As has been brought up before, the difference between STO and a game like WoW is that nobody in WoW has dropped real world money into the guild housing. That makes STO's fleets blur the line between being an issue of internal player politics, and theft of real property. We need to at least give fleet founders the option of how to set it up. I don't think it should be required, but we need to give people the tools so they can decide to use them or not. And people can choose to join fleets run by democracy, or run by a sole owner. Again, up to them. I just want to see the options given to people, and enforceable through the game itself.
from that you have a fleet bank tab full of lockbox ships and the one you gave the rank full run of that tab takes all ships and leaves fleet guess cryptics job to fix that to because you gave them the rank full run of fleet or bank tab
point still remains its not cryptic place to fix human dumbness
We'll remember that when you come here looking for some help or support when something happens to you. I'm not asking Cryptic to get directly involved, just give fleet leaders better means to handle it themselves.
We'll remember that when you come here looking for some help or support when something happens to you. I'm not asking Cryptic to get directly involved, just give fleet leaders better means to handle it themselves.
as I said on here before I almost lost my fleet because I trusted 4 ppl with my rank and one if not 3 of them got power hungry if I had lost my fleet I would not be here on the forums QQing about it
if I had lost my fleet I would not be here on the forums QQing about it
You know you would be.
I agree that Cryptic invited discussion of this through their model. Historically, they'd have no obligation to get involved, but historically games did not use this business model.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
sorry no I would not for I know its not cryptic place to fix it i gave them the rank and it almost cost me my fleet and had i lost it guess what IT WOULD BE ON ME not cryptic
See, this is why you're not understanding what I'm telling you. Nobody says fleet theft is Cryptic's fault. But it's not the fault of the person(s) from whom it's stolen either.
Stealing a fleet is all on the thief. It's their fault. They are the responsible party.
All anybody wants here is better tools to manage what's going on. Some fleets are just too big to be run by one person. Also, as has been stated, sometimes the sole leader of a Fleet goes AWOL, leaving nobody to queue new projects, manage the roster, etc. We need options for how we want to run the fleets. What possible objection do you have to giving people more choices on how their fleets operate? Nobody's telling you that you have to change anything in your fleet.
sorry no I would not for I know its not cryptic place to fix it i gave them the rank and it almost cost me my fleet and had i lost it guess what IT WOULD BE ON ME not cryptic
I agree the OP could have protected themselves better, and every fleet leader out there should promptly go set themselves up alone in the highest rank of their fleet if they haven't already.
But Cryptic has invited this on themselves by tying fleet progression so closely to the cash shop. It's in their interest to provide greater protections before internet gambling laws become more prominent, and these F2P models make themselves targets.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Cryptic can't be held responsible for correcting other people's mistakes, least of all of this kind, where the benefit of one is to the detriment of another. They would get drawn into every fleet schism, have to waste a lot of time and resources figuring out what the hell is going on, who is and who is not telling the truth, and in the end, they'd still get it wrong at least some of the time. Better to just wash their hands of it.
This is not victim blaming. In victim blaming, it doesn't matter if the victim has any responsibility in what happens to him. Ultimately, the guy who stole his fleet is the one who stole his fleet so should be blamed for stealing his fleet. (Logic, easy, see?) But the OP did facilitate this, by setting up his rank structure the way he did.
That does not mean he got what was coming to him. It means what happened could've been easily anticipated. He either didn't bother, or decided to just roll the dice. Now he needs to deal with his own choices. Cause I've already explained why Cryptic can't get involved.
As for the money argument... the money in fleets is put in there by all members of a fleet. Please follow your line of reasoning right down to the point where no one, regardless of rank, should be permitted to kick anyone from a fleet, and imagine if you will what hilarity might ensue from that.
See, this is why you're not understanding what I'm telling you. Nobody says fleet theft is Cryptic's fault. But it's not the fault of the person(s) from whom it's stolen either.
Stealing a fleet is all on the thief. It's their fault. They are the responsible party.
