underwear poking out. At one point during the final round he bent over, lowered his jeans and underwear and spread himself to the audience. Yes, the whole company saw his anus and I know it made people uncomfortable. I really felt the need to go around to my fellow coworkers and say "we're not all like that."

I know it made a lot of people uncomfortable and since this was a work function those would be ample grounds for sexual harassment and an immediate dismissal but most people know that Johnny has been cited by HR for sexual harassment before and got off scott-free with a slap on the wrist. He's the web designer for JustFab and a prominent member of the "creative team" and is also featured heavily in Kimora Lee's reality show and our own marketing campaigns and Kimora loves him to death. So he does as he likes and sachets around the office not giving the time of day to anyone beneath him like he was Kimora Lee Simmons and he was a high-profile celebutant. I know a lot of talented gay people (my BF included) who could do his job way better without all the spectacle.

There are about 6 other "Out" employees at the company and we all just collectively SMH whenever he performs another antic to garner attention. I ask myself why anyone would willingly debase themselves and embrace such a vapid persona in the name of personal validation? It's ok to live out loud and want to be fabulous and let your freak flag fly, I'm all for it but there's gotta be more to it than a desperate need for attention. The pursuit of fame for fame's sake is one of the greatest follys a person can commit.

I would call him a Bitch but he would probably say "Yes, honey I am a bitch and proud of it." So I'll call him an ass instead because that's what he makes of himself everyday and I feel it reflects very poorly on the rest of us. Is he a successful gay professional in the beauty industry? Yes, totally but the attitude he projects is one that is consistently negative, shallow and painfully stereotypical of a large chunk of this town's gay community and he celebrates it. And so do a lot of other young gays just like him and I find that terribly depressing. Its unapologetic, in-your-face, rude and all in the name of "I'm fabulous and can do whatever I want." Ugh!

(sigh) There.. Rant over, I've been holding that in since December :laugh:

Quote by chemkarate

On a related note, the US is rolling out a new generation of carriers itself. The name of the class isn't as cool (Gerald R. Ford class, seriously)

Just think, eventually there will be a George W Bush class...

Honestly, though, we've had enough presidents where they had a better choice of names than a bumbling oaf who wasn't even elected. James A Garfield, Zachary Taylor, hell William Henry Harrison would have been better.

More on topic, it's very cool that the UK moved forward with the plans to make the larger carriers despite all of the detractors crying about them.

I'd still love to see a twin hull carrier built, though. I feel that I remember seeing a design that had been proposed to the US Navy, but the designers may as well have been trying to propose a floating circus tent or UFO. Anything with an appearance that breaks from the established norm rarely makes it very far with the old men in charge of approval.

agreed, we do tend to worship the people at the bars over the people actually fighting for our rights.

HAHA, really? OC? I had a way worse experience there than LA. At least with the city you had a much larger community with greater diversity. You can easy see the douche bags and stay away from them. It's as easy as just keeping your distance from particular areas of the city or just not taking them seriously.

OC, more so than even my suburban nightmare of Riverside, is so saturated with repressed, spoiled children who have a lifestyle just as image obsessed, over medicated, and promiscuous as anyone in Weho. Only difference is that they are far less honest about it... which I find to be worse. In both your and my community you also have to deal with staggering amounts of racism within the gay community and over-obsessions with young twinks.

Now some of the people i knew from Laguna and Costa Mesa that were older, more established, and just had a preference for suburbs were much nicer and more stable. But that can be said about LA or any of the gay ghettos. Just depends on who makes it through the crucible of youth in first world spoiled society.

Well the friend I was referring to now lives in New York and he did the modeling and stuff on the side for shits and giggles. I think the major issue with our obsession on body image and hyper sexuality in our ghettos is the simple fact that our local "heros" are go go dancers and porn stars. So young impressionable minds see the adulation and worship that go go dancers and porn stars receive so they begin acting accordingly. Sadly, my biggest issue with our community, especially in LA not so much OC, is the complete lack of ambition and resistance to ending self medication. They just want to drink, fuck, rinse and repeat. Achieve something? Become something better? But then I won't have enough time to "party hard" with my "friends." ::punches in throat::

A. I completely understand the return of the "Method," but I am so glad it won't last long.

B. Engineering personal provisions are out? This is why you shouldn't try to deck your whole boff roster with fleet armor.

C. Is there a particular number limit on items this time (i.e. one ship per person, 8 weapons, 1 engine/shield/deflector, etc...) or is it just a general "discouragement" for the armor, weapons, and engines provided by Engineering Personal Provisions?

Thanks again for the heads-up beforehand, and being inclusive in the decision-making process. It really means a lot, and I love my fleet because of things like this. :cheer:

Very cool! Not terribly interested in Navy hardware myself, but I think it's cool there is going to be a massive carrier class named after Queen Elizabeth.

On a related note, the US is rolling out a new generation of carriers itself. The name of the class isn't as cool (Gerald R. Ford class, seriously), but the third ship is going to be named Enterprise. It will apparently be the ninth ship to bear the name.

Also Keioel,

Given your location we probably know the same model personally. And after being a friend to this person for a good decade now, I can tell you that his appearance as a nice, fun person (and at one point a huge Star Trek fan) hides a very dark, selfish, and dangerous side. Given our history I count my blessings that I emerged from our time hanging out together with my health, career, self-respect, and -mostly- spotless reputation.

Those that I have worked with at different events didn't seem to show much more substance than that one did... but I haven't met them all.

Quote by Araa

"Some people may be fraudulently joining the fleet to purchase weapons" - Here we could use the same technique used by other fleets and use a waiting period before allowing new members access to the store. I haven't seen any fleet take the totally open approach that we do, making us potentially an easy target...

...And, always thinking of our desire to continually improve the fleet, there may be a lesson in this outcome. As you may recall, every member involved in our previous discussion was concerned about this happening and suggested ways to avoid it. While I was highly impressed to see the leadership team take a much more bold and risky decision than any of the members were comfortable taking, perhaps in retrospect we should have incorporated a few of the members' ideas and taken a more measured approach to rolling the new solution out.

I'm personally quite interested in continuing input from everyone on this issue, but it's important for everyone to have accurate information, so we're all on the same page as the discussion progresses.

I just wanted to clarify that the fleet store has never been "completely" or "wide-open" for anyone to make purchases, as has been suggested. New members to join the fleet, do so at 'cadet rank', and remain at that rank for a minimum of two weeks, not just after joining the fleet, but also after having created an account on this website, and having made an introductory post on the forums. This provides us with a bit of additional information about our prospective member, before we consider promoting them past the probationary rank. As a cadet, purbases cannot be made from the fleet stores.

Only after the probationary period has expired and no complaints or other red flags about the cadet have arisen, will the prospect be promoted to 'member' status. Only upon obtaining full member status, are they in a position to make purchases from the fleet stores.

I'm not sure if you were aware of this or not, Araa, or if you refer to it as a "wide-open" story policy, because in your view, the probationary period is just too inadequate to address your security concerns. If that's the case, then that's completely fine... that's why we're asking people to weigh in... but it's important that everyone else is aware of what's actually in place, so that informed conversation can take place moving forward :)

Upwards and onwards!

Dave.