| Author |
Message |
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Apr 2011 07:07
Reply
Hello, folks!
Some of you may have noticed my reply to Steve Norton's thread about getting OTF running again, and will notice one thing I mentioned was a rank structure overhaul. I'd like to create a dedicated thread to this topic in order to gauge feeling, response and suggestions people may have regarding this.
To start with, I'm going to copy and paste what I said in that thread here, so everyone can see what's what:
After personally looking through every aspect of OTF that we offer, I hatched a scheme that maybe, just maybe, will help activity rise once more. You rightly pointed out that departments are struggling and are dead, and while, in part, that is due to people being too busy in real-life, we think there is also a second part to it all. One of the mainstays of the Outpost, that always helped attract people, was the presence of a clear and defined rank structure where people could get involve and reap rewards for their efforts. Back in the day, this worked perfectly when we had multiple active departments and teams - there was plenty to do and the rank chain reflected that. However, after our decline, the rank ladder became very difficult to climb due to little/no activity, so people were getting stuck, and likely asking what's the point? To this end, we are in the final stages of rolling out an expanded rank structure that will increase the number of Clearance Levels from 12 to 19, making it easier, in our current state, to reap rewards and to be able to rise up. We hope that this will encourage people to get involved, especially lower-down the order, as the new structure is less demanding.
To simply explain, think of it this way. At present, at CL6, it is very hard to get to CL7 as it is a large step-up that requires leadership in a prominent role - something we cannot offer. By increasing the steps we are able to make each rank somewhat easier to achieve, thus, hopefully, increasing interest.
People will mention they don't care about ranks on a website, and that is fair enough. However, I don't think most people buy into this argument honestly, but rather because it sounds "cool" to be in this camp; to be aloof of trivial things like this. I believe, deep down, if there were extra opportunity, more people would consider getting involved again.
Ok, now I'd like to share with you the new proposed structures:
Star Trek Affiliations
Star Wars Affiliations
(The LotR one is still undergoing finalisation. If anyone would like to assist in creating the structure and/or rank images, please let me know!)
This is what we are going to go with, by-and-large.
How does this affect your current rank? Put simply, it doesn't. Everyone will be the same rank on the default ladder (Starfleet) and all access rights remain untouched. So we're not going to have Commanders dropping to Ensign, etc...! Obviously the new structure requires a new rank requirements structure, and we've done this, too:
New Requirements Document
So, there you have it.
What do you make of it? Any suggestions/tweaks/improvements you can suggest? Can you create us a 19-step ladder for LotR? Let us know, people! 
|
quark
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Apr 2011 12:17
Reply
While my viewpoints may not (and often dont) reflect the wider masses, I can say that this new ranking structure would not personally affect my willingness to join a department and/or provide more incentive to increase activity.
I sort of wonder if this would bring the wrong person into a department as well..somebody whose there just to try and get higher rank, versus somebody who thinks its fun? Is this even a problem? I don't know!
In terms of your actual chart, I offer the following suggestions regarding ranks vs. cannon status: The rank of "Lieutenant Captain" sounds weird...I recommend Captain -> Post Captain -> Fleet Captain, if you need three sets of Captains. Legate should also be the Cardassian title for all levels of Admiral, if you want to remain true to the Star Trek cannon. Don't know much about the rest of the affiliations.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Apr 2011 14:54
Reply
Trevl0r!
Thank-you for the feedback on the idea. The point you raised regarding bringing the wrong people into a department is one I have considered while dreaming up this idea, but as things stand at present, I think - and hope - it would be better to have someone working just for the ranks and not fun, as opposed to no-one at all. It would fall to the respective team/department manager to put across the idea that we are working not only for fun, but also because we like the Outpost and want to get involved, with ranks and shiny toys being a bonus as opposed to major incentive.
With the current set-up, however, the ranks are too limited and the requirements between each step on the current ladder are too great to effectively promoted the bonus side of things. The new structure is design to work during busy times (fingers crossed!) and times, like now, when things are quiet. The additional rank steps we are looking at add give us a lot more flexibility in being able to move people as a little reward for the work they have done. We feel the current system doesn't allow this to any real degree at all, especially when one also factors in that, at present, one needs to be a team/department leader in order to move past CL5/6. The extra steps would enable us to push such a demand further back, preventing people from stagnating and losing interest too early. I hope that makes sense?