All anybody wants here is better tools to manage what's going on. Some fleets are just too big to be run by one person. Also, as has been stated, sometimes the sole leader of a Fleet goes AWOL, leaving nobody to queue new projects, manage the roster, etc. We need options for how we want to run the fleets. What possible objection do you have to giving people more choices on how their fleets operate? Nobody's telling you that you have to change anything in your fleet.
I think this sums it up nicely. The game just needs better tools to deal with unusual issues.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Cryptic can't be held responsible for correcting other people's mistakes, least of all of this kind, where the benefit of one is to the detriment of another. They would get drawn into every fleet schism, have to waste a lot of time and resources figuring out what the hell is going on, who is and who is not telling the truth, and in the end, they'd still get it wrong at least some of the time. Better to just wash their hands of it.
This is not victim blaming. In victim blaming, it doesn't matter if the victim has any responsibility in what happens to him. Ultimately, the guy who stole his fleet is the one who stole his fleet so should be blamed for stealing his fleet. (Logic, easy, see?) But the OP did facilitate this, by setting up his rank structure the way he did.
That does not mean he got what was coming to him. It means what happened could've been easily anticipated. He either didn't bother, or decided to just roll the dice. Now he needs to deal with his own choices. Cause I've already explained why Cryptic can't get involved.
As for the money argument... the money in fleets is put in there by all members of a fleet. Please follow your line of reasoning right down to the point where no one, regardless of rank, should be permitted to kick anyone from a fleet, and imagine if you will what hilarity might ensue from that.
I'm the leader of my Fleet. Suppose I had a heart attack and died tomorrow. What are the 233 other people in my Fleet supposed to do? Just kiss it all goodbye?
No one's saying people aren't responsible for their own actions. We're just saying there needs to be tools in place that can deal with unusual circumstances.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
sorry but life happens and also you got the 30 day thing or you could contact a GM and give them a heart felt story im sure they would help in that matter
First, again, I am not advocating Cryptic be directly involved. Nobody is saying that, please stop erecting it as a strawman to attack. Obviously Cryptic's GMs can not get in the middle of these things. Then they have to make distinction between what is real theft (as was the case with Caspian), and what is just an internal political schism resulting in a certain faction being ousted. I don't want Cryptic making those decisions. Nobody does. All we are asking for is better tools to manage the way the fleet is governed so that situations like this can be handled internally and the system is less easy to abuse. That is all.
But the OP did facilitate this, by setting up his rank structure the way he did.
See, what you did there, that actually is victim blaming. I'm going to quote the Wikipedia article, with added emphasis:
Victim blaming occurs when the victim(s) of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment are held entirely or partially responsible for the transgressions committed against them (regardless of whether the victim actually had any responsibility for the incident).
See that bit? Assigning partial blame to the victim is still victim blaming. It is exactly the same as saying "well yeah, that guy ***** her, but she made herself a target wearing that skirt". Granted, we aren't talking about anything nearly so severe, but **** is the most commonly cited situation where victim blaming occurs, so it's the easiest thing to draw parallels to.
As I have said in previous posts, there are preventive measures you can take just like locking your doors or arming your security system. However, the system as it stands does not have adequate protections in place to prevent abuse of the system when circumstances require the power be held by more than one person. Also, as stated several times, if you don't want to share the power in your fleet, don't. But do respect that some of us do prefer to belong to a fleet where all power does not rest with one individual, and in a fleet of hundreds it may be a logistical necessity.
As for the money argument... the money in fleets is put in there by all members of a fleet. Please follow your line of reasoning right down to the point where no one, regardless of rank, should be permitted to kick anyone from a fleet, and imagine if you will what hilarity might ensue from that.
As above, we need to distinguish between outright theft of a fleet, and political issues. If you violate the rules of your fleet, or just TRIBBLE off the wrong people and get kicked, that's a personal problem and you forfeit your investment into the fleet (though you take your gear and Fleet Credit with you). The money argument is more important in a case like Caspian where a total outsider came, kicked the entire fleet membership and absconded with the whole thing. In that case, everybody who contributed lost their investment. Simple protections to mitigate that risk is all that's being asked for.
