Rulz is rulz...

[Wiley]

I only used it once, but all right, let's play this out.

They publish a set of canonized rules- Infraction X yields penalty Y.

Tonight, squad x breaks the rules, penalties are levied.  Everybody gets to see that their side had a penalty of 20 points levied against them.

Next frame, squad x breaks the rules, penalties are levied.  Everybody gets to see that their side had a penalty of 20 points levied against them.

Next frame, squad x breaks the rules, penalties are levied.  Everybody gets to see that their side had a penalty of 20 points levied against them.

Now what?

Wiley.

[Scca]

I only used it once, but all right, let's play this out.

They publish a set of canonized rules- Infraction X yields penalty Y.

Tonight, squad x breaks the rules, penalties are levied.  Everybody gets to see that their side had a penalty of 20 points levied against them.

Next frame, squad x breaks the rules, penalties are levied.  Everybody gets to see that their side had a penalty of 20 points levied against them.

Next frame, squad x breaks the rules, penalties are levied.  Everybody gets to see that their side had a penalty of 20 points levied against them.

Now what?

Wiley.

Is this a rhetorical question? 

If not, uh, nothing??  My wish was granted?

[Shrike]

I know that our group was hit by the AK and hope that we were not the one's to break any rules in the last FSO as I was not able to make last week's event.  <S>
weiser
co/162ndFG"Purple*Hearts"

My film showed you guys below 24k.  Good run 162nd <S>

[Wiley]

Is this a rhetorical question? 

If not, uh, nothing??  My wish was granted?

So you're saying people aren't going to start wondering 'Hey, who were those guys that cost us those 20 points?'

Followed by, 'Hey, you guys sent in the film, who was it?'

Followed by, 'We don't want them on our side anymore.'

It will happen, so it may as well all be transparent.  The CMs should post who did it, what was done, maybe a link to the film so all can see.  Then it's all clear and transparent and everybody knows who to blame.  Anything less will just sow suspicion and conspiracy theories about who's costing their side points and why.

Wiley.

[Scca]

So you're saying people aren't going to start wondering 'Hey, who were those guys that cost us those 20 points?'

Followed by, 'Hey, you guys sent in the film, who was it?'

Followed by, 'We don't want them on our side anymore.'

It will happen, so it may as well all be transparent.  The CMs should post who did it, what was done, maybe a link to the film so all can see.  Then it's all clear and transparent and everybody knows who to blame.  Anything less will just sow suspicion and conspiracy theories about who's costing their side points and why.

Wiley.

That sir would be the witch hunt you accused me of, and up to the CM's to handle.

[Wiley]

That sir would be the witch hunt you accused me of, and up to the CM's to handle.

Well since you don't trust them to handle it, what is the option?

We need clarity and transparency right?

Wiley.

[Scca]

Well since you don't trust them to handle it, what is the option?

We need clarity and transparency right?

Wiley.

  still in with the hostility. Sorry you don't feel accountability is important. 

[Wiley]

  still in with the hostility. Sorry you don't feel accountability is important.

No particular hostility, I'm just confused how it is you want to know who did what, and what the penalty was, but somehow that doesn't result in a witch hunt?

You're basically saying the CMs aren't doing their jobs, so to verify that, obviously we need all the information to confirm that they are doing it properly right?

Wiley.

[Scca]

No particular hostility, I'm just confused how it is you want to know who did what, and what the penalty was, but somehow that doesn't result in a witch hunt?

You're basically saying the CMs aren't doing their jobs, so to verify that, obviously we need all the information to confirm that they are doing it properly right?

Wiley.

No, YOU want to know who, I want to know THAT.  SMH 

Now, get off my leg. I'm done with you.  It's clear you can't have an adult conversation.

[wpeters]

Changed my mind, waiting for more discussion.

PM sent

[Bino]

I won't name names, that's not the reason for this thread.  I will state again, my primary goal was to get the discussion going, perhaps get some thoughts on "standard" penalties that could be applied to the breaking of certain types of rules....

The CMs have taken the position that preserving the flexibility of our response to infractions is better than painstakingly delineating every minute detail of the rules and their consequences. I agree with that position. Rather than focus on meting out punishment, we would much rather have a quiet, private discussion with the folks who might have erred and discretely try to avoid the rules being violated again. And in my experience it's a process that works.

As always, FSO pilots are encouraged to send film to the CMs whenever a rules violation is seen or even merely suspected. I guarantee you that we do take those emails seriously.

 

[Scca]

Okay, swing and a miss...  At this point all I can ask is if you see a rules violation report it.  Perhaps if it becomes a habit, then something will be done.  Until then, I will balance my participation in the event against my perception of how seriously it's being taken by the folks in charge. 

Thanks for the input guys and gals.

[Lizard]

The CMs have taken the position that preserving the flexibility of our response to infractions is better than painstakingly delineating every minute detail of the rules and their consequences. I agree with that position. Rather than focus on meting out punishment, we would much rather have a quiet, private discussion with the folks who might have erred and discretely try to avoid the rules being violated again. And in my experience it's a process that works.

As always, FSO pilots are encouraged to send film to the CMs whenever a rules violation is seen or even merely suspected. I guarantee you that we do take those emails seriously.

 

Your getting into good ol' boys club here. People see things going on and don't see things being done to them they'll think it's either OK, or this guy knows somebody or that squads been around to long to punish...or etc. etc. 

When and if you post the scores for a frame you should post: 10 point deduction because squad x took off in 4 different types of aircraft, 50 point reduction due to squad Y blatantly over the alt. cap....

Oh, and no more suicide missions in He111's and other undergunned bombers. If B17's get formations ALL bombers should get formations that can.

[Ratsy]

A little bit of self-reporting could go a long way.

If a bomber strike is not paying attention to T+60 for time on target (from planning to execution), then there is a more basic problem with regard to reading and understanding the rules.  Nobody here is looking to cast blame, but to, among other things, review the effectiveness of the overall orders (as written in the FSO write ups).  If the rules are well-written, and almost all of them are, then the problem might lay elsewhere.  I would like to see the T+60 rule restated in EVERY write up where air-to-ground is employed...and perhaps a warning about perceived altitudes vs. altitudes recorded by the logs.

The original post was about reinforcing the rules through some clearly stated and well communicated 'consequences' that apply to everybody - every time.
This is not to imply that there have been intentional breaches of enforcement.  This is about the certainty of consequences for rule violations BEFORE they occur.

All my opinion, of course.  My squadron mates are smarter than I am.

With respect,

 

[snakeplissken]

Your getting into good ol' boys club here. People see things going on and don't see things being done to them they'll think it's either OK, or this guy knows somebody or that squads been around to long to punish...or etc. etc. 

As long as someone is in charge of the rules, there can always be an allegation that there is a good old boy club.  That is addressed on the very first day of Roc's training.  When you become a CM, the standards for player conduct go way, way up.  Trust me, CM's go above and beyond to maintain fairness.  When I am setup, I usually see both sides objectives.  I may or may not see both sides Orders.  We communicate this TO NO ONE (especially the members of my squad or any other squad).  Any CM in the arena can fly in God's eye and watch things unfold. Every CM in the arena (and FSO attracts alot) sees any action taken by a CM. Any action by a CM is always discussed and reviewed among ourselves.  If necessary, we are judged on our actions.  If we mess up as CMs and we are lucky, we are disciplined by our team.  At the top of our team is a guy called Skuzzy.  If he has to be involved, the discipline is only needed once.