Command power structure overhaul

[masterelzoi]

This doc outlines changes to be made to the command structure in funky station to more align with the themes we wish to show, and more clearly define command roles and their purposes

Flowchart now updated

[pirakaplant]

I agree with most of the content of the document. The issue is, these topics were being assigned to and worked on by people from the SOP Workgroup (me included) and some parts of this document suggest that it is not up to speed with certain discussions and changes to our original plan that we made.

For example, by Checkpoint 5 (1 week ago), we decided that the Hospitality Director (here referred to as the Mess Officer) was a true command member, based on conversation with Tay where they agreed with Alicios that Service should stay a department independent of Cargo/Logistics. This is not reflected in this document, where it is still under the Quartermaster.

[TheBoss913]

I like that Security does feel very separated from the rest of the politics of the Station here, should be cool for some politics action. Also the XO, and the new QM overseeing most of Service sounds like it should be really good RP, very nice.

Unless I'm incorrect, I do think that the new Radio Channel should be added into the "Technical Considerations" section.

[masterelzoi]

I agree with most of the content of the document. The issue is, these topics were being assigned to and worked on by people from the SOP Workgroup (me included) and some parts of this document suggest that it is not up to speed with certain discussions and changes to our original plan that we made.

For example, by Checkpoint 5 (1 week ago), we decided that the Hospitality Director (here referred to as the Mess Officer) was a true command member, based on conversation with Tay where they agreed with Alicios that Service should stay a department independent of Cargo/Logistics. This is not reflected in this document, where it is still under the Quartermaster.

Gonna be fr I haven't read like anything in the workgroup
All of the content in this doc came from a call with myself dimes higwaz rainbeon and tay that happened weeks ago. It would have been up weeks ago but I got very busy and had task paralysis lmao. The original instructions to the sop workgroup about the command restructuring was made during that call

I don't think the hospitality director is a good idea for numerous reasons. Mainly I don't think NanoTrassen would trust the person in charge of coordinating meals be trusted with their most sensitive corporate secrets when compared to other command staff. Additionally I don't think there is enough responsibility in such a small section of the station to justify its own command role. The idea is to push more responsibility and things to command on command members, not less. The idea was to centralise service, and on its own that is challenging.

If you could cite where tay said they explicitly want service as a department that would be nice because I cannot find it and it isn't what i was told by them.

[masterelzoi]

I like that Security does feel very separated from the rest of the politics of the Station here, should be cool for some politics action. Also the XO, and the new QM overseeing most of Service sounds like it should be really good RP, very nice.

Unless I'm incorrect, I do think that the new Radio Channel should be added into the "Technical Considerations" section.

Thankyou! Also you right i forgot to include that lmao will do

[pirakaplant]

@masterelzoi

If you could cite where tay said they explicitly want service as a department that would be nice because I cannot find it and it isn't what i was told by them.

@alicios had a good proposal
on this i believe
the outcome i want is a department in charge of running a station restaraunt and a bar

Tay said this in response to me asking whether HD should be command. For context, alicios is pro-HD-being-command:

[...] it would be so fun to actually have a leader whose entire purpose is to ensure that the whole service department is working well and doing stuff

[...] the Quartermaster actually being in charge of service would detract from a single command member focusing on it

@taydeo if you could 100% clarify that this is what you mean that would be great, because I interpret this as being supportive of HD being a command member proper. And given I've been assigned the design doc work for writing up the changes to Cargo/Logistics and Service, this is very pertinent information to me too.

[Teasq]

I am very in favour of decoupling the duties of head of service from the 2nd in command and allowing them to perform their duties more purposefully. I've always felt like HoP has been the odd-jobber in command where they just sort of get the jobs that don't fit for other members of command.

Centralizing security is also a very interesting way of giving the captain more power, and making the head of security non-command is an excellent way of clearly establishing who is in power when it comes to the captain and the HoS. I've seen the HoS work against the captain's interest many times simply because they're both command, so it feels justified.
My only concern when it comes to this is how you handle the head of security having/not having access to command secrets. If they do have access to it, it creates a very weird and unintuitive inconsistency. If they don't, does the job of briefing security fall on the captain then? If the latter is true, it does take away a bit from the feeling of control over your department for the HOS and overall makes the job less interesting, as the duty of weighing when to reveal these secrets is no longer the head of security's.

Finally, moving the service department jobs to cargo (now named logistics) is pretty logical in my opinion. Cargo now being logistics already allays my concerns over misinterpretation. I also agree that the mess officer/hospitality director in this case doesn't really hold enough responsibility to warrant having access to command and command secrets. It seems to me that they are, at best, middle management. Service in this case still has a boss that can oversee them. Your boss doesn't have to be command to still be your boss.
My only concern here is naming conventions. I think it should be hospitality director over mess officer. The only people that really hold militaristic titles are security and members of command. If the head of service is not to be command, I think they should hold a more civilian title like Hospitality Director. That's why I like that the Head of Personnel is now the Executive Officer, it makes the naming schemes consistent. I'd also like to see the RD and CE follow suit, but I can understand why you wouldn't particularly care about that in this document. And to be honest, a Mess Officer (down the line) being in charge of running a restaurant doesn't feel right.