However, the system as it stands does not have adequate protections in place to prevent abuse of the system when circumstances require the power be held by more than one person.
This is where your whole argument falls down. There is no circumstance that requires that the top rank be held by more than one person.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
I'm the leader of my Fleet. Suppose I had a heart attack and died tomorrow. What are the 233 other people in my Fleet supposed to do?
Your example is flawed/irrelevant. After a certain amount of time has passed, the next highest ranked member of the Fleet will be able to assume leadership.
See that bit? Assigning partial blame to the victim is still victim blaming.
No. That is complete and utter bovine excrement. It is blatantly absolving management of responsibility.
If a manager hires an employee who lies, steals, and abuses the other employees - yes, the primary culpability lies with that employee, but the manager is responsible for dealing with them. The manager should not be promoting untrustworthy, unreliable employees to positions of power.
This is the primary flaw with anti-union arguments that are based on poor employees being protected by the union. That is the role of the union, but it is the responsibility of the management to not hire terrible employees in the first place (and turf them before their probation period is up). The unions should never even have to defend horrible employees if the management were doing their jobs properly.
If you are running a Fleet then you are management. If you are in a management position then it is your responsibility to evaluate your underlings, and if you hand over the keys to the shop to someone without proper vetting, the police will arrest the thief but corporate will have your head over why you handed them the keys in the first place.
Your repeated citing of "victim blaming" is irrelevant because the very example you use is irrelevant.
Studies have shown that the clothing worn by the target of sexual assaults have no impact on incidences of sexual assault. The crime has nothing to do with their actions. Therefore blaming the victim's choice of clothing is "victim blaming".
The theft only occurred because the keys were handed over. It is the result of a direct and specific action that the "crime" was able to occur. Further, the victim is responsible (as management) for controlling access. Blaming the victim for handing over their keys is not "victim blaming", because it was their responsibility to control access in the first place.
The two situations are not analogous.
If you fail to do your job and allow a crime to occur, you don't get to play the "victim blaming" card. You are not guilty of theft (the thief is), but you are not absolved of responsibility.
The tools are limited, 7 ranks isn't nearly enough for all the permissions you need for a fleet, in a large fleet I could see 20+ ranks taken without a problem. A 500 person fleet with 7 ranks, 1 person in the top rank leave 499 to share 6, and its simply impossible to make a smooth running fleet with 6 ranks and proper security.
But lets tell it as it is, not having perfect tools doesn't mean you can't run a fleet safely, half of the blame is on the fleet leader, an equal amount of the thief, the victims are members of the fleet. This is due to negligence on the leader's part and greed from the person that took it.
Being ignorant doesn't absolve anyone of their responsibility, nor does it make them innocent of a situation that hurt others. The Op screwed up, that action had consequences, its going to hurt others and nobody can bail them out. The likely outcome is that it will all happen again, they'll blame someone else for the problem and repeat the same mistakes. Victims like being victims.
I'm a little confused. I've played many a game and been in many a guild, and I've never once seen a guild system that allowed multiple people to have the highest rank.
Terrible system, fix it so that there can only be one 'ultimate leader,' add a 'mutiny feature' that kicks in on the 30th day of no activity from Mr. Leader and problems like the one in the OP will stop being an issue.
The tools are limited, 7 ranks isn't nearly enough for all the permissions you need for a fleet, in a large fleet I could see 20+ ranks taken without a problem. A 500 person fleet with 7 ranks, 1 person in the top rank leave 499 to share 6, and its simply impossible to make a smooth running fleet with 6 ranks and proper security.
I'm very confused as to how many ranks you think you need.
If you have one rank for the Leader, one rank for Flag Officers with similar powers, one rank for Starbase/Embassy staff officers, one rank for Quartermasters, one rank for Full Members, and one rank for Probationary Members, that's only 6 ranks.
