Protocol

[rosetto 0]

This is in reference to the Academy SIM of 23 APR 2010.

 

Being new to both this place and SIMming in general I am most unfamiliar with the unspoken protocol between the experienced and inexperienced. For the most part I have both enjoyed and learned much from these Academy SIMs. Many people have been very helpful and so I don't want to come off as a whiner. However, this was the second time that I was placed into a lead role where my subordinate was (or at least seemed to be) a more experienced RPGer and my orders (tho not necessarily correct) were questioned or ignored. In my humble opinion, this does not help the learning process and can result in unnecessary friction both during and after a SIM. So, what do you guys think? Is there any protocol established here (did I miss something) that governs and protects this learning environment?

[Kairi 0]

Typically we follow the chain of command (Advanced and Academy sims.) Even if an inexperienced player is placed in charge of more advanced players, that advanced player needs to follow the chain. Now it's not unheard of for the Assistant to make suggestions to the Chief, but it is still ultimately the Chief's decision.

 

There are things storywise that contradict this (ie. the Chief is stricken with mental illness and is making silly decisions.) But like i said, we mostly follow the chain.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Kairi

[STSF Kent 0]

Generally speaking, part of the process of learning to play a chief properly is to learn to strike the balance between listening to the suggestions your subordinates make and making your final decision. If the subordinate feels they are being ignored but that they are able to contribute something useful, they will want to take matters into their own hands.

 

If someone questions your orders, listen to what they have to say, acknowledge the suggestion, and then make your decision and follow through on it. Given that this is a collaborative game, striking the balance between being a firm leader and working with the people under you is important. If the player under you is more experienced, then they probably have good suggestions to make, and it's important not to take this as an assault on your authority. You're allowed to be firm in your decision whether or not to follow through on their suggestion but it is definitely good to listen to them.

[rosetto 0]

Thanks guys....

 

I do understand the points you are making. I guess it will take time for me learn how to manage "they will want to take matters into their own hands" moments.

[T'aral 0]

The advice has been excellent for those who are in command, but I will direct my comments to those in subordinate positions.

 

I had it drilled into me, under no uncertain terms, that the chain of command is to be respected. Whether or not I agreed with a superior's orders, those orders were to be obeyed. Offering my own opinion was to be brief and not to be fought for - I was a subordinate and expected to behave as such.

 

Sometimes it turns out well, sometimes it turns out badly; but them are the rules and we are to abide by them.

[rosetto 0]

thanks T'Aral.... I totally agreed...

[Crash Calestorm 0]

If someone doesn't follow my orders I just tie 'em to a gun carriage and leave 'em out in the rain.

 

Oops...I typed that out loud didn't I?

 

Generally, the COC protocol is an important tool for In Character interactions as the process keeps the games flowing smoothly.

 

I won't re-state the advice that was already offered here, but I will say that with all COC interactions whether you are subordinate officer or senior officer, old or new Player, treat others as you want to be treated in Real Life -- with respect.

[rosetto 0]

Hey there,

 

Well, I know of someone who...when I was first in the Academy...had to attend around 156 Academy sims in order to graduate. No, I'm not joking.

 

Captain Calestrom:

 

Thank you for your advise... I had recently watched one of your SIMs where you had to repremand one of your crew members. I was impressed by the way you 'controlled' your emotions yet still passed on the "LESSON". Poor guy walked away with his tail between his legs but I think he learned. LOL

 

pete

 

BTW: I found the above comment from FredM quite amusing with my latest adventures in the Academy SIM...

[Crash Calestorm 0]

Captain Calestrom:

 

Thank you for your advise... I had recently watched one of your SIMs where you had to repremand one of your crew members. I was impressed by the way you 'controlled' your emotions yet still passed on the "LESSON". Poor guy walked away with his tail between his legs but I think he learned. LOL

 

pete

 

To be fair Rosetto, the crew member (as did I) realized that we were just playing in character to deal with a prior incident on an away team mission. If myself or he went nuts and tried to go all glory hog, then the reprimand interaction would not have turned out as well as it did.

