Quote by Araa
Since you ask, here are the arguments against the status quo Todd, in no particular order. I'll let you do the ones against our alternative if you like.
I like the current system because it is the result of a serious discussion and compromise, it is accomplishing it's stated goals, and it is completely fair by applying to everyone without regard to how long they have been in the fleet or what they have contributed (mine is the only truly egalitarian option that has been discussed).
But I will state my reasons for supporting our current compromise by responding to your reasons for opposing it:
1. Inconvenience - Some people find it very hard to get an FC to help them, particularly people not in NA. I generally see 2-3 requests not get answered/day. Ironically, officers don't see this problem, by definition. :-) This creates frustration, we heard about one person who wanted to leave the fleet over it
Yes... I remember that one person complaining about how hard it was to buy fleet provisions! First he wanted free access for everyone, and when he was told that we weren't going to do that, he asked to be promoted to fleet captain, and when he was told that we weren't going to do
that, he robbed the bank and quit and joined another fleet. I will confess that knowing how badly our system inconvenienced our bank robber doesn't make me feel very sad. Does that make me a bad person?
2. Lack of utility - Quotas seem to be too restrictive currently, provisions are piling up and not being used, which is what they're there for. Members and officers should be out there with their fancy fleet gear, not with it piled up in the store!
As was mentioned before, there is some evidence that people are waiting for the upgrades so they can buy the elite level gear. I know that is what I am doing. Once we have access to the top-of-the-line equipment and ships, I believe we will see people start spending. I would be open to revisiting this debate at some point after we have maxed out the base and see what people are or are not actually buying. People like me are deferring our purchases, not declining to purchase at all.
3. Inefficiency - It's a significant drain on members AND officer's time, to have to interrupt or be interrupted whatever they're doing and oversee a purchase both before and after
That has not been my experience. When I have asked for access to the fleet provisions, it took very little time and the fleet officer seemed very happy to help me out. So it hasn't been a drain on
this member's time, and I haven't heard any fleet officers complaining about the drain on their time, either. This one just isn't borne out by the evidence.
4. Heirarchical - It places a divide between members and officers, requiring the subordinate members to ask permission from the officers, going against our highly egalitarian values
No... calling some people members and some people officers places a divide between them. This is the nature of any organization: some people have positions where they have greater power and greater responsibility. You can't get around that. Why not just make us all Fleet Admirals and be done with it? I'll tell you why not: because that would be stupid and wouldn't work out. We already divide recruits from cadets from members from captains from admirals from fleet admirals... and you guys are suggesting dividing people who have been in the fleet for 89 days from those who have been members for 91 days? Your proposed system or windows is actually
more heirarchical than the current system.
5. Distrusting of members - The enforcement mechanism says to members, we need to oversee your purchase to make sure you don't buy too much. Implication: You aren't trusted (Note: TOTALLY realize this isn't intentional at all, but the process can implicitly leave that impression on some of us, as we've heard from a few people in the thread)
So we should replace it with one that tells the member who has belonged for 89 days that he is less trusted than the one who joined two days before he did? Do you TOTALLY realize how preposterous that is? At least under the current system, everyone is treated the same. No member is more trusted than any other. The fleet distrusts me and thee in equal measure. I, for one, like it that way.
The current system is fair. A "window" where we distrust anyone inside it and trust everyone else is simply arbitrary, and thus inherently unfair.
a cooldown period to prevent random fly-by purchasers and guidelines to prevent over-purchasing.
Cooldown periods are arbitrary and divisive.
Guidelines, by definition, don't prevent anything, ever. Let's assume that everyone already knows that stealing is wrong... a "guideline" is not going to prevent anyone who wants to steal from doing so. Or is it your theory that thieves will think to themselves "I would like to steal that, but that guideline is blocking me! Aaarrgh! Curse you, guidelines! Foiled again!"?
Guidelines preventing overpurchasing? Srsly? The best you can say is that guidelines
disapprove of overpurchasing. Controlling and monitoring access to the store prevents overpurchasing! That works. We know it works. Guidelines are just finger-wagging and tut-tutting. Never. Prevented. Anything.
Ever.
