Notify Message
Forums
#12208998 Mar 26, 2016 at 09:24 PM · Edited 1 year ago
Brigadier Ge...
340 Posts
Hello ORF:

When this site was first established, we produced a poll that asked whether the members would like to have a rank structure for "official" members of our crew. The result was that 5 of 7 voters stated they would.

In light of this, we have developed the following rank structure PROPOSAL. Please take some time to think about it, and ask any questions you may have. This is a group decision, and ultimately, the system we use will be put to a majority vote (in the POLL section of the site).

First, we will consider members of our site as members of ORF. Others who participate with us are affiliates. All are welcome to join our activities, but only our members will receive points/rank/awards, etc. (we are actively discussing "Ace" designation).

Next, it is important to understand the "TRACKS" for both promotion and leadership in ORF. There will be two distinct tracks in ORF, a pilot track and a developer track.

The pilot track will be responsible for arranging events, helping recruitment, testing developments when requested, etc.

The developer track will be responsible for identifying development needs and working them out, including aircraft, weapons systems, support systems, tracking programs, etc.

The one thing that I personally have been adamant about during these discussions is that the developer track (and each developer) should feel free to pursue the projects of their choice. They as a team work well together, and so I have no doubt that they will as a group do what is needed to keep us flying and enjoying the crew. However, I believe it is critical for our long-term success that our developers be solely responsible for how they spend their personal time, and so no rank or majority will ever be able to influence the work project of a developer. Keeping them happy is the key to our long-term success and advancement as a crew.

PROPOSED Rank Structure:

We are proposing that the USAF commissioned officers ranks be used. We also looked at the French, German, and UK officer ranks, but they appear too unwieldy to put on liveries, so we are suggesting the US ranks.

We will award retroactive rank points only to members of ORF who become members BEFORE we approve the rank system. New members after then will start at O1 (2nd Lt), regardless of their prior experience.

Developers will automatically be promoted one rank (to a max of O6) if accepted into the developer track (majority vote of the developer track required). The initial developer track will be: PINTO, Leto, 5H1N0B1, and Richard.

Flight hours will be used to earn rank. Each rank will require a certain amount of hours. Hours are "Effective Flight Hours" flown in ORF-capable aircraft only. Those of you who are members of ORF prior to the adoption of the rank system will be allowed to use your past hours, up to 225 hours (O4 rank).

Hours will also be awarded for victory in BIG events. We are loosely defining a big event as one that 1) is posted at least 48 hours before it starts, AND 2) has at least 8 participants, of which at least half are ORF members.

Winners of big events will receive up to 50 hours. Team Leaders who win big events will receive up to 100 hours. Our goal is to reward participation, leadership, and excellence, but also to keep things progressing at a manageable pace.

Rank will be awarded as follows:

2Lt/O1: Less than 50 total hours
1Lt/O2: 50+ total hours
Capt/O3: +75 hours (125 total)
Maj/O4: + 100 hours (225 total)
Lt. Col/O5: +150 hours (375 total)
Col/O6: +200 hours (575 total)

O7-O10: The flag officer ranks would require 1 Leadership Victory. It will be a while before we have to worry about this, but if you get to be titled a General Officer, then you must earn it through leadership.

Some questions we expect you to have:

"What if I haven't flown on tracked servers?"

Some of you have not always flown on tracked servers or have used various call-signs. If this applies to you, we can award hours based on approximates so long as you bring it to our attention quickly. We will work to be fair, based on what we can approximate. We have already worked this out for some of the founding members that we know about...

"Do the higher ranks get to make more decisions?"

No, not really. Developers are independent, so there really isn't a need for a firm "command" presence. Decisions that need to be made quickly are already being made by the founding members. Not much will change.

That said, Field-grade officers and above will be expected to help with planning efforts, etc. They will also have access to an Officers Thread in the forum to discuss issues. The biggest issues handled by the higher ranks will be if we have trouble spots that have to be addressed. The ORF will continue to be managed by the developers and by the core/founding members, and will continue to be a democracy where decisions are made by you. The highest ranking individual in each track will, however, speak as that tracks spokesperson when needed or when appropriate.

