Building Our Future

[Magentastone]

I'm interested in hearing from new, prospective and veteran members on this...

How do you want to see this group evolve? The concept of having an industry wing and a combat wing is, in the grand scheme of things, semantics; done be able to say, "Alright, Adam and Eves, there's a contract opportunity to move mass amounts of heavy metals three systems over... who's in?"

In terms of policy, leadership hierarchy, handling contracts and ranking structure, these items are still open to development based on the input of our members. So, sound off! Pick an issue that interests you and post your thoughts.

[HEXTZ]

I think there should be no leadership. We should vote on everything. How many times have players received power and go on a power trips?

No. We should have some sort of open group here at Adam and Eve's

We come should come together and share our knowledge with each other. Trade routes, pirate sightings, w.e, etc.

Those are my 5 cents.

[Magnet]

I like the idea to be part of the decision making but I also want to have some sort of "command structure". As the group begins to grow it will be nearly impossible to have classic democratic structure like the Greek where everyone has an equal vote

And finally we are a company or better a conglomerate so the CEO is responsible for the success and has his subordinates to help him to gain the achieve everything the company is looking for...

[Inquisition]

To combine both a democratic structure and a conglomerate, I propose the idea of a voting system.

In any issue that arises that needs attention and a final decision, each member has a vote. But a persons rank grants them a higher vote.

Ensign - Vote = 1
Wing Commander - Vote = 2
Admiral = 5
CEO = 10

Example

Issue #1 - Vote A or B

CEO votes A , giving A 10 points
Two Admirals and an Ensign vote B, giving B 11 points.

B is the final decision.

[Tealstone]

I hope it can go without saying that, regardless of command structure, active pilots will always have their voices heard and their input considered in CC matters. That being said, some people are active than others and we still need some organization and chain of communication to determine what type of operations we'll run, when they'll be run and a method to communicate that, so we will have a structure in place.

I just really want to stress that it's not going to turn into a mad oligarchy.

[Darhoth]

I prefer a flexible non-voting structure. At the end of the day, you need leadership and cohesion from the top. Putting mechanisms in place for members to provide feedback (i.e. regular Teamspeak meetings, posts asking for discussion on particular topics) are great and should be included, but at the end of the day someone has to make the decision. Sometimes that person has to make unpopular decisions that are better for the group overall. I don't think from the personalities so far that anyone looks to be the power trip type.

darhoth

[Magnet]

Yes, that is the same idea I had! Although it might be appealing to give people a decision strength corresponding to their rank but it is easier to give people a certain power within their chain of command and sphere of action while their superior always has the final word...

[R0d1n]

I agree that for a corporation like this to be effective, there needs to be strong executive leadership, rather than a collective voting structure. On the other hand, there should always be some means of collective oversight. CEOs are beholden to their shareholders. Our corporation will not have shareholders in the traditional sense, which means we are much more like a worker cooperative. Thus the CEO, CFO, and COO should all, at least at some level, be answerable to their employee shareholders.

The simplest way of ensuring that kind of accountability would be to create an impeachment, or vote of no confidence, procedure whereby any of the top three executives could be called to account by a general vote of the corporation members/shareholders.

Another way to improve accountability would be to have an elected advisory panel, or board of directors, that would be chosen by vote. They would advise the CEO, and choose a new one if s/he gets impeached. For our purposes, it could fpr example be two representatives from the A&Es, and two from the HAs.

[zramn]

I was thinking that the A&E's could be like a trucker team . The HE's could be the police or the mafia, possible both, in the situation.

For the higher ranks, they would be the truck company officials, the police chiefs, &/or the don's.

The trucker A&E's could accept cargo runs, or be assigned them, and could ask for help from the HE's, or have HE's assigned to them. Just throwing out an example to show that truckers could pick what they want to do, as well as HE's, but both have a superior telling them what to do.

With one of the articles they posted, cite needed, they said that military class space suits could be in the back of a cargo ship, and with that the A&E's could help the HE's make sneak attacks! One of the upgrades you can get, again cite needed, is that scanners cannot detect what is in your cargo bay. A Trojan horse of supplies to an enemy!

Any thoughts on this kind of business?

[Magnet]

@zramn

We already thought about a new division to gather information, perhaps spy on other companies and something like that. But I think all in all we should stay a company with principles and there should be no sneaking of what sort howsoever.

Your trucker idea is what we wanted to do. A&E excepting Cargo runs first for other facilities later on also for our own ones and H&A escorting them. We were more discussing about the ranking system for A&E and what the benefits and perks should be.

I think that even A&E should have a proper ranking system perhaps with fewer steps but still with a clear development with corresponding perks like having to pay lesser corporate taxes, getting two wingman instead of one for your cargo run or something like that. Everyone likes being promoted and gaining something in the process.