|
Post by Skull132 on Apr 3, 2014 23:07:38 GMT
Players, in the past few months we (the server staff) have noticed a severe lack of proper leadership capabilities in Head of Staff roles. What's worse, is that we've abuse of such positions. This needs to change. As such, we will start actively assigning job bans as we feel necessary, and we will be overlooking the present whitelist system, as it obviously is not functional. Now, first, let me set two things straight: - This is not me yelling. This is not me ranting. This is a subject that I cannot rant about, it is one I can only guide on, so bellow follows my guidance to those who need it. Leadership is a subject with many styles, many means to the same end. Most of them valid, and I only represent a very small majority of those means.
- Secondly, this is a game. I'm not expecting to run all of you through something akin to military schools of leadership or anything crazy like that. However, it is still a role which requires some understanding of what you're getting yourself into, and hopefully, I can provide this understanding.
Alright, let us take a nice stroll down this subject. Who is a leader? A leader is an individual assigned with the higher responsibility of overseeing the operations of his subordinates. He is to enable them to work, to provide guidance to them, to provide assistance to them, and to communicate with them: - Enable - provide conditions, tools, environment necessary to ensure in productivity. Anything from simply ensuring that cargo is acquiring what your department to ensuring that internal conflicts are cleared. This is one of the most important aspects of being a leader in my personal opinion.
- Provide Guidance - a head must be familiar with the areas they are responsible for. While, personally, I would not demand indepth knowledge of every single activity possible within the department, they must be familiar enough with them to provide general guidance, and be aware of personnel capable of providing more indepth instructions.
- Provide assistance - tread lightly here. A leader must solve any issues with his personnel, not for them. This is a very important note to take. If you solve issues for them, then you are stepping out of your lane, only do so when it is required. Otherwise, have trust in your personnel, and let them solve it. If you do not have trust them, then train them to the point where you trust them.
- Communicate - communications is key. Key to almost every situation, but most importantly, one of the keys to being a good leader. A leader needs to be aware of their surroundings, their subordinates actions, responsibilities, issues. Proper communicate will ensure in the leader's ability to accomplish the former three notes.
Next point is the "be, know, do" model. True, it is taken from the US Army model for leadership, however, it is one which I was taught and one which I think makes the most sense to me. These are not textbook explanations, nor are they modified from the textbook. To a decent degree, they are my own understandings of the subject: - Be - values and virtues. In the US Army, where these are directly taken from, this would mean the embodiment of Army values and virtues. However, this is non-applicable due to the nature of NanoTrasen. Instead, this would mean the embodiment of the standards which you choose to uphold. As a leader, you must be able to meet the standards you uphold and enforce. Otherwise, they may as well not exist.
- Know - skills. As specified earlier, be familiar with what you're responsible for. Have knowledge in its most direct form; know where to acquire further knowledge and guidance; and know yourself, so that you may supplement those with what is required.
- Do - leadership actions. In effect, in my mind, this means the fulfillment of the set of previous points I brought out. To enable, to provide guidance, to provide assistance, to communicate, with the final intent of reaching a goal.
Alright, now. Let us inspect my own leadership on the basis of Erec Bellard. Erec is a 'me' character, meaning I play him near exact to how I would respond to any given situation. Further more, whenever I play head of staff, I default back to what I know as a player, and ditch roleplay and character differences in some respect.
Regardless.
EREC: Upholds his own standards, and never asks anyone to commit an action he is not capable of doing, or would not do. As a flaw, he does expect people to figure out his standards on their own, and adhere to them. Erec tends to crash down relatively hard on violations.
He knows a lot about subjects regarding robotics, RnD; minor bits of chemistry (enough to mix chemicals safely); but lacks knowledge of xenobiology and xenoarcheology. Instead, he is simply aware of the risks of xenobiology, and how to manage them, thus covering the fault. He has knowledge and experience with all caliber of individual, and is thus capable of managing most personnel under his command.Most importantly, he has the tools to change is approach dependent on individual, and is capable of selecting between them.
As mentioned, he enforces his own standards, and is capable of being rather aggressive when it comes to problem solving. Perhaps as a flaw, this can be brought out. He has a tendency to try and tread over people if they get in his way, which is a source of conflict.
All of the above is my look on leadership, my look on the subject. I have gained this look through experience leading and guiding others, but more importantly, by being led and guided myself. Please, join me in an active discussion regarding the subject, so we may better this issue. Bring out questions, your own views, your own opinions on this matter! There are a hundred right ways to go about doing this, and only a few wrong ones (I may outline a few of these when it's not 0207hrs local).
|
|
|
Post by pkisbest on Apr 3, 2014 23:20:12 GMT
I agree 100% here Skull. Admittingly as either of the 2 head positions I play(CMO And HoP) I have made some faults but we are only human. Majority of the people whitelisted have done what this topic says, the rare few who haven't will probably be dealt with but much like Erec is a me character Marika is a me character for me.
