Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
DecoyDrone

Official Organization Structure Thread

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

In our last meeting I was tasked with brain dumping my organization thoughts that we have shaped over the past few months. The first link is just a simple graph to show the structure and the second goes into more detail. You are more than welcome to start responding to this thread with comments / ideas. I will try to stay on top of the discussion as it is hard to get all my thoughts down on paper. (I do much better in a discussion)... Not to mention I love having open discussion with others as it grows every time we talk about it :D

 

 

Organization Structure Graph:
https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/14hpV3f6oXPqls4OqdLrJjOuPjFfmGfzcwx77enLxJek/edit?usp=sharing

 

Organization Structure Notes:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q0i7H6opjQCpmLFzCqpTIjnJIkERiQb6FN3PAofJ7Ns/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

I hope this gets everyone up to speed. We will reference this thread each time we talk about the organization from now on. So please at least skim through it if you plan on attending teamspeak Advocacy meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point that I think that could become an issue is the requirement, to have to be part of any given charter. 

 

[Members

  • Everyone is a member

  • ((Expected to join at least one charter to help move the org forward))

  • Goes through an onboarding process to become a member

  • Held to the standards of The Code

  • Expected to have fun and speak up if they are not (in charter meetings)

  • Full access to organization public assets]

Other than that, this is great Decoy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='Gritmos'] I understand your concern about "forcing" people to take part, but nobody is forcing anyone to be a part of the organization. To me, it just seems rather pointless to have people claim membership and never contribute anything to the org. If they don't want to be a member of the org, then they don't have to be. But we shouldn't have to take on freeloaders because "freedom".

 

Honestly, it's really not that difficult or onerous to become a member of a single charter so as to become a full-fledged member of the org. At least, not from what I'm seeing here. And it's not like they'll be tied to that charter. I think it was made pretty clear early on that members should be able and would be encouraged to try out other charters and contribute to the org in any manner they can. Heck, even freelancing for the org with the occasional task carried out for their charter would be encouraged for those who don't want to feel trapped in a charter.
 

I guess what I'm saying is that if a member refuses to contribute as a member of a charter, then they may as well have remained a freelance player not a part of any org, because they aren't doing anything for this one and it's structure. This is all designed to encourage team-play and interaction with other members of the org as a part of a unit so as to promote cohesion and strength in unity. If members don't take part in that and contribute to this dynamic, then the organization may as well not exist at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really liking what I'm seeing so far, guys and gals. My one concern that I have thus far is to do with the job board being run through the advocate of the charter. My understanding is that each charter will have a single advocate elected from the members. Now, everyone needs to sleep sometime, and not everyone runs on the same timezone. What happens when members have pressing/time sensitive jobs to post that would benefit from being posted in the org job board ASAP, but the advocate is not available to do so? From my perspective, there's a myriad of things that could become a problem when you have one person designated to serve as the job board curator for a charter with the potential for hundreds of members. I could easily see said member becoming burned out as well. Is there something I'm missing in regards to how the job board is likely to function?

 

One suggestion I have, as I think this will help alleviate other issues that might crop up as well, is that as a charter grows in size, the number of Advocates representing that charter grows as well. Perhaps a ratio of 1 advocate for every 25 members? Or 50? I don't know, does that make any sense? It would really help if I could be present during our meetings, I know, but alas, my internet situation remains a problem. So, please forgive me for anything I'm probably missing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really liking what I'm seeing so far, guys and gals. My one concern that I have thus far is to do with the job board being run through the advocate of the charter. My understanding is that each charter will have a single advocate elected from the members. Now, everyone needs to sleep sometime, and not everyone runs on the same timezone. What happens when members have pressing/time sensitive jobs to post that would benefit from being posted in the org job board ASAP, but the advocate is not available to do so? From my perspective, there's a myriad of things that could become a problem when you have one person designated to serve as the job board curator for a charter with the potential for hundreds of members. I could easily see said member becoming burned out as well. Is there something I'm missing in regards to how the job board is likely to function?

 

One suggestion I have, as I think this will help alleviate other issues that might crop up as well, is that as a charter grows in size, the number of Advocates representing that charter grows as well. Perhaps a ratio of 1 advocate for every 25 members? Or 50? I don't know, does that make any sense? It would really help if I could be present during our meetings, I know, but alas, my internet situation remains a problem. So, please forgive me for anything I'm probably missing here.

 

Yeah the number of advocates should scale with the charter. The ratio is something we have to figure out, I was thinking there has to be at least two advocates per charter. Maybe it is up to the charter to determine the ratio? Some charters are going to be more hands off than others and I like the idea of making healthy self governed charters that aren't bogged down too much by boiler plate rules. What do you guys think? For example the "M50 appreciation Charter" could have hundreds of members but they only want two advocates because they don't really need more than that. That said there probably should be a ratio limit so that a charter can't just be made completely of advocates, clogging up the advocacy with over representation of a small interest group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have put a bit of thought into it over the past few weeks. Charters should definitely have a scaling system, so that there are enough advocates to accomplish the tasks for that role, but also so the charter members are appropriately represented in The Advocacy. Usually, when I think about that it leads me down the road of members being able to be in many charters. 