"How will the highest rank be determined when two different people hold the same rank?"

If two different people in the same track hold the same rank (highest), it will be by tenure in KSUU Crew/ORF. This will be established by posts in the forum.

"What other benefits are there to a rank system?"

Well, for one, it is what you asked for. It also gives us something to market, as others who are not members may like the idea of an organized crew. It does professionalize us to some degree, just as this website has. And it does give you a little bragging rights. I imagine that we can put our rank and callsign on liveries, can have awards, etc. Might be fun. Mostly, though, it is what you said you wanted!

"How does one become a developer and get an extra rank?"

The developer track is special because they keep the wheels on. Making a substantial programmatic contribution to the ORF (a new aircraft, advanced weapon system, tracking program, etc) that is in use by the ORF is justification for requesting to move to that track. If you mod a bit of code, or drop existing code into a new ac, that doesn't count. For example, I have helped with the code for the missiles. I don't qualify. XH is creating "Blackbox", and when it is complete, he likely will. Ultimately, the developers themselves are the experts, and will decide what qualifies and what doesn't.

Take some time, think about it, ask some questions. We will make our goal to put this to a vote before the end of the month.

If the rank system is adopted as it is presented, the ranks we have tabulated will be:

Dev Track:

Col. PINTO
Lt. Col. 5H1N0B1
Lt. Col. Leto
Lt. Col. Richard

Pilot Track:

Lt. Col. Raider1
Lt. Col. fb237
Maj. Yesrev
Maj. Swamp
Maj. S
Capt. XH
2Lt G-UNTER,
2Lt gu-001,
2Lt J-Mav16,
2Lt SNOWY1,
2Lt USAF-29
Raider1

(Combat call-signs: Raid-1, Raid-2)
+1
#12209237 Mar 26, 2016 at 10:58 PM
Major General
698 Posts
Just here voicing support for this.
long live the 88th
+1
#12209484 Mar 27, 2016 at 12:39 AM · Edited 1 year ago
Colonel
258 Posts
Looks fair enough, but you could include me as a developer as well.
https://github.com/TheFoxtrotBravo (Warning: WIP)


-fb237
FB (primary), fb237, USS_FB, <ICAO>_FB, STS-FB (Space Shuttle)
+0
#12209508 Mar 27, 2016 at 12:57 AM
Lt. Colonel
10 Posts
I do not care about ranking... :)
Do as you want, as long as everyone have fun :)
This seems cool.
+0
#12209555 Mar 27, 2016 at 01:19 AM
Captain
240 Posts
I will still continue to participate fully if the system is adopted in its current form. However, allow me to voice my concerns. Please read this entire post, even if you consider its content hopelessly wrong.

When I first joined this community, I was attracted to the equality and informality here. There were (and currently are) no ranks, no progression, no clearly delineated high and low. Newcomers and experts flew and talked and learned and developed ideas as partners and equals. Even though vast differences in skill and experience existed, the lack of their formalization created a certain welcoming and mutualistic character. That was why I was so glad to join, but none of this is meant to be about me. It is meant to be about our future.

If this system is implemented, this aforementioned community character will change. One will play to get ranks. The new arrival will be met with more than welcomes - will be met with the bottom of a ladder and the unspoken imperative to climb. Ranks will, even if never mentioned, subtly lend or subtract weight from arguments and opinions. Community life will become a bleak, competitive rush to the top. When we compare people, people compare themselves. When people compare themselves, everything incrementally becomes about comparing themselves. Worse, measure seniority, and ways will be found to bias that measurement.

Good faith does not protect us from this. Regardless of measures taken to mitigate this, one will tend to find oneself thinking in an "I want to be just like them" sort of way.

Equality has served us well, and there is no blatant indication (feel free to correct me) that it will cease to do so. As we as a group and a free software team mature and expand, it is important to remember to keep intact the spirit of camaraderie that has brought us this far. I am not trying to protect myself from getting a low rank. I am trying to protect us from our future selves.