Okay, the less said about that horrible analogy the better, but...
Victim blaming occurs when the victim(s) of a crime, an accident, or any type of abusive maltreatment are held entirely or partially responsible for the transgressions committed against them (regardless of whether the victim actually had any responsibility for the incident).
See that bit? See how that bit, my bit, is way bigger than your bit? Yeah. Look, it reads like you're trying to defend a position where anyone who's got a problem involving another or random chance, cannot ever be held responsible, in any way, to any extent, for their part in making it possible, without it being evil and unfair victim blaming?
I have never before felt so sorry for people who bought losing lottery tickets. To the courthouse, I say! This isn't right, your honor, and what's worse, the defense says we knew what we were getting into!
Yeah, good luck.
Look, here's the thing: If it's true, it may still be victim blaming, but it's true, so I don't care. This is ***-covering 101. If you buy insurance for your car, then lend the car to your friend without a license, who wrecks it, your insurance company won't just look the other way and pay out. If you make copies of your house keys for all of your friends, then sleep with one or all of their girlfriends, they're not going to pay out for a fire that clearly started in a pile of gasoline drenched furniture in the middle of your living room. (In fact, you're probably going to be suspected of attempted insurance fraud, cause what cop's gonna believe you hand out house keys like business cards?)
So there may not be enough ranks. I don't necessarily agree on the not enough bit, simply because no fleet of mine would ever need that many ranks, but I'm sure some people want to micromanage permissions a little more and more ranks wouldn't hurt me, so I'd have no problem with, but... All the OP really had to do, was put the permissions he wanted his helpers to have in rank 6, minus the option to promote past their own rank, and nothing would've ever have gone wrong. If for some reason he did get plowed under by a city bus on his way home from work, the others in the fleet would have had all the necessary permissions to keep it running, and after thirty days one of them could've inherited it.
The system isn't nearly as flawed as people make it out. It's just that these days a lot of people rely entirely too much on the almost ever-present "Are you sure?" pop-up. And yeah, it doesn't have one of those. But that means it'll still happen with 14, or 40, or 70 ranks.
I'm a little confused. I've played many a game and been in many a guild, and I've never once seen a guild system that allowed multiple people to have the highest rank.
Terrible system, fix it so that there can only be one 'ultimate leader,' add a 'mutiny feature' that kicks in on the 30th day of no activity from Mr. Leader and problems like the one in the OP will stop being an issue.
I would agree with this overall but I'd also add some kind of severance for being booted, based on lifetime contribution.
I don't think a non-contributor in leadership who boots contributors should be left with the full benefits of their efforts, nor should they be left empty handed.
So, your position is that people need to be, at all times, perfect and flawless judges of others' character? That one should be impervious to deception and fraud, and not protected by society should one fail in this holy responsibility?
That's your bovine excrement right there. Fraud, just as theft, is a crime. If somebody is deceived into trusting a person and "handing over the keys", it is just as much a crime as breaking the window. Have you, in your entire life, never been deceived by anybody? I very highly doubt it. And please, don't tell me about how you accepted it as your own fault. Everybody should equip themselves as much as possible to detect and avoid deception, but it is not your fault when you fail. Human brains are just poorly adapted to deal with deceit. We want to trust people, and there are numerous cognitive flaws to be exploited to help others (wrongly) gain our trust. What's needed isn't post-hoc finger wagging about everything people didn't do, but good proactive education and a society that's there to protect you when you do get caught out.
And again, I ask all of you in this thread, what is your objection to giving fleet leaders more options in how things work? Nobody has been able to answer that. Let's set aside whose "fault" it is for a second, how could more granularity, and more options possibly hurt, so long as they are completely optional?
So, your position is that people need to be, at all times, perfect and flawless judges of others' character? That one should be impervious to deception and fraud, and not protected by society should one fail in this holy responsibility?
It doesn't require super-human detective abilities to not promote anyone else to fleet leader.