Thank-you for the title suggestion! One or two ranks had been bugging me but I'd hit 'the wall', and wasn't able to dream up suitable sounding replacements  I shall amend these now!
Any further comments or suggestions, let me know!
|
richard_smith
Member
|
# Posted: 18 Apr 2011 20:15
Reply
Quoting: ajcardall it would be better to have someone working just for the ranks and not fun, as opposed to no-one at all.
I agree. It would be better to have someone working to better the community. I really wouldn't care what theie motivation is.
I like the new structure. Hopefully this and other things will spark some interest. Let me know if there is any way I can help.
|
krillen488
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 00:35
Reply
Even though i'm not the most active person in the chats i'm just wondering how this is going to effect the ranks of those of us who are already at a certain rank. I see the 3 separate listings as to what we're going to "become" but it seems none of them really agree solidly on ranks and are there going to be situations where due to inactivity the Executive council would decide this person doesn't get to keep their associate rank with the redistribution?
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 05:05
Reply
Matt,
Everyone retains their rank regardless. All Ensigns stay Ensigns. All Commanders stay Commanders. All Admirals stay as Admirals.
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 08:37
Reply
No...
Simply put, we are not going to have swarms of swivel chair hussars. We're not going to duplicate a situation where "staff" officers in some militaries get one rank; and "combat" officers get another rank.
And we don't need to inflate the rank structure to an insane number of levels for one simple reason: trust!
Part of the reason we had a rank structure in the first place was to receive something proportional to what we give back. Generally, Armory access and HTML and other priveliges. Do we really want to give people this huge glut of shiny pips just because we can?
The true answer is simple. Very simple, in fact: Keep the existing rank structure.
But, append a condition onto the rank based on how and why they got to that rank and any positions.
Example one: Person A, CL6, ten year veteran member. No Armory access beyond L2 (So eject function), or HTML access.
Example two: Person B, CL6, X Department member, Assistant Manager. Has current L3 Armory Access and HTML and other department rights (chat recorder etc).
So simply put, we can give them the rank, but not the priveliges associated with that rank if they haven't earned it.
Ah, but what happens if they join the department? They will then earn the priveliges (Armory, HTML etc) that they earned.
Seriously. The rank structure isn't broken and certainly doesn't need fixing. It just needs to have attached to the rank what people deserve to get.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 09:02
Reply
I am sorry, but it is broken and does not work with where we are at right now. It is too short and clustered and there is no leeway, not to mention the current requirements between steps after CL5 is no longer a fair reflection of current activity status. The requirement that one MUST lead a team/department happens too quickly, and coupled with the fact we are operating on grossly reduced numbers, there are not enough of those positions to go around. Thus, people stagnate early and give up.
You mentioned staff/combat officers. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or how it is in anyway pertinent to the topic...? If I misunderstood what you were getting at, please correct me *l*
Likewise, it most certainly isn't a case of throwing things around 'just because', and I am curious as to where you managed to deduce that from? Access rights and each step up WILL remain proportional to work put in. That will NOT change, and no where does this overhaul outline suggest otherwise *l*
It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but things haven't been 'right' for years? Will this magically change everything? No. Will it be a step in the right direction? Yes.
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 10:22 · Edited by: quincyw
Reply
Well...
I did admit I read that post through rather quickly.
Firstly... The highest honour and award given in the former Soviet Union was of course, Hero of the Soviet Union. Like the American Medal of Honour, it was supposed to be given for the highest levels of bravery and valour on the field of battle.
Leonid Brezhnev was the head of the Soviet Union from 1964 to 1982. He awarded himself the Hero of the Soviet Union four times, not for bravery in battle, or for valour (he was a political commisar). No, he was awarded them for his 60th, 70th, 72nd and 75th birthdays.
So... My general argument is and combining this with the context I gave for combat/staff officers... What's happened to the prestige?
I understand and now support your argument, that going from CL5 to CL6 is a huge jump in both rank, prestige and priveliges.
