Jump to content
Impulse 9

Office of Air Forces

Creation of Air Forces Office  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Creation of Air Forces Office

    • Yes
      29
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

Charter Modification

 

4.3.6.6 Officer of Air Forces:

These officers are tasked with ensuring the operation of flight simulations within UO.

Tasks including community integration, training, event organization and management.

 

The UOAF leadership would like to set up a UOAF Office to improve and expand flight simulation experiences within United Operations as well as create depth and ensure continuity. Currently UOAF has many office resources including a team of delegates, a Discord private channel, a Wiki subgroup, and TeamSpeak moderation within the UOAF - BMS & DCS channels. We have a dedicated UOAF server that leadership and some select delegates have access to. We are planning on asking a number of UOAF roster members to apply for Regularship to help support UOAF and these members would be the foundation of the office’s staff.

 

Within an office, we would spread some of the event planning to more people to reduce the growing workload. We would host more official events and pickups and add some more formal structure to ensure continuity if and when the current leadership changes.

 

 

The key services the UOAF Office will offer to the community are as follows:

Manage UOAF servers for community use

Promote and moderate flight simulation events

Organize fight simulation participation

Manage training material on the UO wiki

The primary objectives of the UOAF Office are as follows:

1. Refined focus

a. BMS - primary focus

b. DCS - support grassroots organization

c. Other - support grassroots organization

2. Distribute workload

a. Assign event and pickup fragging duties to UOAF Office delegates

b. Trust UOAF Office delegates with using the dedicated UOAF server

c. Develop and improve the UOAF Wiki

How UOAF wants to accomplish its objectives:

1. Consolidate and update existing UOAF SOPs

2. Assemble a team of delegates:

a. Mission Fraggers to create, promote and coordinate events and pickup flights.

b. Game Moderators to host events, pickup flights, and training sessions.

c. Content Experts to consolidate and update UOAF knowledge base in Wiki

d. Instructor Pilots (IPs) to improve the quality of our members.

3. Encourage and support UOAF roster members to apply for Regularship at UO

This poll requires a 3/4 vote lasting two weeks, ending 2017-03-23.

​This poll was put up at Regular Request.

Edited by Impulse 9
Formatting

Share this post


Link to post

Ok just some questions. Per charter all officers are GMs, will they also care this role over to BMS servers? If your creating GM roles shouldn't their role also carry over to other servers or will people be able to tell the difference? Lastly currently all GMs are under the oversight of all officers, will these GMs be too?

 

Maybe using the term Game Moderator here is adding to unnecessary confusion on my part.

Share this post


Link to post

These would be Game Moderators specifically to UOAF Game Instances. The Definition is yet to be defined.

As a GSO I would ask that the delegate position under UOAF be called something different from the current GSO/GM.

As a GSO I would ask that the delegate position, in it's definition give unique responsibilities in comparison to the GSO/GM position and definition.

 

I would assume that the term Game Moderator is a familiar term for the general role and general function of the proposed delegate position.

 

From Teamspeak discussions, the idea was to call it AFGM.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok just some questions. Per charter all officers are GMs, will they also care this role over to BMS servers? If your creating GM roles shouldn't their role also carry over to other servers or will people be able to tell the difference? Lastly currently all GMs are under the oversight of all officers, will these GMs be too?

 

Maybe using the term Game Moderator here is adding to unnecessary confusion on my part.

 

First of all great questions. Darkfib3r and I know that we need delegates similar to the Arma3 "Game Moderators" but we will not necessarily share this term. Because of your question, our first thought was to call this team AFGMs (Air Force Game Masters) or Game Controllers (GC's) but this is subject to change. Our intent is not have have UOAF "GMs" carrying over to other servers such as Arma but to simply manage the UOAF server.
 
Regarding your question about Officers carrying over moderator privileges to the BMS server, this is certainly an option. If that was the case we would create a document laying out the do's-and-dont's of managing the pesky 18 year old code of Falcon4 so that Officers would be able to manage this task. 
 
I think the confusion here is that we called part of our team "Game Moderators" and this name conflicts with the current UO Arma3 Game Moderators. We will not be calling our delegates Game Moderators and favor something else to eliminate any future confusion.
Edited by Gusy

Share this post


Link to post

I think this makes sense.

 

UOAF has a proven record of self-government, having their administration integrated under the charter is a logical step.

Edited by zumorc

Share this post


Link to post

Would fully support this. It would 'legitimize' UOAF as part of the UO community, so to speak. Although, a lot of UOAF players also play Arma from time to time, is there any particular reason that their role as GM's should be restricted to UOAF practices? It seems as though it would create a kind of second-tier officer whose remit only extends to UOAF, and if a player is to be nominated as an officer at UOAF I feel as though it should be taken as a given that they would be of the same standard as one who isn't in the position via UOAF- making the restriction unnecessary. However, that being said, giving non-UOAF officers that have no interest in playing the sims powers on said sims would be redundant.