And again, I ask all of you in this thread, what is your objection to giving fleet leaders more options in how things work? Nobody has been able to answer that. Let's set aside whose "fault" it is for a second, how could more granularity, and more options possibly hurt, so long as they are completely optional?
Development resources are zero-sum. Time spent adding options to fleets is time not spent doing other things. Anyone who wants the game to improve has a vested interest in seeing the dev team not distracted by extraneous issues.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
Development resources are zero-sum. Time spent adding options to fleets is time not spent doing other things. Anyone who wants the game to improve has a vested interest in seeing the dev team not distracted by extraneous issues.
Not really a good argument when you consider how many hundreds of man-hours have been put into Fleet and Embassies over the last year - and how many hundreds more are being put into Fleet things we know nothing about yet.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Not really a good argument when you consider how many hundreds of man-hours have been put into Fleet and Embassies over the last year - and how many hundreds more are being put into Fleet things we know nothing about yet.
It doesn't matter how many hundreds of hours have been spent doing "A." It's still not a good reason to spend hundreds of hours doing "B" if "B" is unnecessary.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
It doesn't matter how many hundreds of hours have been spent doing "A." It's still not a good reason to spend hundreds of hours doing "B" if "B" is unnecessary.
Well, as they have already said they're looking into "B" it's not really your call.
STO is about my Liberated Borg Federation Captain with his Breen 1st Officer, Jem'Hadar Tactical Officer, Liberated Borg Engineering Officer, Android Ops Officer, Photonic Science Officer, Gorn Science Officer, and Reman Medical Officer jumping into their Jem'Hadar Carrier and flying off to do missions for the new Romulan Empire. But for some players allowing a T5 Connie to be used breaks the canon in the game.
Comments
system Lord Baal is dead
system Lord Baal is dead
We'll remember that when you come here looking for some help or support when something happens to you. I'm not asking Cryptic to get directly involved, just give fleet leaders better means to handle it themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
Food for thought.
as I said on here before I almost lost my fleet because I trusted 4 ppl with my rank and one if not 3 of them got power hungry if I had lost my fleet I would not be here on the forums QQing about it
system Lord Baal is dead
I agree that Cryptic invited discussion of this through their model. Historically, they'd have no obligation to get involved, but historically games did not use this business model.
sorry no I would not for I know its not cryptic place to fix it i gave them the rank and it almost cost me my fleet and had i lost it guess what IT WOULD BE ON ME not cryptic
system Lord Baal is dead
Stealing a fleet is all on the thief. It's their fault. They are the responsible party.
All anybody wants here is better tools to manage what's going on. Some fleets are just too big to be run by one person. Also, as has been stated, sometimes the sole leader of a Fleet goes AWOL, leaving nobody to queue new projects, manage the roster, etc. We need options for how we want to run the fleets. What possible objection do you have to giving people more choices on how their fleets operate? Nobody's telling you that you have to change anything in your fleet.
But Cryptic has invited this on themselves by tying fleet progression so closely to the cash shop. It's in their interest to provide greater protections before internet gambling laws become more prominent, and these F2P models make themselves targets.
This is not victim blaming. In victim blaming, it doesn't matter if the victim has any responsibility in what happens to him. Ultimately, the guy who stole his fleet is the one who stole his fleet so should be blamed for stealing his fleet. (Logic, easy, see?) But the OP did facilitate this, by setting up his rank structure the way he did.
That does not mean he got what was coming to him. It means what happened could've been easily anticipated. He either didn't bother, or decided to just roll the dice. Now he needs to deal with his own choices. Cause I've already explained why Cryptic can't get involved.
As for the money argument... the money in fleets is put in there by all members of a fleet. Please follow your line of reasoning right down to the point where no one, regardless of rank, should be permitted to kick anyone from a fleet, and imagine if you will what hilarity might ensue from that.
The truth
No fleet needs or requires more than one rank 7 / fleet leader.
You can assign all rights to Rank 6 they need to handle day to day business except
Kick from fleet
Bank change
Fleet rename
Promote to same level.