[STSF Kent 0]

To be fair Rosetto, the crew member (as did I) realized that we were just playing in character to deal with a prior incident on an away team mission. If myself or he went nuts and tried to go all glory hog, then the reprimand interaction would not have turned out as well as it did.

 

Agreed. BIG difference between in-character and out-of-character interactions. In-character conflict shouldn't be taken personally out-of-character, and vice versa. It's just a game after all.

[STSF_Scooter 0]

And, besides, if Captain Calestorm had gone off the deep end, I would have been there to knock her back into simulated reality.

[rosetto 0]

This is clearly evolving into a discussion of IC/OOC and most likely yet again a miscommunication here... Guys, I know that this is a game... I know that while IC we play by one set of rules and there exists another for OOC comments. I would hope so. But we digress.

 

To bring this all back in focus, this topic was started to clarify the 'protocol' used by participants engaged in Academy SIMs. The actions of Capt. Calestorm were mentioned as a good example of how to address insubordination regardless of whether we are playing by IC or OOC rules. It clearly showed to me consistancy in her judgement as her previous comments here demonstrate.

 

Now, the advise here on 'absolutely' following the chain of command: We should all know that there are in 'reality' grey areas (MOVIE: A Few Good Men) that we have to manage, however, 'here' and IC, we are bound to the rules and regulations established, as T'Aral has reiterated.

 

So it is clear to me that no one is perfect and we all do our best to respect one another. But we must also follow the rules less we earn disrespect from those around us.

 

agreed?

[T'aral 0]

Agreed. BIG difference between in-character and out-of-character interactions. In-character conflict shouldn't be taken personally out-of-character, and vice versa. It's just a game after all.

 

 

Well, that is true to some extent.

 

Yet that should not be used as an excuse to be needlessly biligerent IC. It must not be forgotten that everyone here is trying to have fun. One does not need to take IC biligerence personally in order to decide that a sim simply isn't any fun, since their character faces needless hostility week after week.

 

IC conflict is all good and well, but can be done to excess.

[STSF Sorehl 0]

It should also be noted that a player should not simply dismiss their inappropriate behavior (belligerence or disobedience or wild antics) as "how my character acts". In an Academy situation, players are assumed to be individual officers (or cadets striving to be) in Starfleet. As such, they are expected to maintain a certain adherance to the rule of law, chain of command, and general Federation principles.

 

"But," says one player, "my character is a violent savage who'll kill anyone who disagrees with him." Then he has no place in the Academy. As a player or guest in an Adv Sim maybe, or a Klingon-based ship perhaps, but not as a Starfleet cadet. Unless one enjoys raging by themselves in the brig.

 

Remember also that, in the Academy, even experienced players can miss an ACTION statement or fail to realize an order was directed to them - it's not always insubordination. Gentle restatements or promptings by the Department Head, regardless of relative experience, are usually sufficient. If they're not, there are a number of useful tactics - noting unresponsivenss with an onscreen comment ( :::wonders if ASEC is going to answer::: or :::notices ASCI is still arguing and hasn't obeyed::: ), simply giving the order to a more responsive player ("OK, AMO1 doesn't seem able to follow directions. AMO2, are you up to the task?"), making a point to emphasize an order has been given ("AMO, I'm not accustomed to having to repeat my orders."), and in extreme cases, alerting the XO ("Sir, AENG2 is out of control. Should I alert security?").

 

In each of the above examples, the point is to imagine how a professional Department Head would act. It may be part of the test, even if unscripted, to see how they handle an unruly or off-the-wall player. Hosts observe and consider these things when thinking about whether a cadet is due for graduation.

[TKAR 0]

DON,T WORRY-we all learn differently-i hope i didn,t offrend anyone durng any simming on that date.

[rosetto 0]

Thank you Sorehl... Very insightful. I am glad that I started this topic. I hope that other cadets benefit from the knowledge that is being shared here.

[rosetto 0]

DON,T WORRY-we all learn differently-i hope i didn,t offrend anyone durng any simming on that date.

TKAR, please don't take any of the comments left here personally. I don't believe anyone is intending to direct comments toward anyone or their actions... (and you are a great simmer!)