I acknowledge and agree that there should probably be an additional rank (we can call it CL5A and CL5B if we want to be hypothetical) in between to award hard work without the big jump in prestige.
But at the same time, the junior ranks (currently CL2, 3 and 4) don't need expanding. Because we then will have my so-called swivel chair hussars who puff out their chests because they have a slightly shinier pip but without any single bit of true sense of accomplishment to show for it.
I'm not disputing your plan. Not at all. I am merely pointing out that instead of hugely inflating the rank structure, whether or not it's better to simply redefine the ranks by simply adding one or two.
I think junior ranks (CL2-4) is okay, but maybe add one more so people don't top out at CL4 too quickly. I have seen some officers get from CL2 to 4 within six months, after all. CL7 and above is generally alright, if you review the CL8 (Commodore) a little and tweak that without inflating the Captain ranks any more.
So... I'm going to have to quote now. It's inevitable. This one comes from the movie Down Periscope.
Graham: "Careful, Dodge, you're addressing a superior officer."
Dodge: "No, merely a higher ranking one."
I guess my ultimate question is: With all these ranks, am I really going to be addressing a superior officer or a higher ranking one? Do they have a rank and rights proportional to their work, or just time in service, earning a new pip to shine?
(So to speak. I know you'll redefine the ranks a bit more in due course)
|
quark
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 12:20
Reply
Would the access rights given per CL be redistributed, or would some ranks be a "promotion in title only," with no additional features?
|
quark
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 13:20
Reply
I think I have a problem with this system because I no longer believe in the outpost's departmentally focused system in general.
The internet has changed since 2003, when all our departments were large and busy. Social networking has impacted the landscape significantly, and your average internet user today is certainly not whom he or she was ten years ago.
That said, I don't think people are really willing or wanting to "work to chat" - I think the departmental construct is entirely to crusty and central to the ranking system. I'd propose that you consider and liken it more to ranks you see on some forums. We should be rewarding the frequent chatters and active people, making monthly chat time more visible, and then promoting based off this merit. I would be shocked to see widespread success along the departmental model of the "old outpost" ever return. 19 or 20 or however many CL's spread out with various access rights appearing every one or two promotions, but with promotions based off whether you're being a jolly, frequently chatting member of the community instead of random department tasks is (in my opinion) the way to go.
Who ever looks at crap like the conventions page, or the gateway, or the seniors playground, or the gaming page anymore anyway? Nobody. Because there are 5,000 other much more active and content-infused outlets on today's internet to get this information from.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 15:26
Reply
Quincy,
Ok, that makes sense now, thanks!! Rest assured SO ranks still need to be earned. We do have more, so that means each step may seem more 'diluted', but I have made a genuine effort to keep it all proportionate in terms of rank gained to effort put in.
You also mentioned JO ranks. I have done my best to focus primarily on the SO ranks, but we decided to add something for newer members, too, so they have a larger carrot to chase and, hopefully, will then be more inclined to not drop off the radar.
All access rights remain proportionate, by the way. We won't be having Lt Cmmdrs running around with custom avatars. The traditional perks still have to be earned. I shall provide a copy of the new access rights ladder when I get home!
Trevor,
Ray has proposed an achievements-style system where chat time and other chat focussed efforts accrue and build towards various achievements, and with that, temporary rewards. This is still in the early planning stages, but we are conscious of trending demographics and what people want, and are hoping Ray's idea, coupled with the rank expansion, will give something for everyone.
However, your point about departments is well made and something I have been mulling recently and will look to address when the new rank ladder has been rolled out, freeing me up somewhat!
Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for keeping it all constructive! I won't pretend everyone will like the idea personally, but as long as folks see the merit on a wider level...!
Oh, I may not have answered every point. I'm on my phone returning from London, so... 
|
lucient
Member
|
# Posted: 19 Apr 2011 22:34 · Edited by: lucient
Reply
AJ, I think what my brother was trying to get at is that it seems that based on each patrons current CL/pips, there seem to be three options of where they can be placed when the new rank structure comes out. In terms of the new SW ranking structure, based on my current status as a CL8 i will be anywhere between a CL 11 and CL 13. What he was trying to get at was what is going to determine which CL I am placed into...because for the past few years have been more inactive then active, am I going to be a CL 11 or with my history of work at OTF, will I be a CL 13. Or do you factor in both and make me a CL 12.