Being part of the KSUU crew should not be about the hours you have or the rank you display with pride. It should be about learning, playing, and doing one's best simply and exclusively because one loves what one is doing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Um... Wait... Why did I just say that?
😡😔😳😑😐😏😉😀😅
+0
#12209903 Mar 27, 2016 at 05:06 AM · Edited over 1 year ago
Colonel
258 Posts
Nice words SNOWY1.
To everyone: After thinking about it, despite the fact that other combat Sims (Falcon BMS & DCS, etc.) have a ranking system, is that really such a good idea? I do not want this topic to turn into a flame war and cause disunity among group members. We must stick together, respect each other, and fly and develop with each other in peace. We can try it, but let's be aware of this. If conditions get volatile, it's out of here.
FB (primary), fb237, USS_FB, <ICAO>_FB, STS-FB (Space Shuttle)
+0
#12210088 Mar 27, 2016 at 08:04 AM
Lt. Colonel
10 Posts
The ego is the worst Humanity enemy. It tooks you insidiously and make you do stupid things.
While being a dev, the ego can already torn you inside...
Exemple of developper who think they are the best are legion. Here we arequite a cool group that think that everyone job is wonderful Kind of utopia, ad I like it like that :).
I'm afraid that a rank systems could boost everyone ego (even if as Raider says the dev aren't a lot concerned about it)
But if something as rank is voted, there is no problem for me I'll accept that and continue my job as I said earlier. just it will not be applied on me :) coz I already do not care about it :)
+0
#12210106 Mar 27, 2016 at 08:14 AM · Edited over 1 year ago
Colonel
258 Posts
As the saying goes, pride before the fall. We are strongest when together, weaker when alone. Think combat for instance! But that is not entirely the point!
FB (primary), fb237, USS_FB, <ICAO>_FB, STS-FB (Space Shuttle)
+0
#12210797 Mar 27, 2016 at 02:24 PM · Edited over 1 year ago
Captain
240 Posts
#12210106 fb237 wrote:

But that is not entirely the point!



What exactly is meant by this? The unity and functionality of the group should come first, and one should be wary of any decision that threatens the fulfilment of these fundamental needs.

If a rank system must be implemented, I would suggest basing ranks on something other than flight hours or any simple metric. How do actual militaries and corporations rank their personnel? Maybe we can take some lessons from there. I still stand opposed to any ranking system. This does not represent a softening of my stance.

@shinobi: use the whole situation with vitos and the Su-15 as an example, if you can find any relevant lessons there.

Someone please contact Leto and Richard so they can weigh in on this. His input is likely to be valuable.

By the way, did the people replying above read the entirety of my post? Just making sure to avoid future misunderstanding.
😡😔😳😑😐😏😉😀😅
+0
#12210877 Mar 27, 2016 at 03:07 PM
Major General
698 Posts
Hey guys -
We took a poll, and out of 7 respondents, 5 said that a rank system was desirable. If you didn't get a chance to participate, sorry, but that's where it is.

Raider1 and I have discussed this for weeks. We've gone over four or five different ways to do ranks, and decided this would be the best way to do it. Not saying this is the way we have to do it, but yeah.

All virtual airlines do ranking. It doesn't cause fragmentation or bitterness or whatever you're worried about. Instead, it creates a culture of trying to do better, learning, cooperation, and performance. It makes people actually want to do it. In fact, compared to most virtual airlines, this ranking system is easy. There's no testing, and the hours required are moderately low.

This rank system was actually designed in an effort to combat everything you guys are worried about, from not allowing someone to just grind away hours to the top rank, to trying to increase participation in events.
long live the 88th
+1
#12210922 Mar 27, 2016 at 03:29 PM · Edited over 1 year ago
Captain
240 Posts
This is the point at which I should probably step back and allow the discussion to go whatever way it goes. Once again, this does not represent a softening of my stance.

I suggest engaging further with fb237 and shinobi to peacefully arrive at a conclusion.

I'm not that concerned about fragmentation or bitterness. I'm concerned about the tone and conversation of the place changing. It probably will change. The change will appear soft and benign on the surface, but the attitudes and emotional undertones of conversation will never be the same again. I will no longer be member SNOWY1 talking to member pinto who happens to be more experienced than I am. I will be "Second Lieutenant SNOWY1 talking to Colonel pinto," and you will be "Colonel pinto talking to Second lieutenant SNOWY1." Do you see the difference there?