I can congratulate and commend all the head players and how they do. I don't always play head so it gives me a chance to experience other peoples head roleplay and I've never had a problem with anyone(apart from lack of CMO's haha)
|
|
skop
Chief Engineer
Posts: 202
|
Post by skop on Apr 3, 2014 23:33:29 GMT
I'm not really sure what to post here, other than some heads of staff definetly need the discipline stick.
|
|
|
Post by Mewoykyinuis on Apr 4, 2014 1:00:10 GMT
My character Declan, is what I consider to be my best Head. His method upon arrival is to have Research report in (Any ongoing projects, if they need any help) then he'll assist with anybody else that needs something. That being after all of his set priorities are finished, (Basic Research) He tries to relay his progress to central via the fax machines, keeping everybody off station apprised of the situation and any progress.
The way I see a Head, is that they are there to direct and assist. Declan won't get angry at his people if they're having trouble. He'll either have somebody that does know how to do it assist the person, or he's switch them around in the department to something they are able to do. Declan will /hardly/ punish for an error, unless it's catastrophic and proved to be of malintent.
Heads are there to keep things from going up in flames, and there is a reason certain people are made Heads, because they are able to command their team to their best, while at the same time focusing on any slack around the station that can be helped. Declan has at times substituted for Supply, when no Cargo Members were on the manifest.
Being a head is all about what's best for the company, and how to keep your crew running efficiently, in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by nebulaflare on Apr 4, 2014 1:06:21 GMT
I can input on one of my characters that took a head role: Lori Alvarez, my Chief Engineer. Lori knew plenty about engineering and atmos, and took time to teach rookies (or ask another engie to do so when she was busy). She coordinated the engineering team, but was still casual in letting them do their own thing, as long as it wasn't something downright illegal. She took responsibility for her department. Engineering was always well stocked, and each member geared for their job. I even made sure atmos techs got insulated gloves. Most engineers I worked with tend to be a 'chaotic good' mindset, so they have crossed other departments in the past. During this, Lori would step in and try to find a middle ground for everyone to work though.
Even if I have all the knowhow to apply for CE, I can never have Valary as a head. Valary is just too gung-ho and irresponsible. She's a great engineer, but is always getting into trouble every five minutes. In a crisis, Valary could become a great leader, but she's better off outside the chain of command - Valary hates authority. Why would she try to be an authority figure?
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Shackleford on Apr 4, 2014 1:15:26 GMT
Janet is the main character I play, and usually as a CMO nowadays. She has at least some experience and certification in all areas of medbay, save for virology, a department which she stays away from. She grants the staff under her command a certain degree of autonomy, allowing them to run their individual departments as they see fit, so long as they take accountability. Unless they prove incompetent.
While she doesn't get angry very often, she does have a rather low tolerance for incompetence, and sometimes ends up dismissing staff who do not measure up to the standards she holds them to. When this happens, she either has the other members of that department pick up the slack, or if there is nobody else, she does it herself.
The only department she stays away from is virology, opting to give people infected with a virus a dose of spaceacillin and advice to keep their internals on. For the fields she percieves herself to be an expert in (cloning and genetics), she prefers to do things herself, even if there is already someone manning that department.
Janet's goal as the Chief Medical Officer is keeping medbay stocked with medicine and ready to receive and treat patients with any sort of ailment.
|
|
farcry11
Moderator
God Emperor of Pleb Kind
Strictly Platonic
Posts: 1,347
|
Post by farcry11 on Apr 4, 2014 3:56:33 GMT
Conrad (who I don't play often) is what I envision a captain should be. Old, respectable, and wise- with a knowledge of the way the world works. He's definitely not the kind of captain that "does it all himself"- mainly being skilled in command, he delegates tasks to others (most of the time), and in many cases uses the time freed up by task delegation to hold events for the crew.
Almost the only thing Conrad really demands of his crew is their respect and utmost obedience. Coming from a strict military background, Conrad does not accept insubordination- be it simple disrespect, or failure to follow an order. His justice is swift and simple, usually lashes on the back (he sees brig sentencing as innefective). He is in some ways a "hardline" captain, and I could do with loosening him up a little- but aside from that, I think I've performed reasonably well in that particular head role.
While I will not name names, some head RP has proved less than desirable. One major factor of this is heads that tend to do all their department's work themselves. Delegation of labor is important as a head- learn when to let other people do the work.
Another factor is maturity. Heads are not up jumped twenty somethings with the keys to the station. They're responsible adults. Act accordingly.