Thanks,
Luc
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 06:29
Reply
luc,
Oh, no, sorry! Ignore those columns entirely. *l* EVERYONE will keep their current rank title (while logged in on the default Starfleet affiliation).
So, EVERY Commodore (CL8) will be a Commodore on the new system. EVERY Captain will be a Captain still, etc.
Those Correpsonding columns can be ignored entirely. In fact, I shall remove them.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 08:20 · Edited by: ajcardall
Reply
Hello again,
In an attempt to clarify this issue a little better, I am going to write here what the current Clearance Levels will relate to on the new scale, so you can see what rank you will be:
(Your current CL is listed on the left, with new CL, following the change, on the right)
CL1 (Cadet) --> CL1 (Cadet)
CL2 (Ensign) --> CL4 (Ensign)
CL3 (Lieutenant JG) --> CL5 (Lieutenant JG)
CL4 (Lieutenant) --> CL7 (Lieutenant)
CL5 (Lieutenant Commander) --> CL8 (Lieutenant Commander)
CL6 (Commander) --> CL10 (Commander)
CL7 (Captain) --> CL12 (Captain)
CL8 (Commodore) --> CL14 (Commodore)
I have also tweaked the affiliations so that, in 98% of cases where similar titles are used, they will correspond, in terms of CL, to other affiliations. IE, CL12 is Captain in most other affiliations. This is to stop cases, for example, of people logging in under Starfleet and being listed as a "Commander", but then logging in under, say... the Empire, and being a Line Captain, etc.
I also wish to point out where Junior Officer/Senior Officer bands start and stop.
> CL1 --> CL7 are Junior Officer ranks, and can be achieved through chat efforts alone.
> CL8 --> CL14 are Senior Officer ranks, and can only be achieved through behind the scenes efforts.
> CL15 --> CL19 are Flag Ranks.
This means there are - excluding registration - 5 Junior Officer promotions and 7 Senior Officer promotions.
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 08:26 · Edited by: quincyw
Reply
AJ, my question still would be what would differentiate the "in between" CLs.
So say, for example, you have
CL3 (Lieutenant JG) --> CL5 (Lieutenant JG)
CL4 (Lieutenant) --> CL7 (Lieutenant)
Is the new theoretical CL6 rank then just a filler? Will it have a different set of priveliges, or is it just a "time in grade" rank where you just sit in there with the same CL3/5 access rights until you get to the next level to see a benefit, such as Armory Access?
My question and argument still is, if there isn't going to be any differences between the new CL5 and 6 rank (until you get to the CL7), what is the general point of changing it?
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 08:32
Reply
Quoting: quincyw AJ, my question still would be what would differentiate the "in between" CLs. So say, for example, you have CL3 (Lieutenant JG) --> CL5 (Lieutenant JG) CL4 (Lieutenant) --> CL7 (Lieutenant) Is the new theoretical CL6 rank then just a filler? Will it have a different set of priveliges, or is it just a "time in grade" rank where you just sit in there with the same CL3/5 access rights until you get to the next level to see a benefit, such as Armory Access?
At the moment (and I must stress that part) it is just filler, yes. However one of the things on my list is to have a good look at the access rights that we have (and perhaps even see if there are others we could 'create') and ensure that all of the new CL steps do unlock something, so there are no fillers in the chain anywhere.
I hope to have this done within the next few days, real life schedule permitting!
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 10:12
Reply
Fair enough. However, I still have some reservations about the Flag Ranks.
I mean... I can't even recall who the last person promoted to Admiralty was. Bob Fox? Babel?
My next suggestion would maybe look at what the Admiralty is.
Again, by example, in the US military system, at least during the old days, Generals were permanently promoted to two-star and it is this base pay they would draw as their pension when they retired. However, Generals could serve temporarily at a higher rank for a tour of duty (such as Chief of Staff of the Army) before reverting back to their two star rank.
A good example is Douglas MacArthur, who served four years as Chief of Staff of the US Army as a four-star, then reverted to a two-star. Or similarly, Husband Kimmel, who as four-star as Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet on the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, took off two of his stars because he knew his tour was over.