Can you please explain the functionality of the anti-grinding measures? Do they protect against grinding at all levels, or only at higher ranks?

Whatever is said in reply, please keep this conversation peaceful and cool-headed.
😡😔😳😑😐😏😉😀😅
+0
#12211000 Mar 27, 2016 at 03:56 PM
Major General
698 Posts
Re: anti grinding, go look back and reread Raider1's post about promotion to O7-O10.
We only wanted it at higher levels so that people can come in and start gaining ranks right away via something that is fair, equitable, and easy to do and track.

As far as ranking changing the social structure... It's fake internet points. I don't think it's going to be the doomsday scenario you're proposing. It'll still be Snowy1 talking to pinto. Hell, to extend that scenario further, right at this very moment it's regular Snowy1 talking to admin pinto. But that's not affecting this at all, and that hasn't been my thinking ever in these forums except for that one time I [mod hat]ed.

Ultimately, the rank system isn't about player x is better than player y, it's about a way to recognize how much player x and player y have contributed, and give them some fake Internet points as a thank you. It's also about giving the goal oriented members of this community something to strive towards.
long live the 88th
+1
#12211136 Mar 27, 2016 at 04:45 PM
Colonel
443 Posts
The rank system looks good to me. :)
"No one dared to make a slip, the stranger there among them had the big iron on his hip."
+0
#12211194 Mar 27, 2016 at 05:08 PM
Captain
240 Posts
What if someone just flies 24 hour circles over Antarctica with autopilot and fuel freeze to get up to LtCol or even Col? Can the tracker server tell the difference? The non-flag-officer ranks still matter, and there is a huge difference between 2ndLt and LtCol. I don't intend to try it of course, and I'm not concerned about the current people doing this. It is more likely to be attempted by people who join later.

Also, administrator status does nothing to indicate seniority or "goodness", so it is unproblematic. It just indicates that a user bears some additional responsibility. This will be different.

Let's not argue anymore. A reversible practical trial of the system, as fb237 says, will be the best test available. My stance rests unchanged, but go ahead.
😡😔😳😑😐😏😉😀😅
+0
#12211371 Mar 27, 2016 at 06:02 PM
Colonel
258 Posts
Simply, lets keep the ranking system for now, but if it becomes a problem, we should stop it.

-fb237
FB (primary), fb237, USS_FB, <ICAO>_FB, STS-FB (Space Shuttle)
+1
#12211502 Mar 27, 2016 at 06:52 PM
Colonel
525 Posts
For me the ranking system works fine, the only proble are the flight hours required to advance in it.
I mean, in a week I can't do more than 19hrs of flight in a week, and that's when I've got no school, when I've got it, about 4-5 hrs per week in the best conditions and mostly FGUK stuff so how can I expect to reach amount of hours required to advance rank?
In that case I should not care about the ranks but then the problem is, why should we add something useless?
Currently I've got nearly 12 days (= 288hrs) of effective flight time with this callsign and a very few are with the F-15C/D so my chances of getting are higher rank are as high as going on the moon by foot.
I like the idea of the rank system but I'm not sure whether this one will really be useful for us.
Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier everyday!
Peace through superior AIRPOWER
5 YEARS OF FLIGHTGEAR (2012 - 2017)

Reaper Eagle Driver, 493d FS.
+0
#12211516 Mar 27, 2016 at 06:56 PM
Brigadier Ge...
340 Posts
Thank you for the contribution, JMav. Would you think it would work better if the lower ranks had smaller hours requirements?

Also, remember that we did make the hours requirements bigger so that people would try to win competitions for rank (i.e. to encourage people to participate and to work as a team... take winning seriously). We want to encourage people to learn from the more experienced folks so that they can be better team members.

How would you adjust it, with what I mention above in mind?

Also, perhaps our founding members can have a minimum of 1Lt... those who are members or become so before we launch a rank system? Thoughts?
Raider1

(Combat call-signs: Raid-1, Raid-2)
+0
#12211663 Mar 27, 2016 at 08:03 PM
Colonel
525 Posts
#12211516 Raider1 wrote:

Thank you for the contribution, JMav. Would you think it would work better if the lower ranks had smaller hours requirements?