 

Regarding the naming convention, FM- Flight Moderator, could work; if they are to be a seperate entity.

Edited by JakCurse

Share this post


Link to post

I am behind it in principle, but do we not need to give a little bit of thought as to which of our current positions are generic roles across our games and which are game specific? Whilst it might be obvious with UOAF, if more games are added with increased cross-over of regulars and officers, I could see it getting messy if we don't sort it out at the start and amend the charter to put the structure in place now.

Share this post


Link to post

I am in support of a UOAF office.

 

I do, however, agree with IAJT, discussions and eventually decisions need to be made now about how this will affect all offices at UO.

 

Questions like:

 

- Do Regulars retain the same powers and responsibilities in a UOAF BMS session as they do in a UOA3 session?

- Do UOAF Officers retain powers regarding bans and administration for UOA3 matters?

- Do UOA3 Officers retain TS control over UOAF channels (and vice versa)?

- Do we have officers/appointments who control the entirety of TS? The entirety of game servers?

 

As UO was founded on the basis of only playing Arma officially, changes need to be put in place now to ensure smooth integration of other official game titles.

Share this post


Link to post

I am in support of a UOAF office.

 

I do, however, agree with IAJT, discussions and eventually decisions need to be made now about how this will affect all offices at UO.

 

Questions like:

 

- Do Regulars retain the same powers and responsibilities in a UOAF BMS session as they do in a UOA3 session?

- Do UOAF Officers retain powers regarding bans and administration for UOA3 matters?

- Do UOA3 Officers retain TS control over UOAF channels (and vice versa)?

- Do we have officers/appointments who control the entirety of TS? The entirety of game servers?

 

As UO was founded on the basis of only playing Arma officially, changes need to be put in place now to ensure smooth integration of other official game titles.

 

We held off pushing for Office creation until the UOAF grew large enough in size where it warranted an Office to handle the large workload. If this integration is happening there is a lot of conflicts in the charter and eventually change will be needed. The AFO introduction is in my opinion a good first step for mutli-game integration, but is not perfect. There needs to be a ton of discussion about non-Arma integration and perhaps changes in Officer roles. But I believe if changes are to be made they are thoroughly debated and discussed and slowly introduced, rather than large immediate sweeping changes.

Share this post


Link to post

In light of that I'm going to vote no on this. Given discussion needs to happen, we should probably do that before we implement hard to revoke changes.

Share this post


Link to post

The way I understand the proposed charter modification:

 

 

Charter Modification

 
4.3.6.6 Officer of Air Forces:
These officers are tasked with ensuring the operation of flight simulations within UO.
Tasks including community integration, training, event organization and management.

 

The UOAF Officers are not granted any responsibilities regarding the ArmA side of the community.

They would be given TS3 Officer permissions and powers, the equivalent forum rights and would administer the UOAF operations, not being assigned any responsibilities regarding the ArmA operations (or any other game for that matter) of our community.

 

But I agree there are some general questions that need to be solved, even beyond the office question, how do we treat games other than ArmA?

Right now we appoint regulars that are primarily or only active in UOAF, while traditionally the regularship has always been anchored in ArmA our core community activity...

Edited by zumorc

Share this post


Link to post

The way I understand the proposed charter modification:

 

 

The UOAF Officers are not granted any responsibilities regarding the ArmA side of the community.

They would be given TS3 Officer permissions and powers, the equivalent forum rights and would administer the UOAF operations, not being assigned any responsibilities regarding the ArmA operations (or any other game for that matter) of our community.

 

But I agree there are some general questions that need to be solved, even beyond the office question, how do we treat games other than ArmA?

Right now we appoint regulars that are primarily or only active in UOAF, while traditionally the regularship has always been anchored in ArmA our core community activity...

With UOAF increasing in size more and more, we need to change that. UOAF has been around for ages and has always been treated as a sort of side kick, mainly because there were relatively few people flying with UOAF. This has changed in recent Months, I've seen UOAF events that had more people attending them, then there were players on the primary. I feel UOAF needs to have a bigger "lobby" around here, which is something that I've said for a while now. This addition to the charter would be the first step towards that, and I fully support it.

Edited by Edwards

Share this post


Link to post

Absoluetly, but a Flight Moderator or whatever the delegate title should be seperate from the ArmA GMs, as they are under a different Office for a different game,

vice versa an ArmA GM is not assigned any administrative duties for the flight sim part of the community.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this have already been clarified and established by Impulse in this answer :

 

These would be Game Moderators specifically to UOAF Game Instances. The Definition is yet to be defined.
As a GSO I would ask that the delegate position under UOAF be called something different from the current GSO/GM.
As a GSO I would ask that the delegate position, in it's definition give unique responsibilities in comparison to the GSO/GM position and definition.

I would assume that the term Game Moderator is a familiar term for the general role and general function of the proposed delegate position.

From Teamspeak discussions, the idea was to call it AFGM.