Sharing Rank 7 is giving permission to the other or other Rank 7s to boot another.
Why even risk it.
I think this sums it up nicely.
system Lord Baal is dead
No one's saying people aren't responsible for their own actions. We're just saying there needs to be tools in place that can deal with unusual circumstances.
system Lord Baal is dead
See, what you did there, that actually is victim blaming. I'm going to quote the Wikipedia article, with added emphasis:
See that bit? Assigning partial blame to the victim is still victim blaming. It is exactly the same as saying "well yeah, that guy ***** her, but she made herself a target wearing that skirt". Granted, we aren't talking about anything nearly so severe, but **** is the most commonly cited situation where victim blaming occurs, so it's the easiest thing to draw parallels to.
As I have said in previous posts, there are preventive measures you can take just like locking your doors or arming your security system. However, the system as it stands does not have adequate protections in place to prevent abuse of the system when circumstances require the power be held by more than one person. Also, as stated several times, if you don't want to share the power in your fleet, don't. But do respect that some of us do prefer to belong to a fleet where all power does not rest with one individual, and in a fleet of hundreds it may be a logistical necessity.
As above, we need to distinguish between outright theft of a fleet, and political issues. If you violate the rules of your fleet, or just TRIBBLE off the wrong people and get kicked, that's a personal problem and you forfeit your investment into the fleet (though you take your gear and Fleet Credit with you). The money argument is more important in a case like Caspian where a total outsider came, kicked the entire fleet membership and absconded with the whole thing. In that case, everybody who contributed lost their investment. Simple protections to mitigate that risk is all that's being asked for.
This is where your whole argument falls down. There is no circumstance that requires that the top rank be held by more than one person.
Your example is flawed/irrelevant. After a certain amount of time has passed, the next highest ranked member of the Fleet will be able to assume leadership.
No. That is complete and utter bovine excrement. It is blatantly absolving management of responsibility.
If a manager hires an employee who lies, steals, and abuses the other employees - yes, the primary culpability lies with that employee, but the manager is responsible for dealing with them. The manager should not be promoting untrustworthy, unreliable employees to positions of power.
This is the primary flaw with anti-union arguments that are based on poor employees being protected by the union. That is the role of the union, but it is the responsibility of the management to not hire terrible employees in the first place (and turf them before their probation period is up). The unions should never even have to defend horrible employees if the management were doing their jobs properly.
If you are running a Fleet then you are management. If you are in a management position then it is your responsibility to evaluate your underlings, and if you hand over the keys to the shop to someone without proper vetting, the police will arrest the thief but corporate will have your head over why you handed them the keys in the first place.
Your repeated citing of "victim blaming" is irrelevant because the very example you use is irrelevant.
Studies have shown that the clothing worn by the target of sexual assaults have no impact on incidences of sexual assault. The crime has nothing to do with their actions. Therefore blaming the victim's choice of clothing is "victim blaming".
The theft only occurred because the keys were handed over. It is the result of a direct and specific action that the "crime" was able to occur. Further, the victim is responsible (as management) for controlling access. Blaming the victim for handing over their keys is not "victim blaming", because it was their responsibility to control access in the first place.
The two situations are not analogous.
If you fail to do your job and allow a crime to occur, you don't get to play the "victim blaming" card. You are not guilty of theft (the thief is), but you are not absolved of responsibility.
But lets tell it as it is, not having perfect tools doesn't mean you can't run a fleet safely, half of the blame is on the fleet leader, an equal amount of the thief, the victims are members of the fleet. This is due to negligence on the leader's part and greed from the person that took it.
Being ignorant doesn't absolve anyone of their responsibility, nor does it make them innocent of a situation that hurt others. The Op screwed up, that action had consequences, its going to hurt others and nobody can bail them out. The likely outcome is that it will all happen again, they'll blame someone else for the problem and repeat the same mistakes. Victims like being victims.
