|
Post by hszmv on May 2, 2016 0:54:30 GMT
The following is a list of proposed rules for ship naming within the fleet. Please read and discuss: To avoid the duplication of named ships, we will be introducing the Starship Registry. The document can be found here and I would like to take this oppertunity to thank @foxcdn for his efforts to create this list and maintain it. I've taken some time to clean it up just a little bit and organize it into four categories: Starfleet Klingon Defense Force Romulan Republic Militia Miscellaneous It should be obvious which ship to add to which fleet category. Miscellaneous serves to work with Cardassian, Ferengi, Civillian Ships, OC Race Ships, and Merc Ships. You will also note that there is a largely empty column called "Callsign" that is the location for your ship's three letter handle that is typically required use in multiple ship. It's a 3-4 with the first letter being the same as your ship name and all other letters existing in your ship's full name and appearing in order. This list is to document all IC Player Character ships and prevent duplicated names. A name can only be claimed by one person and they must release it before another person can claim it. As it is fleet policy to treat all characters pulled from the fleet because the player left in the OOC, these ship names will remain intact and belong to the player even if they left the fleet under any circumstances. This protection is only afforded to ships on this list. Having said that, we have naming convention rules which we will also be enforcing. Unless otherwise noted, these rules are for IC Ships Only. 1. No ships may share a name with a real life ship that is associated with a tragic event in said real life ship's history. Some examples of this include potential Starfleet Ships such as the U.S.S. Titanic, U.S.S. Arizona, or U.S.S. Pueblo. An exception may be made if you can show that there is precidence within Star Trek Lore for this ship name (i.e. Apollo 13's Command Module was named the Odyssey, which is an entire class of Starfleet ships). This also does not preclude ships named for famous battles, as this is Naval tradition. 2. In both IC and OOC, no ships named after controversial historical figures. The best example for this rule is a potential Starfleet ship named the U.S.S. Hitler, The U.S.S. Mussilini, or the U.S.S. Stalin. We deemed this necessary for the OOC as well, because we do not want the Storyteller name hanging right above the U.S.S. Hitler. In this matter, we will resort to Wheaton's Law (don't be a dick) in making a determination on this matter. 3. Related to above, any ship name that is in violation of Wheaton's Law in either IC or OOC. 4. No ships named after currently sitting Heads of State OR Holders of Political Office OR Candidates for such. An example would be the U.S.S. Barack Obama. While in character, we can pretty much presume that long deceased Barack Obama has a Stafleet ship named for him, out of character, this may cause political fights that we do not wish to have. We can not stress that this has no political basis beyond the fact that these figures may cause a lot of political fights. In all matters, when a ship name is no longer barred by this rule, the other rules still apply (I.E. U.S.S. Nixon would still be barred under rule 2.). 5. No ship may be named after main or recurring cannon Star Trek Characters. We know you want to honor your favorite character. So does everyone else. Even the Devs, who might use those names for later plot critical ships. In addition, no ship may be named after the Big 3 ships in the star trek franchise (Enterprise, Defiant, or Voyager... ships with these names all are prominently featured in STO gameplay.). This does not affect characters and ships featured as background in Star Trek series' lore or mentioned in passing. 6. In addition, your ship may not be named after a name of a Ship Class available in STO. Exceptions to this rule are ships that were named before the class name was released. We're not going to fault you if the Devs think your name was a pretty cool name for a ship. We will also permit your ship to be named after a Class Ship if you are the winner of a design our next Starship contest that results in the new ship class. Where your badge of honor with pride. 7. Determinations of the Storyteller's Pathfinders. We hope not to exercise this rule often, but we will tell you to no if you want to Captain a ship with a silly name like the U.S.S. Pinky-Pie or a ship with a ship that is not indicative of a the faction's naming conventions, I.E. U.S.S. Vengeance, I.K.S. Diplomacy. Pathfinders will also make a determination if we find your ship suddenly on one of these lists. We do not wish to make promises to make broadstrokes promises of Grandfather clauses in spaces
|
|
|
Post by Erika on May 2, 2016 1:09:23 GMT
I would say that we should have a somewhat clearer definition of controversial figure, as controversial can vary depending on your racial or cultural background. As an example, as someone who lives in Florida, I know several people who go batshit crazy at the mention of William T. Sherman.
