07-25-2017, 10:36 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2017, 10:39 PM by Frank_Stein. Edited 3 times in total.)
Here's my honest opinion about this:
What makes for a good mentor is someone who knows a good deal about most things, and maybe a great deal about one thing in particular, but more importantly they are able to either communicate that information or steer someone towards discovering it on their own.
What makes for a good HoS is someone who has good judgement, and is able to separate their own subjective ideas about players, rounds, and server culture to act in a way that is fair according to the objective truths of the situation at hand. Being robust, or having good observation and deductive reasoning skills help, but are secondary to the above.
They are two separate skill sets for two different jobs, and while it's possible to be good at both, being good at one doesn't mean you're suited for the other. I don't think merging the two is the greatest idea, and I don't think wiping them clean is either. If you have a complaint about a HoS and how they are treating the role, admin help it and let them look into it. If it's a consistent problem, they'll probably get the boot eventually.
That said, I honestly wouldn't care if HoS was a role that stopped being something people applied for and did degrade into secondary captain. The biggest justifications I've heard for it being locked behind a vetting process have been:
Maybe there's a better way to go about this whole thing? Maybe the job should only be open to players who have logged a certain amount of time as a Sec Officer? Maybe there should be an election on the forums and only a certain amount of players should be allowed to hold the role at any given time and if you want to make a new HoS you have to boot an old one? Maybe the easiest thing is to just keep things the way they are and leave well enough alone?
What makes for a good mentor is someone who knows a good deal about most things, and maybe a great deal about one thing in particular, but more importantly they are able to either communicate that information or steer someone towards discovering it on their own.
What makes for a good HoS is someone who has good judgement, and is able to separate their own subjective ideas about players, rounds, and server culture to act in a way that is fair according to the objective truths of the situation at hand. Being robust, or having good observation and deductive reasoning skills help, but are secondary to the above.
They are two separate skill sets for two different jobs, and while it's possible to be good at both, being good at one doesn't mean you're suited for the other. I don't think merging the two is the greatest idea, and I don't think wiping them clean is either. If you have a complaint about a HoS and how they are treating the role, admin help it and let them look into it. If it's a consistent problem, they'll probably get the boot eventually.
That said, I honestly wouldn't care if HoS was a role that stopped being something people applied for and did degrade into secondary captain. The biggest justifications I've heard for it being locked behind a vetting process have been:
- The armory needs a person who can be trusted to know when to use it
- The crew should have a player they know they can trust to be competent
- More often than not the armory sits untouched when there is a HoS, or gets broken into by antags or looters, and could just as easily be removed from the game altogether
- A HoS can be mindslaved, absorbed, or otherwise impersonated making that trust a liability.
Maybe there's a better way to go about this whole thing? Maybe the job should only be open to players who have logged a certain amount of time as a Sec Officer? Maybe there should be an election on the forums and only a certain amount of players should be allowed to hold the role at any given time and if you want to make a new HoS you have to boot an old one? Maybe the easiest thing is to just keep things the way they are and leave well enough alone?