That's all I have to say for now.
|
|
gollee
Lore Master
I write things
Posts: 828
|
Post by gollee on Apr 4, 2014 5:27:19 GMT
Varan is my main head of staff, but both he, and Delindivar care significantly about the crew, they will never do something that would endanger a crewmember, etc. Unless it was completely necessary, ((like to save the rest of the crew))
They also delegate, they are leaders, not workers, they should be supervising, rather than doing it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by pkisbest on Apr 4, 2014 5:29:39 GMT
Yeah but we all need more CMO characs I only know of 4 since I joined this server. Janet,Cross(no longer),Pond and Marika(and in a rare occasion Elise Koroibete)
|
|
gollee
Lore Master
I write things
Posts: 828
|
Post by gollee on Apr 4, 2014 5:35:25 GMT
Delindivar is a CMO< I just never get around to playing him, which is a bit sad really, as he is my whitelisted character.
|
|
|
Post by sgtsammac on Apr 4, 2014 7:08:22 GMT
I'm not really sure what to post here, other than some heads of staff definetly need the discipline stick. Does this mean Tanya will stop screaming down the radio as much then. ORIGINAL TOPIC: I recognise that I am one of the main players at fault here and I will immediately be taking remedial action to make my two main head characters (Sam and Steven) into better senior members of station staff.
|
|
duck
Anomalist
Posts: 124
|
Post by duck on Apr 4, 2014 7:57:08 GMT
I don't have any issues with the idea of leadership as presented, but: that's not the entire problem. It seems to me players have problems with either: overcompetent heads or incompetent heads, and as it is going, we'll only be addressing the incompetent heads.
Incompetent heads are a simple problem. The player is either bad or intentionally bad. If the player is bad, theeeen they should get better. Simple solutions. If the player is intentionally bad, that's actually something I prefer. Power corrupts, and it's like no-one in the heads-should-always-be-competent-and-fair-all-the-time-how-would-they-keep-their-job-otherwise camp has never had a bad boss. Bad bosses exist! Most bosses are bad. Surprise. Ideally, only competent people get hired and they stay competent. In reality, the majority of human life takes the easiest way out of any situation. And, unfortunately, the easiest way is on the backs of your underlings.
I haven't had a -good- boss, and it baffles me every time anyone brings up the, 'How would they keep their job' argument. They keep their way through nepotism, through seniority, through being-already-there, through using their greater-than-yours influence. Lying helps. Lots of ways. A bad, corrupt boss adds conflict, but it's hard to pull off. And it does piss people off to no end, because almost everyone here is a teenager or was recently a teenager, and the majority teenagers have Problems With Authority. Especially corrupt authority. Malicious bosses should be left alone for the most part.
The other side is the hypercompetent (powergaming) boss. I'm not going to lie and say I don't, but I will say one should temper the other. As a head (Old Em), I'll do everything and anything, but when antags are involved I try to be found on the research outpost. When someone wants me to do something, I set my run to walk. And I always grumble.
And, naturally, when space monsters attack, I tell the crew it's their problem now, teleport out, and drink my coffee. Someone will try to jump in the portal and get spaced afterwards, and I'll never look for their bodies because die.
Really, I think both types of heads need to understand how drama works. You wield considerable power, and problems are going to rise up and people are going to want you to deal with it. You want to perpetuate the problem. An antag has me hostage! Should I: Stunglove and kill, give it the murder-injector, pull out the gun in my backpack and ventilate, activate my suicide-bomb, activate my on-death-contingency-bomb, teleport out, pull out the gun in my labcoat and tox to death, pull out the other gun in my backpack and carbonize.
Options! I might do one of these at some point, but not right away and probably nonlethally so I can make a getaway and hide terrified in a locker somewhere. The one exception is if the AI is like just awful (and also rogue. And-or has messed with the power in research), in which case it will be dead by the two minute mark. Bad, yes! I'm not perfect.
The unintentionally bad heads I have a problem with. The chloral-hyposprayers, the take-slot-and-afk people, the chief engineer that does everything. Power-tripping RDs who make combat mechs and load up with guns and then take over the station. I'm guilty of all of these! Except the afking one. I finish my rounds. That said, I don't have a problem with the majority of the heads and think people are making too much of a fuss over it and also I'm tired and this post is long and I forgot what I was trying to argue.
|
|
|
Post by pkisbest on Apr 4, 2014 8:49:29 GMT
<< is Chloral Sprayer but with an added effect of sleep toxin. I am annoyed at the RD's who run around with fancy tech making look like king of the station. Admittingly it's probably in the RD's job description but eh. I find that during the time I play heads aren't a need hence why I rarely play them, maybe a HoP but eh. Most heads play well it's just a set few who need to tone it down a bit and start acting like a mature head(these players even act immature away from head position)
|
|
duck
Anomalist
Posts: 124
|
Post by duck on Apr 4, 2014 17:59:22 GMT
Honestly, I'd probably do the chloral thing because I'm a bad person. The thing for the hypercompetent-wannabe-heads is that they don't really understand dramatic tension, though. I think that's what it all comes down to.