Probably yes because not everyone how joins/will join OPRF will have all that time to spend on FG on military planes, especially if there is a small choice of fighters available to get higher ranks.
I've joined the Crew because I like what you guys do in FG, I've always searched folks who played serious dogfights and also events like CTF. FGUK is fun 'cause you have a HUGE choice of aircrafts and nearly everyone there contributes with something in the community but it's more like, "let's create cool aircrafts and then enjoy are time flying together and having fun". I love that, but OPRF makes military simulation more challenging and that's what I'm searchin' on in addition to the FGUK experience.


#12211516 Raider1 wrote:

Also, remember that we did make the hours requirements bigger so that people would try to win competitions for rank (i.e. to encourage people to participate and to work as a team... take winning seriously). We want to encourage people to learn from the more experienced folks so that they can be better team members.


I agree with what you say but if you really want to make the rank system you all need to plan weekly events, better if it has a fixed duration and schedule (taking in account a schedule that can be fine for both US and Europe guys who are interested in those kind of events; I mean, if you plan a DCA between 3am and 5 am UTC time I'm quite asleep so I won't be able to join it). Also there should be a bigger event every month like the previous Capture the Flag around USA regions and should be advertised well in advance so that people can really be able to consider joining it and participate in OPRF exercises.
That said, I think that the current proposal should be checked to get a more realistic flight hours based ranking system and this doesn't mean you need to withdraw drastically the required hours to advance in ranking but see if really the average-flyer can get higher ranks in a reasonable time.

#12211516 Raider1 wrote:

Also, perhaps our founding members can have a minimum of 1Lt... those who are members or become so before we launch a rank system? Thoughts?


I agree with this idea so all the lower-ranked users who joined the Crew before the introduction of the rank system start from 1Lt and the "newbies" from 2Lt. It's more fair in my opinion for the "original" members.
Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier everyday!
Peace through superior AIRPOWER
5 YEARS OF FLIGHTGEAR (2012 - 2017)

Reaper Eagle Driver, 493d FS.
+0
#12213242 Mar 28, 2016 at 09:54 AM
Colonel
142 Posts
I'm not going say much because I was already in a discussion about this on mumble but sweet!
When no one can be a winner, we will have a nation of losers. - Me -
+0
#12232607 Apr 02, 2016 at 08:09 PM
Brigadier Ge...
340 Posts
All:

The following revisions have been proposed to the rank system hours:

2nd Lieutenant: 0
1st Lieutenant: 10
Captain: 25
Major: 75
Lieutenant Colonel: 150
Colonel: 250

All together, that's 510 hours, with an easier access to the lower ranks.

Also, a proposal that we would like you to consider was made:

OPRF leadership will establish a mission area over the Nellis Range. Any OPRF member may patrol the borders of this range at any time, for DOUBLE hours.

In order to get credit for your double hours, you will need to post in a thread (yet to be established) when you START and END your patrol. You may escort any aircraft in the range, but may not shoot at any aircraft unless their callsign is OPFOR.

You may not shoot at any targets, including OPFOR, if they are not in the range. This will be a test of your nav, piloting, and decision-making skills.

It will be available 24/7/365. Those of us who have achieved ranks that no longer require flight hours will be expected to perform OPFOR services when available, as part of our duty to the crew. However, anyone may choose to be OPFOR (knowing they will not get credit for their time). OPFOR will also need to establish a temp channel in mumble titled "OPFOR" in the english channel so that they can be contacted by radar. They arent required to respond, but they must be there so that the challenging fighter can communicate to them. OPFOR can choose to comply, choose to leave, choose to probe, or choose to fight. Their choice.

From time to time, temporary no-fly zones will be set up around the world for short periods (1-2 days or less) based on real-world occurrences in the news. These missions will work exactly as the permanent one at Nellis, and will be worth various amounts of hours, depending on their difficulty and complexity.

Thoughts?

Raider1

(Combat call-signs: Raid-1, Raid-2)
+0