Share this post


Link to post

We keep saying UOAF is getting larger, but how large is UOAF?  Of the 13,314 registered members on these forums how many are UOAF?  How many are donors members?  By your own roster there are only 18 of you.  I have not had a clear understanding of this and this seems to be the driving push for this to happen, the growing UOAF.

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion of this matter is somewhat complicated but the simple version is that as it stands, I am not in favour of this poll and will vote no at this time.

 

This does not mean I do not support a UOAF office, in fact, I do. However, my preference to how we approach game specific Offices does not stop simply at UOAF.

I agree that UOAF needs more representation which is why I believe they should have a UOAF specific Office in the future. I believe that this should be a sign that we should perhaps look into a restructure of the Offices as a whole and this is something I will explain below.

 

It is in my opinion that for UOAF to get an Office dedicated to themselves, UOA3 would also require one. Whilst ARMA is unquestionably our primary game, it does not make sense to have one game with its own office and the other without. Instead, I would like to see all Offices restructured and my proposal can be seen in this diagram below:

 

 

 

YIPWXqk.png?1

 

 

 

This is a very rough draft, open to criticism.

 

The basic plan would be for WSO, GSO and PRO to remain as core community Offices.

These are the Offices which ultimately run our community regardless of what game we play be it ARMA, BMS, Rainbow Six Siege, or Wargame Red Dragon. Secondly would be our core game Offices, so in this case, it would be UOA3 and UOAF. These are the two primary games of this community that we control and dictate, unlike Wargame and Siege.

 

These Offices will have delegates beneath them to handle game-specific tasks. UOA3 will have the Mission maker and UOTC delegates.

Both of these will have a senior delegate, they, however, will no longer be an Officer.

UOAF will have similar delegates, those who prep server and create frags for example, though I do not know how UOAF handles those.

 

This structure, in my opinion, will help us refocus the Offices to be less centralised on ARMA and more encompassing of all games we support at the core.

Any delegate position that currently requires Regularship will still require Regularship but this will ultimately lead to the removal of the MMO and UOTC Officer sections. 

 

In summary, I will support an addition of UOAF Officer as long as the restructure is along the lines as I have proposed.

This is something that will need to be discussed further but ultimately will help progress United Operations, in my opinion. I have discussed this at length with UOAF and they seem eager to support my proposition, so for this poll, I will vote no. 

Share this post


Link to post

I fully support j0zh's idea, as it does allow for easily further expansion. Blah blah more words stating the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Kalohe, I hear what you are saying: why does UOAF need an office if it is relatively small in comparison with the overall UO population?

 

While our numbers are low in comparison to the overall UO population, it is significant in terms of planning and running events. Our last event we had 32 players, 28 of which got to play. Moderating a large group like this in a flight simulator is challenging, given package and mission timings, stepped on communications, etc. In a flight simulator, these are extremely high numbers. With these larger numbers, the time and energy to produce events and pickups goes up and is taxing on the small team we currently have in place.

 

An office is seen as a way to formalize some structure and spread out the workload for the growing population. We would like to see more events and more pickups hosted out of UOAF and given the surge of interest, it is clear that we cannot do this alone. Furthermore, an office allows us to assign trusted and competent members to moderate the server and is something Impulse has said he was more comfortable with moving forward. It has also been suggested that the UOAF office could be used as a template for other games that get adopted at UO and the office strategy fits into that strategy.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Share this post


Link to post

I support J0zhs idea, a reformation of UOs structure like shown on the diagram will give us the ability to be more flexible when it comes to the introduction of new offices. 

Share this post


Link to post

I fully support the restructuring of Offices at UO. It's time we start thinking about the future and have a modular system for specific Game Offices, then Backbone Offices like GSO, WSO, PRO. This would be the largest change in UO history and would need quite a discussion before implementation. 

 

As for the AFO poll I would like to work with changes if they are to occur. We have two options for this poll. 

Option A: Kill this poll and combine it into the UO Restructuring Poll.

Option B: Continue this poll and create the UOAF Office first as a testbed for a this new modular Game Office system. 

 

Hopefully the end goal for us at UOAF is we meet our goals of refining our structure and distributing the workload are completed. I am indifferent to whichever path we take to get there, as long as we get there.

Edited by Gusy

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with what Jozh is proposing - it's essentially a restructuring of UO with an organized top-level administrative structure with defined and organized game boundaries.

 

My feedback is that the bottom level organization would be subject to the office itself so that the teams can self organize in a way that works best for them. The intent seems to not necessarily be that the offices themselves will be structured a specific way but to structure them so they can govern their subject areas effectively. What is good for one game may not be cleanly transferable to another.

 

Thanks for the feedback!

Share this post


Link to post

I fully support Jozh's structure, and looking forward to see people who are active in such positions.

Share this post


Link to post

I switched my vote to No, I have come to believe that we need a more holistic approach to this as Josh and others have started to lay out.

 

Ideally we would draft a restructuring and then put it as a package to a poll.

Edited by zumorc

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...