Maybe you can solve all the problems. Maybe you can't. The important thing to know is when. And that's a hard distinction. The first thing I did was a diona nymph was steal the captain's ID! I didn't use it until after the chips were down, the station was depressurized, and Hawk had to choose between sacrificing us and trying to save the station (he chose the station.). Fortunately, he could do both! Until a summoned ghost came and killed us after a one-liner because godmode.
I was also a cultist that time! But because I was drag-and-click culted and couldn't understand any explanation and also a baby (but mostly because the round wouldn't have been half as interesting if I just hopped off Hawk's head, stunned all of sec, and then beat them to death with the stun baton I also stole right after I stole the captain ID).
If you have power, you should try making problems instead of solving them. And not solving the ones you can solve until the penultimate moment. Paperwork everywhere. Drugs. Abuse of privileges but toeing the line so sec can't really do anything about it. The more problems you make / obstruct the solving of, the more frantic things get. And amazing rounds don't happen until after everything goes to hell.
|
|
|
Post by yeahchris on Apr 4, 2014 18:44:43 GMT
Duck, there's a difference between making dramatic bad decisions in a position of power which contribute to tension and making arbitrarily douchey decisions which make the game hard to play, such as: For the last time, I don't have a problem with anyone being an IC dick. Being an IC dick is a non-issue. Dicks can even be effective leaders if they actually focus on harnessing their dickdom towards motivating people to do shit for them rather than simply firing them and assuming their job duties. What IS an issue is making the game not fun. And a lot of our heads have been ruining other peoples in game experiences in ways which are NOT FUN and don't contribute towards the overall game experience.
|
|
duck
Anomalist
Posts: 124
|
Post by duck on Apr 4, 2014 20:48:44 GMT
Point taken and agreed. I'm talking about the heads that try to do everything though, and not the bad+intentionally-incompetent ones. The bad ones really just need to stop being awful, and that's the only critique I can give 'em.
Although your list is a better start. This would probably be easier if like. New thread named Suggest Things Heads Shouldn't Do.
|
|
gollee
Lore Master
I write things
Posts: 828
|
Post by gollee on Apr 4, 2014 21:11:50 GMT
For the last time, I don't have a problem with anyone being an IC dick. Being an IC dick is a non-issue. Dicks can even be effective leaders if they actually focus on harnessing their dickdom towards motivating people to do shit for them rather than simply firing them and assuming their job duties. Meaning the difference between casually walking past your subordinate and calling him a shithead, then walking of, to walking past and noticing he is slacking and saying, "Get that work done right now before I lodge my foot in your arse."
|
|
|
Post by PumpkingSlice on Apr 4, 2014 21:29:39 GMT
I guess I could use my character Tiffany as the "nice example" of a head.
The way I play her is to basically, keep up to date with her department and the crew in general, which helps while playing Head of Personnel (well that is how I personally see how a HoP should generally be played).
So onto her character. I go down the route of kind/nice with her (aside from those odd times I have to break her rp to deal with something, which is irritating)which is a fun route no doubt, but it has its effects too. It ends up getting her being "used" if you want to say, and being only kind typically shows that you probably wont be able to hand intense situations very well, due to the lack of exposure of a "tough life". I'd like to believe she is competant and gets her end of the job done, which is mainly paperwork.
At times it can be difficult to not be abusive of your power when your department staff just keep poking you, and I believe that's a general problem with majority of heads. A rash decision is made and both sides end up unhappy.
What I think the issue is, is that when someone applies to be a head, they probably wont consider that it's not just an IC obligation you have to uphold, but there is a factor of an ooc obligation to uphold too. To know the fact that, you're there to make things more fun in a way for your department.
|
|
|
Post by sgtsammac on Apr 4, 2014 21:39:35 GMT
For the last time, I don't have a problem with anyone being an IC dick. Being an IC dick is a non-issue. Dicks can even be effective leaders if they actually focus on harnessing their dickdom towards motivating people to do shit for them rather than simply firing them and assuming their job duties. Meaning the difference between casually walking past your subordinate and calling him a shithead, then walking of, to walking past and noticing he is slacking and saying, "Get that work done right now before I lodge my foot in your arse." Interesting fact I learnt/heard about today. About 80% of workplace complaints about bosses in the UK was about Ex-Military people in management using military management styles and military style banter.
|
|
|
Post by yeahchris on Apr 4, 2014 21:56:04 GMT
Yeah, calling someone a scum sucking maggot doesn't usually go over too well in the civilian sector.
|
|