So... With the Admiralty, perhaps officers could have their "permanent rank", which is then temporarily upgraded to an Admiralty for the duration of their term?
I know, it sounds a bit silly, but then so's what, fourteen years with a grand total of four Admirals of varying rank (not counting Commodore level)...?
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 10:30
Reply
Quoting: quincyw Fair enough. However, I still have some reservations about the Flag Ranks. I mean... I can't even recall who the last person promoted to Admiralty was. Bob Fox? Babel?
It would have been Hobbie or Dmitri, actually
Quoting: quincyw My next suggestion would maybe look at what the Admiralty is. Again, by example, in the US military system, at least during the old days, Generals were permanently promoted to two-star and it is this base pay they would draw as their pension when they retired. However, Generals could serve temporarily at a higher rank for a tour of duty (such as Chief of Staff of the Army) before reverting back to their two star rank. A good example is Douglas MacArthur, who served four years as Chief of Staff of the US Army as a four-star, then reverted to a two-star. Or similarly, Husband Kimmel, who as four-star as Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet on the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, took off two of his stars because he knew his tour was over. So... With the Admiralty, perhaps officers could have their "permanent rank", which is then temporarily upgraded to an Admiralty for the duration of their term? I know, it sounds a bit silly, but then so's what, fourteen years with a grand total of four Admirals of varying rank (not counting Commodore level)...?
Actually... that could have some merit, Quincy. Naturally the CinC and VC would retain permanent admiralty status... but have a rotating admiralty (terms of, say... 6 months?) could be something worth investigating, especially looking at your explanation and giving a real-life example.
Thinking further on this, I had an idea, and I'd like your feedback (I ask you as your critique this far has been just, fair, and well constructed!)
As things stand we have the Exec Council composed of:
HAL (CinC)
Iain (VC)
Hobbie (former SW SC)
Dmitri (Director of Marketing)
Tycho (ISA Director)
Brandi (as a long term active member)
and myself (see previous)
Taking your idea into consideration, Quincy, aside from the core members (i.e., those who serve core leadership roles, namely, Tycho, Dmitri, HAL and Iain), how about the remaining "seats" being open to the wider community who serve a 'term in office' (say... 6 months?), during which time they have Admiral status, as you outlined in your post. After their term is up, they revert back to their regular rank (NOT a demotion, naturally, but a reflection of status) and the cycle continues? This provides the flag ranks with some "beef" and meaning, and also serves to keep the Exec Council active and fresh. Hope that makes sense? *l*
However, I do think that the CinC/VC should retain discretionary powers to appoint permanent Admirals/honorary Admirals where they deem necessary.
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 11:14
Reply
Well, the Admiralty, as far as I see it, has been mostly honorary since 10F opened. I mean, from memory, Sector Commander (wow, that really does take me back!) was Captain. Sector Commander, for those of us not old enough to remember, was the person in charge of each chat room as an administrator of sorts, who reported to the Admiralty. And from memory, it was the SC who signed off on promotions. When we got the other chats in (remember Alder Hill? Ha!), we then had a Quadrant Commander who was then a Commodore.
It's only been in very recent years that "rank creep" has occurred in which the scope and responsibility of the job has demanded a higher rank. But Commodore still turned out to be the highest level a mere mortal could achieve.
I think at the moment, we should reserve to just a plain nebulous "Admiralty" without grades, generally for the Executive Council and figure out the system for the rank and file first.
Department Head would remain at Captain level, I think, depending on the size and complexity of department.
Sector Commander could thus be a rotating one/three/six month job, open to anybody, on say, temporary Commodore or even Rear Admiral level. That's right, anybody. Provided, of course, they were of good character and sound judgement. But it gives an equal footing for those who want a chance for something to achieve for.
Of course, this assumes some kind of mentoring, go-to person who would act as, what I previously called the Quadrant Commander. I forget who the one was in charge of SCs previously. He/she would handle the job full time, but as long as the SC behaved, they could do the job. But this temporary SC would then sort promotions paperwork, be in charge of morale boosting and whatever SC has been.
