Let my try to be a little less polemic.
It seems there are two issues here:
1) I don't fully understand the way the CM duties are divvied up.
2) There was a failure in the system on Sunday.
I've been using these two points to argue that the way they're divvied up right now is less than satisfactory.
There are also two sub-issues:
3) The design for Sunday's scenario was less than optimal, particularly with reference to the bomber route. A good design allows a chance for "success". An impossible mission (like what we had) doesn't allow for success. Even if I conceded that it was possible for a squad of B26s to fly NOE from A40 to A33, drop bombs and return in two hours (which I will not), I would still argue that issuing rules enabling "impossible" fields is just as bad.
4) general design principles for bombers in scenarios (bombers want to fly, have some tension, see some enemy planes, bomb, return home safely some of the time, and land), and for scenarios in general.
I'll leave 3 and 4 for some other post. I'm happy to talk about them
I've been arguing from my understanding of how CM duties should be divided. Feel free to disagree with me on any point, but here's how I see it.
There are four times in scenarios that call for an arbitrary controlling authority (CM), they are:
A) Writing the scenario rules (I've referred to this as the "Design CM")
B) Preparing the arena, balancing the sides and implementing the environment (what I've seen as "Setup CM")
C) Enforcing and interpreting the rules during the scenario (this is what I thought you meant by "Admin CM")
D) Summarizing the event and scoring it.
At each of these times, there can (and often are) be more than one CM, but the relationship is usually hierarchical. There is always one person with absolute authority. Usually this works in the same way as the CO/XO model: one commands and one controls. For example, in A), someone can draw up the broad lines (say B17s and B26s with P51s aga inst Me262s and 163s), and someone else work on the details (these bases). Or in B), there may be one CM per side, and an overall administrator.k
The same person often fills many of these roles. In fact, the same overall authority should be in C) and D): the person who made the calls on the field should score it. Some of these roles don't work too well together. As we've seen time and again, it requires a lot of maturity to be overall CM in A) and C); people seem to identify themselves too much with their work and discard the flexibility necessary to make their work work.
Now, I'm not sure what happened on Sunday, but I think we can get there:
First, if there are more than one CM, in speaking to the sides or individuals, they must speak with a unified voice. That means they need to be in communication with each other. While each may have a sphere of responsibility, if they're speaking in blue, they speak with the authority of all the CMs.
Second, someone with supreme authority must be present for the whole frame, and must not participate in any other way. I'm sorry. This is common sense. You can have subordinate CMs flying on sides, but not the head honcho.
Third, at each of the times, there must be something with absolute authority. I have never seen any scenario setup or rules that were perfect. Last week, it was only by sheer luck that a serious typographical error in the rules was spotted before the scenario started (and sides would have been playing with different sets of rules). Had this gone through, whoever was running C) would have to do some fancy footwork. This week, the design had rules that made it absolutely impossible for any bombers to return home without being counted as lost, and – as far as any of us in the field knew – made no provision for this necessity. In these cases, someone has to be available and answerable during the frame to compensate for these defects and to make a decision. After the decision is made, then we can go and squeak all we want on the boards. But what I found was, thirty minutes into the mission, there was nobody with such authority.
Fourth (and this is beside the point), the CM is a referee, and should never presume to usurp the authority of the side CO. If a side CO cc's the CM with the orders, and the CM sees an error in the rules, or if the CM sees that the mission as planned is grossly inadequate (e.g., a rookie CO has given bombers an impossible route to fly in the given time), the CM can and probably should send a message to the CO. The CM should not CC all commanders and change the orders.
---
Sorry: I wrote this while you posted. The point boils down to: whoever writes in blue has to have the authority to interpret rules, and to compensate for design flaws, especially with untested stuff. I'm confident that person won't go "out of bounds", but don't pass it to the designer (as you stated, the "Admin CM's" job is done). Make the call, and we can hash it over later.