Completed Starbase, Embassy, Mine, Spire and No Win Scenario
Nothing to do anymore.
http://dtfleet.com/
Visit our Youtube channel
Terrible system, fix it so that there can only be one 'ultimate leader,' add a 'mutiny feature' that kicks in on the 30th day of no activity from Mr. Leader and problems like the one in the OP will stop being an issue.
there can only be one highlander!!!
system Lord Baal is dead
If you have one rank for the Leader, one rank for Flag Officers with similar powers, one rank for Starbase/Embassy staff officers, one rank for Quartermasters, one rank for Full Members, and one rank for Probationary Members, that's only 6 ranks.
See that bit? See how that bit, my bit, is way bigger than your bit? Yeah. Look, it reads like you're trying to defend a position where anyone who's got a problem involving another or random chance, cannot ever be held responsible, in any way, to any extent, for their part in making it possible, without it being evil and unfair victim blaming?
I have never before felt so sorry for people who bought losing lottery tickets. To the courthouse, I say! This isn't right, your honor, and what's worse, the defense says we knew what we were getting into!
Yeah, good luck.
Look, here's the thing: If it's true, it may still be victim blaming, but it's true, so I don't care. This is ***-covering 101. If you buy insurance for your car, then lend the car to your friend without a license, who wrecks it, your insurance company won't just look the other way and pay out. If you make copies of your house keys for all of your friends, then sleep with one or all of their girlfriends, they're not going to pay out for a fire that clearly started in a pile of gasoline drenched furniture in the middle of your living room. (In fact, you're probably going to be suspected of attempted insurance fraud, cause what cop's gonna believe you hand out house keys like business cards?)
So there may not be enough ranks. I don't necessarily agree on the not enough bit, simply because no fleet of mine would ever need that many ranks, but I'm sure some people want to micromanage permissions a little more and more ranks wouldn't hurt me, so I'd have no problem with, but... All the OP really had to do, was put the permissions he wanted his helpers to have in rank 6, minus the option to promote past their own rank, and nothing would've ever have gone wrong. If for some reason he did get plowed under by a city bus on his way home from work, the others in the fleet would have had all the necessary permissions to keep it running, and after thirty days one of them could've inherited it.
The system isn't nearly as flawed as people make it out. It's just that these days a lot of people rely entirely too much on the almost ever-present "Are you sure?" pop-up. And yeah, it doesn't have one of those. But that means it'll still happen with 14, or 40, or 70 ranks.
I would agree with this overall but I'd also add some kind of severance for being booted, based on lifetime contribution.
I don't think a non-contributor in leadership who boots contributors should be left with the full benefits of their efforts, nor should they be left empty handed.
So, your position is that people need to be, at all times, perfect and flawless judges of others' character? That one should be impervious to deception and fraud, and not protected by society should one fail in this holy responsibility?
That's your bovine excrement right there. Fraud, just as theft, is a crime. If somebody is deceived into trusting a person and "handing over the keys", it is just as much a crime as breaking the window. Have you, in your entire life, never been deceived by anybody? I very highly doubt it. And please, don't tell me about how you accepted it as your own fault. Everybody should equip themselves as much as possible to detect and avoid deception, but it is not your fault when you fail. Human brains are just poorly adapted to deal with deceit. We want to trust people, and there are numerous cognitive flaws to be exploited to help others (wrongly) gain our trust. What's needed isn't post-hoc finger wagging about everything people didn't do, but good proactive education and a society that's there to protect you when you do get caught out.
And again, I ask all of you in this thread, what is your objection to giving fleet leaders more options in how things work? Nobody has been able to answer that. Let's set aside whose "fault" it is for a second, how could more granularity, and more options possibly hurt, so long as they are completely optional?
It doesn't require super-human detective abilities to not promote anyone else to fleet leader.
Development resources are zero-sum. Time spent adding options to fleets is time not spent doing other things. Anyone who wants the game to improve has a vested interest in seeing the dev team not distracted by extraneous issues.
It doesn't matter how many hundreds of hours have been spent doing "A." It's still not a good reason to spend hundreds of hours doing "B" if "B" is unnecessary.