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

Doing a major untested office overhaul on multiple titles in illadvised.

This poll was put up with UOAF being the trial department for such a future change to be put forward after we approach it with UOAF first.

This was put up as a multi-phase poll to work with the idea of game specific departments, find out what they need, rebalance how some of the existing departments interact with them, and simplify how some assets and resources are needed.

 

Making blanket changes because it "looks good" on a flowchart is not ideal, and quite simply MMO as being a forced part of UOAF is not needed in the same aspect it would be needed in UOA3.

Future games that may not support such a need or desire it would be pointless to use this large blanket approach for what we think looks good in these two specific titles at the current time.

Other titles may not need the full overlap that the current to proposed titles currently need or support.

 

I feel that if this poll fails in it's current wording, that a later superpoll to do massive untested changes over multiple titles will also fail for other reasons that have yet to be brought up, in addition to the huge overlapping changes that it would bring on or force onto multiple titles. This would cause the trial grounds of a game specific department to be delayed not just for the length of this poll being put up, but for a number of months, due to disagreements on Major polls affecting not just one specific title but multiple departments, with huge untested changes to organization within the community.

If one of those polls fails as well, we would be delaying each instance of a non specific charter change to be delayed for another month, repeated for each new "great" idea that someone throws into a poll that has yet to be tested, and looks interesting, but may lead to another discussion such as this.

 

If we pass this poll as it is right now, as a basic level office appointment, work with that, and go forward with the "good idea" we can see what needs to be done in the future and address those issues individually, as opposed to letting an entire game remain in an unsupported limbo though no fault of their own.

Share this post


Link to post

Imp is correct. Let's start on a relatively small scale before restructuring it as per J0sh's post. Any major change to the charter is in my opinion bound to fail, because people constantly come up with "better" ideas that result in vote, after vote failing. If we really want to go ahead with J0sh's proposal, than keep working on his idea and put it up for a vote.

Keep in mind that we can still implement the changes J0sh is suggesting AFTER this poll pases.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Impulse. He wants the UOAF to be a game office to find possible flaws before implementing a larger and more complicated Arma Office. The UOAF can always change our charter phrasing to accommodate Jozh's proposal for the modular structured system.

 

I would also like to give some input on implementing the modular structured system. For the sake of pacing, we would need to find a balanced approach to implementing this. If we implement this system all at once it would give the idea great momentum and a speedy implementation, but at the cost of running into unforeseen problems and being unable to change them later. If we take too long and over-plan this idea, it would lose momentum and many people would give up on implementing this.

This is another reason I think we should implement the UOAF Office now, to get our "foot in the door" for this plan. It's much easier to plan for change when you're already half way there. The UOAF Office can be used as a reference to retain momentum if the plan gets too long.

Share this post


Link to post

Rejecting the notion of an unsubmitted & undiscussed poll that may, or may not, happen as currently conceived/envisaged, impacting this poll.

 

Still voting yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Rejecting the notion of an unsubmitted & undiscussed poll that may, or may not, happen as currently conceived/envisaged, impacting this poll.

 

Still voting yes.

 

It's more the fact that, without some amendment, we are introducing direct conflicts in the charter. For example, the current UOTC description directly cuts across the training powers of the UOAF officer. 

 

4.3.6.5 - Officer of the Training Center: These Officers are tasked with the implementation of official training courses within the community, the development of courses that coincide with the standard of play at UO, raising the overall standard of play, producing training plans, and the hiring/dismissal of instructors within the department.

 

This can be solved by making UTOC Arma3 specific and the UOAF power being draft by reference to UOAF and not the 'community' as a whole. Whilst in practice I doubt UOTC officers would seek to fire UOAF training delegates or enforce training plans on them, they currently appear to have the power to do so. If I vote yes to this now, these is no guarantee that this will ever be fixed in a subsequent poll.

 

I can live without a full blown restructuring, but I can see no point in creating further bad drafting in the document. As far as possible, it should be clear and unambiguous, whilst remaining concise, and this change as drafted does not meet that standard. 

 

Why does no one ever post draft poll wording for important changes so that it can be criticised in advance of being put to the vote? 

Edited by IAJT

Share this post


Link to post

I had noted this myself previously, but discounted it since Officers is stated in the plural and I didn't see any issue with having multiple UOTC Officers of different flavours (A3/AF).
 

edit:

.. Why does no one ever post draft poll wording for important changes so that it can be criticised in advance of being put to the vote?