 

If we have a Advocate scaling system, we will probably need to have member voting rights. So lets say this member BobLogger is a part of 5 charters. He only has voting rights, or I guess representative rights sound more appropriate in one of those charters. So he is in 5 charters, but he has to declare which one of those charters will receive his representative rights. Members should of course be able to shift there Rep. rights around as they decide which charter they currently feel represents their main interest.

 

There would also need to be some kind of waiting period or cool down limit on switching your Rep. rights, mainly to keep some form of charter stability, but also to prevent vote switching to manipulate certain votes.

 

Decoy, makes a good point, with the warning about over representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='DecoyDrone'] On the Job Board thing, I've had some more time to think since and re-establish my understanding of how the job board will likely operate. I think I recall (not sure if accurate) Chris Roberts discussing the job board in one of the earlier Ten for the Chairman vids. The way he described it, it sounded like anybody would be able to post any kind of job as needed on the market. Be it looking for player crew members to escorts for cargo carriers, selling info to looking for explorers to search for new valuable deposits and asteroid rings, etc. All that on top of the Universe-generated jobs (there's going to be no shortage of stuff to do :D ).

 

If I'm not mistaken, he also discussed how Organizations, as an entity, would be able to post jobs. Now for that, I'm totally in agreement with having advocates or a similar elected/chosen position determine what to post on behalf of the Org. Absolutely. These kinds of jobs will likely require a greater degree of time and coordination to make available anyway, so it's not really a hindrance to have a select few tied to creating these jobs. Actually, it would be more of a help.

 

However, I think with the info we have now, it's reasonable to assume there will be inner-Org job boards that will only be usable by that Org's members to share job opportunities with other members. Say I as captain of a Redeemer need assistance on a bounty, people to crew guns and have my back in shady places. I want people I know and have a reasonable idea that I can trust them. What better place to find them than within this Org, better yet my charter?
What I'm getting at here is that I think the Org Job Board will be able to be updated by any member of the Org (this just makes sense to me), and for an Org with our potential size, it makes no sense that there would be one person approving ALL of these job requests.

That said, I do think it would make a TON of sense for there to be some kind of curator, or moderator, who's job it is to quality control the job board, make sure jobs are staying within their designated charters (perhaps each charter has their own curator?), and to help investigate the inevitable abuses of the job board that will happen. Things like someone getting shafted within the Org by another member, members being setup for pirate ambushes, and the like.

 

I might be getting WAY ahead of myself and the game here, but I think this is stuff we need to ponder and discuss. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='loopup2u'] That all makes a lot of sense. I fear there may be in-fighting amongst charters for member's voting rights so that they can garner greater influence within the advocacy as a result of this system, though. Having a cool down would definitely help curb this (perhaps a long enough cool down would curb it outright).

 

What if charters each had an equal set amount of seats in the advocacy? Say, three to a charter (just a number I'm throwing out here)? We could scale the number of seats in each charter up and down as the size of the Org as a whole fluctuates if need be. But I think if we had a set amount of seats, no charter would have greater influence than another within the advocacy, yet the charters (in theory) would still have adequate representation at any one time.

I guess you could look at it as a watchtower protocol. Each charter would maintain at least one representative on watch (as possible) in case of pressing matters within the charter. Things like the mining charter dealing with a wave of pirates on the work site (requiring the Advocate to coordinate with the merc Advocate perhaps) or the bounty charter placing a charter wide priority on a particular individual. These are charter matters that need a representative ASAP, but don't really affect the rest of the Org as a whole. On matters that affect the Org as a whole, these usually require sufficient time that each representative would be able to provide their input. Such matters would require a certain amount of the Advocacy members vote before they could be moved ahead on. In matters of grave emergency for the Org, that's why we have the council, who would be granted emergency powers so as to quickly and efficiently respond to any given emergency. They of course would have input from the Advocacy, but it would not require a majority vote from the Advocacy to take action.

What say y'all to that?

Edited by CanadianDesperado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the finer details regarding the rules are going to come down to the specifics and control the org has over the internal job boards. Off the top of my head some basic rules might be like:

  • Council member can create any job
  • Advocates can create jobs, only for their own charter
  • Members can not create internal jobs (possible exceptions if system allows)
  • The council (or job management charter?) will set base limits and costs for all jobs (no jobs pay less than x UEC, x% minimum org fees etc)
  • All jobs will be monitored and managed as needed by some group (keepers? Job management charter?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice work by all involved. It has been great to see these concepts continue to develop with an open discussion.

 

One blanket statement that we may wish to keep in mind: The more complex the machine, the more difficult to maintain. The more details to explain, the more effort required to maintain.

 

Sometimes our challenge will not be finding a good theoretical system to solve a problem, but rather how such a system can be implemented in a daily and practical way for each and every member of Star Citizen/ADK to use and enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a developer, I feel this org and game is running some serious parallels to industry for me, where I'm trying to build a product before all the design details have been finalized. it's an overall bad way to do things and there's going to be some last minute rework as some things change more and more as time goes on.. but oh man I just want to build it all right now, No ragrets.