[masterelzoi]

I am very in favour of decoupling the duties of head of service from the 2nd in command and allowing them to perform their duties more purposefully. I've always felt like HoP has been the odd-jobber in command where they just sort of get the jobs that don't fit for other members of command.

Centralizing security is also a very interesting way of giving the captain more power, and making the head of security non-command is an excellent way of clearly establishing who is in power when it comes to the captain and the HoS. I've seen the HoS work against the captain's interest many times simply because they're both command, so it feels justified. My only concern when it comes to this is how you handle the head of security having/not having access to command secrets. If they do have access to it, it creates a very weird and unintuitive inconsistency. If they don't, does the job of briefing security fall on the captain then? If the latter is true, it does take away a bit from the feeling of control over your department for the HOS and overall makes the job less interesting, as the duty of weighing when to reveal these secrets is no longer the head of security's.

Finally, moving the service department jobs to cargo (now named logistics) is pretty logical in my opinion. Cargo now being logistics already allays my concerns over misinterpretation. I also agree that the mess officer/hospitality director in this case doesn't really hold enough responsibility to warrant having access to command and command secrets. It seems to me that they are, at best, middle management. Service in this case still has a boss that can oversee them. Your boss doesn't have to be command to still be your boss. My only concern here is naming conventions. I think it should be hospitality director over mess officer. The only people that really hold militaristic titles are security and members of command. If the head of service is not to be command, I think they should hold a more civilian title like Hospitality Director. That's why I like that the Head of Personnel is now the Executive Officer, it makes the naming schemes consistent. I'd also like to see the RD and CE follow suit, but I can understand why you wouldn't particularly care about that in this document. And to be honest, a Mess Officer (down the line) being in charge of running a restaurant doesn't feel right.

They do have access to corporate secrets as they are mostly just removed from the chain of succession, they are still in charge of security, its just further pushing the idea that the captain is exclusively in charge of the hos, while the XO is not, but both the xo and captain are the bosses of the other command members. Also i kinda agree on the mess officer name not fitting but imma be real i didn't know what else to name it at the time so will do!

[Dusty-Plant]

I would like to see more details on what is needed for the HD and waiters mapping-wise (does the HD need specific consoles, a locker, an office?). Also, why create a new role for waiters when we already have service workers that can do this job?

[TheHolyAegis]

Is it just me, or does it feel a bit weird that the new HoP is part of legal while still managing every access. Maybe the XO should be a command member, like captain. I feel like XO would still sit in their office mostly.

[TheHolyAegis]

Also, does the XE need permission from other department heads to give security certain accesses?

[willowzeta]

A handful of things I have to say about this:

1. I think Magistrate is fine with its current name. Judicial Officer is a much less cool name with a very unfortunate acronym.
2. Medical and Science should be presented as a spectrum, as opposed to discrete.
3. Failing the above, Roboticist should be formally organized under medical.
4. See Central Command -> Internal Affairs #99

[masterelzoi]

I would like to see more details on what is needed for the HD and waiters mapping-wise (does the HD need specific consoles, a locker, an office?). Also, why create a new role for waiters when we already have service workers that can do this job?

Can include what devices and mapping requirements. Waiter was added to replace service worker cause tay asked me to do so (should be in graph under hospitality manager)

[masterelzoi]

Is it just me, or does it feel a bit weird that the new HoP is part of legal while still managing every access. Maybe the XO should be a command member, like captain. I feel like XO would still sit in their office mostly.

the xo is a command member. As said in the doc they are the boss of all command members barring hos. Only the captain outranks them. The core identity of a paperwork focused job was intended to be kept. This was further pushing them into the position of the second in command

[masterelzoi]

A handful of things I have to say about this:

1. I think Magistrate is fine with its current name. Judicial Officer is a much less cool name with a very unfortunate acronym.
2. Medical and Science should be presented as a spectrum, as opposed to discrete.
3. Failing the above, Roboticist should be formally organized under medical.
4. See Central Command -> Internal Affairs #99

I see what you mean about the name and will have a think about it

I am unsure why medical and science should be presented as a spectrum. Unless there is an approved change I am unaware of they are still distinct departments. This document is more focused on command members and their specific jurisdiction anyway.

The design doc linked does not show as approved. I can make changes based on it but i am unsure if this is even something being majorly considered, id prefer to consult with people prior to doing so