Agreed. Would also like to see this.

Edited by kail

Share this post


Link to post

I think your point could be easily fixed by changing the wording of the UOTC office to explicitly say that the powers of the UOTC office, and its delegates, only pertains to A3. I guess what I am failing to see is how it is apparently complicated to just have an A3 office, with UOTC, GM's GSO's etc, and a UOAF office, with their own delegates*. The way I see it sounds simple: an A3 Office, Web Service Office, and an UOAF Office.

 

Edit: offices* to delegates 

Edited by TripShot

Share this post


Link to post

It's more the fact that, without some amendment, we are introducing direct conflicts in the charter. For example, the current UOTC description directly cuts across the training powers of the UOAF officer. 

 

4.3.6.5 - Officer of the Training Center: These Officers are tasked with the implementation of official training courses within the community, the development of courses that coincide with the standard of play at UO, raising the overall standard of play, producing training plans, and the hiring/dismissal of instructors within the department.

 

This can be solved by making UTOC Arma3 specific and the UOAF power being draft by reference to UOAF and not the 'community' as a whole. Whilst in practice I doubt UOTC officers would seek to fire UOAF training delegates or enforce training plans on them, they currently appear to have the power to do so. If I vote yes to this now, these is no guarantee that this will ever be fixed in a subsequent poll.

 

I can live without a full blown restructuring, but I can see no point in creating further bad drafting in the document. As far as possible, it should be clear and unambiguous, whilst remaining concise, and this change as drafted does not meet that standard. 

 

Why does no one ever post draft poll wording for important changes so that it can be criticised in advance of being put to the vote? 

 

As Trip said, this can EASILY be fixed, AFTER this poll passes. And to your question as to why no one posts draft polls, the answer is quite simple: because almost every time this has been done, the draft has been disucssed to death time and time again with no actual Poll ever being posted because there are Regulars in this Community who dislike ANY initiative and will vote no unless it comes from them!

While I do agree that it would be nice to post the draft polls beforehand, there is simply NO POINT in doing so.

Again, ANY and ALL issues, that may or may not pop up if this poll passes, can easily be corrected with a second poll.

However, I doubt there will be any issues whatsoever.

Edited by Edwards

Share this post


Link to post

It's more the fact that, without some amendment, we are introducing direct conflicts in the charter. For example, the current UOTC description directly cuts across the training powers of the UOAF officer. 

 

4.3.6.5 - Officer of the Training Center: These Officers are tasked with the implementation of official training courses within the community, the development of courses that coincide with the standard of play at UO, raising the overall standard of play, producing training plans, and the hiring/dismissal of instructors within the department.

 

 

 

A quick fix for this is for Azzwort(UOTC Officer) to grant UOAF Officers full training permission for BMS. This would last until UOTC has its charter reworded.

Share this post


Link to post

As Trip said, this can EASILY be fixed, AFTER this poll passes. And to your question as to why no one posts draft polls, the answer is quite simple: because almost every time this has been done, the draft has been disucssed to death time and time again with no actual Poll ever being posted because there are Regulars in this Community who dislike ANY initiative and will vote no unless it comes from them!

 

That is illogical. If people vote against change purely because they do not propose it, then would do so in a live poll just as well as a draft. It's particularly unlikely here where no one has raised any in principle objection to the change being proposed. 

Edited by IAJT

Share this post


Link to post

A quick fix for this is for Azzwort(UOTC Officer) to grant UOAF Officers full training permission for BMS. This would last until UOTC has its charter reworded.

 

An even simpler fix would be to separate BMS trainers from UOTC. Make them their own office with their own Officer. 

Share this post


Link to post

An even simpler fix would be to separate BMS trainers from UOTC. Make them their own office with their own Officer.

 

Too much structure. Things need to simplify. Hence the proposal for UOAF office as selfcontained "unit".

Share this post


Link to post

Too much structure. Things need to simplify. Hence the proposal for UOAF office as selfcontained "unit".

 

It is my understanding that the point of this poll is the fact that UOAF has hardly any structure at all, aside from leaders and members. You say "hence the proposal for UOAF office self-contained unit" which is exactly what I am saying. Make them their own "unit" with their own "unit leaders" (where unit, read office/officers)  

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...