 

Literally the only thing keeping me from building entire web applications around this stuff is the fact that I know from experience almost all of it will be worthless based on what we don't yet know. But I want to so bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love what I'm seeing so far from this discussion. Seems the debating went in a direction I would have argued for myself. Forcing people to be in charters isn't really "forcing" anyone to be actively pursuing that charters goals 100% of the time. Join the charters you like and help the charters you like... then represent the charter you spend most of your time with. If you're in five, great. If you're in one, great. As long as you're contributing (and even just being around and flying with friends is contributing) then you're golden. 

 

With the representation, I am more a fan of a fixed number of people versus a fixed percentage. Reason being how I consider the Senate versus the House of Reps. Yea, my representative in the HoR might better represent my personal causes, since I voted for him, but he's got such little say in such greater schemes. My senate representative, however, has much more say and influence. If my charter grows exceptionally large then their representative's voice should get a little bit louder. However, if one charter is HUGE and every other charter is small, you'll forget about the little guys. (IE - when's the last time Rhode Island was a swing state?)

 

I'd also want to echo @[member='Sakkara'] on KISS. Keep it simple, stupid. If we get too much into smallest group leading smaller group of important folks aided by small group of ambassadors to represent a million small groups of specifically minded folk who are all part of the greater group of everyone... we get lost. If anyone can just up and make a charter, we'll end up with a charter for everything and we'll be way too overburdened with micromanagement. I think choosing a good even number 8-10 varying areas of entertainment (in a fantasy mmo - PvP, PvE, Crafting, RolePlay, etc...) and making charters that are specific to those areas of gameplay, and then petrify those charters, the organization will write itself. Find people who want to be leaders and get them going on naming and doing graphics for the Merc Charter, the Pirate Charter, the Trade Charter, etc... then when they're all set, we can start joining the ones we want and putting their icons (or whatever) in our siggies. 

 

Anyway, that's my two cents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very much liking the input @[member='Grimbjorn'] has put in concerning the charters and such. In many ways, SC is going to be very similar to other RPG's, so it stands to reason that the activities common to those RPG's will be present in some form or fashion in SC.

 

While we may not be able to solidify the devil's details concerning how we interface with the game itself (ie. job boards being a big one), I think we should be able to have a pretty solid organization structure fleshed out over the next couple months that will allow us to just slot these functions in once they've been introduced.

 

Having witnessed how ADK operates in Planetside 2, it was very very evident that we just don't have the kind of player base it takes to micromanage on even a basic level. We play for the fun of it, this isn't a full-time job (for most of us). We have some incredible players, but for the most part we're not an elite l337 player organization. We've got a lot of people who do the 9-5 grind and come here to escape that whole mentality, not to create another job to serve in their fantasy game.

 

ADK seems (to me) to function best on the MACRO-management level. We move as one because it's fun, not because it's efficient or a feat of tactical ingenuity. We've certainly got the potential to do so, but we'd quickly lose our community because that's not what our community is about. We're a bunch of dudes and dudettes who come here to play together and have a laugh doing it.

 

I don't mean to lecture everyone on why we're in ADK, y'all know why you're here (I'm here because it's the funnest group I've ever had the honor of playing with). I just find it helps me figure out solutions to questions when I remind myself of the whole point of the question.

So what I'm getting at is that I think we need to tailor our management structure towards the MACRO-level. It keeps it simple and easy to follow, and as our members become familiar with each other, we'll see the micro-management structures pop up as needed without needing any kind of OFFICIAL guidance. We just need to create a skeleton within which the organs will form and that will help guide these various organs together towards our ultimate goal: THE UNIVERSAL DOMINION OF FUN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='CanadianDesperado'] Rest assured MACRO-management is what the goal is... Charters which are more micro don't even exist unless a bunch of people want to make it happen. It all scales with the effort people want to put into it, but at the end of the day it is all about getting people into the action they want as quickly as possible in the 'verse. Keep your eye on the forums because continued discussion will happen here as we figure out the bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have the cat in the bag on this one. I am pretty sure @[member='loopup2u'] will do everything in his power to make this happen.

@[member='DecoyDrone'] I like the quote about MACRO-managment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good guys. I'd like to suggest something to fit in the structure you have in place. I think we should have a "Nomad" charter (for anyone that watches SOA kind of like that). People who would like to take a break from working for a charter or want to freelance for a bit without other obligations but dont' want to loose assocaition with us just becasue they want to take a little break. I would propose that these members in the Nomad charter would not have access to community assests, and could still be called in or offer help to different charters or the org as a whole, on an on call kind of basis. Just a thought, let me know what you think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@[member='bscrash'] Yeah, I dig this idea. It would help mitigate players getting burnt out and quitting the org altogether, while still keeping them in the loop. Tired of mining, mining, mining, oh and some more mining? Hook up with the nomads, join up with some others, and take your 325 out for some relaxing (or exhilarating) exploration. See the sites, bum around, see what else is out there. In the area while an org op is going on? Maybe swing by and lend a hand (or not, no obligation). Just do whatever the heck you feel like doing without feeling pressured into whatever activities your home charter is up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use