We could also, if we run with the rotating office idea, have various advisors temporarily in charge of stuff and plug them into projects as required... My argument is losing a bit of steam as I now try and justify my thoughts!
Similarly, in regards to departments, I think there should also be a similar mentoring system. Team Leaders should be paired up (term used loosely) to an Assistant Manager to prepare them for training so that they'd slip into the role easily if they get promoted higher.
My general thinking and hope is that people would either move up or move sideways, as 10F expands further.
|
quark
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 11:41
Reply
Your ideas are very complicated. 
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 13:24
Reply
It's not complicated. Well, it is.
But my philosophy is based on what would work. How we could overbuild it without it breaking again. A structure that would be robust that we don't need to worry about it.
And, for once, I'm not just throwing random suggestions out. Not without some reasoning, at least, which is a rarity for me, I have to say.
But effectively, it's trying to level the playing field a little by allowing those in the junior ranks the chance to get to the middle; and those in the middle to get higher without hitting the previous ceiling of Commander, by virtue that people get to Captain by being Department Manager.
|
sarek1
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 16:04
Reply
As an example, here are 17 levels from the SW Imperial Navy, that don't mix in equivalent army ranks.
High Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Admiral
Vice-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Commodore
Line Captain
Captain
Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant
Acting Sub-Lieutenant
Ensign
Midshipman
Cadet
Trainee
|
sarek1
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 16:14
Reply
And you can tweak it to add in new ranks if you want.
For example, between Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander, you can insert Senior Lieutenant or whatever.
|
richard_smith
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 16:48
Reply
I really like the idea or rotating through the Admirality. I think the proposal will not only boost interest, but will also ensure that fresh ideas are cycled in every few months. We'd have to figure out what positions need a Vice Admiral (3 Star) or Admiral (4 Star) access, but that shouldn't be that hard. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but we are proposing that after these officers are done with their "term" they'd revert back to Rear Admiral unless they picked up another position that required a Vice Admiral or Admiral? I definately think we should look at this.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 17:54 · Edited by: ajcardall
Reply
Hey folks,
I raised this idea of rotating admirals on the Executive Council, so we'll see what happens with it. Obviously no guarantees that it's something that will be taken further, but the ideas are always welcome regardless!
|
deboe
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 18:00
Reply
I know this would be a complicated process, but you could possibly have the senior officers campaign and be elected to their admiralty term.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Apr 2011 18:06
Reply
I'm not sure if it would be too complicated - just a quick forum poll, perhaps?
Naturally this is dependent on the proposal receiving approval. It may be a decision is made to have rotating Executives, but not necessarily Admirals, which would still be fair enough, I think!
|
quincyw
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Apr 2011 08:18 · Edited by: quincyw
Reply
Quoting: richard_smith Also correct me if I'm wrong, but we are proposing that after these officers are done with their "term" they'd revert back to Rear Admiral unless they picked up another position that required a Vice Admiral or Admiral?
Depends on the nature of the job. They would revert back to whichever rank they held previously.
I'm going to use old CLs to make life easier.
So for example, a CL4 who has say, a lot of experience in all aspects of the Entertainment Department is brought in to help advise, clean up shop, help with hosting duties and similar. Said person would get a temporary promotion to CL6/7 for their term, then revert to CL4 at the end of it.
The whole Rear Admiral to Vice/Full Admiral thing was just an example to illustrate the concept. Theoretically, under these circumstances, any person of any rank (if they have the qualifications), could be temporarily promoted to that rank depending on the job description, then revert back.
A person will thus have a "permanent" rank, that is, through their years, projects and hard work have gotten promoted to. Their "temporary" rank (Brevet Rank if you want to get the military terminology right) would then be given to them during their assignment. So they get "paid" for their permanent rank, but have the rights and authority of the higher rank while they have that office.
There would also, of course, need to be a mechanism in place so that the "classified" parts of the rank (such as access to the source code, for example), would be withheld.
I should also note that these temporary positions wouldn't be created willy-nilly, but on an as needed basis. A temporarily specialist, or contractor to fill a role until it's over.
|
ajcardall
Member
|
# Posted: 21 Apr 2011 08:57
Reply
Quincy,
That... is a very sound idea, actually... *l*
|