As an aside, the name USS Vengeance should be allowed, as it is a name with a long history in the Royal Navy, including a battleship, aircraft carrier, and a currently serving missile submarine.
|
|
|
Post by hszmv on May 2, 2016 1:28:56 GMT
We actually had a discussion among the Pathfinders as to the status of civil war issues. Sherman has a tank class named for him in the US Army, so no harm no foul. Where we got into some bit of trouble was stuff like Robert E. Lee, who despite leading the Confederate Army, does have a Fort named after him. The general attititude to most Confederate Soldiers is that they were pardoned and allowed back into the union almost from surrender. Many Union battlefield commanders admonished their troops for cheering at the Confederate's defeat, because they were cheering the surrender of their own country men. It should also be noted that, despite the Geneva Convention not being created for some time, the U.S. Civil war mostly was legal under the Geneva Convention.
Ultimately, the Pathfinders agreed to look at these complaints on a case by case basis and trust that our players no better than to pick the very obvious bad guys of history. The "He's a jerk but he's our jerk" stuff... we'll defer to a Rule 7 look see.
As for the U.S.S. Vengeance, I did not know that and learned something new today. I've always figured the increase in ships named that was due to the use in the second New Trek films... which was much disliked and felt out of place in Trek. My rule for these situations is to support your case, and I'll hear it out... you did... go you... new example is the U.S.S. Devastation.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Winters on May 2, 2016 7:14:28 GMT
Alright, make yerself some tea here..
First off, the positive. Avoid duplication - great. Make a list, here's google docs. Wheaton's law - great. Already in the charter tho, point at it and complain rightfully. Politeness in naming - sure. Should be a no-brainer, could be mentioned extra, if you really think long-time-storytellers have a hard time with this sort of thing and/or cannot teach recruits this.
With the highly subjective wording running throughout this document, this "ruleset" can easily be misused to pretty much get anyone in trouble and leaves choices like the USS Pinkie Pie as the only viable ones. In its current form, it is useless except as a bullying tool and work-creation-program. Is this really what we should be creating? I thought it was about encouraging creativity and stories here? Let's take a look at it.
Rule #1 rules out a very, very big portion of names, including random generated ones and that of a current RP ship, with a single, highly subjective word - "tragic". Example: "Man, that was pretty tragic how Britain deported jews back to germany after WW2, against their will and by force. How can you name a ship after that?" -> Byebye USS Exodus.
Rule #2 is already game policy. Right click, report. We don't need to do Cryptic's work. We don't need recruits who don't follow the game's own rules of conduct either. Let them sort it out if that's a ban, rip Teller tag off of the offender for..
Rule #3, which is part of the charter already and needs no duplicate. And you're done handling it.
Rule #4 would require a person to know over 190 countries, their leader's names, the people in their senates/derivates, and all those people standing next to a highway with a 'vote me' sign in their hands. Is this realisticly wanted? I have a hard time remembering the names of my own country's politicians, since they don't interest me a bit. You don't want fights over politics? Then please don't require foreigners to memorize U.S. politicians, dead, alive or in the making. The process of doing so will bring up a lot of politics and history.
Rule #5 is a no-brainer and can go sit with #3 and have a snack. (see below) Where I come from, waving a lawbook at your family members over the coffee/gaming table is considered highly impolite. Are we really doing this now?
Rule #6 is sortof okay.. just that there's zero ways of actually proving that e.g. a USS Dauntless was named before they made a Dauntless class. You're trying to regulate people by their word here, while the reason for regulating it stems from "we dont believe you that this really was thought as a joke". This isn't likely to work out.
Rule #7 is the only thing truly novel here. Packaged together with things that can be happily misused by anyone with ill intent, it makes this one look rather funny as well. I'm pretty sure "if a pathfinder tells you to stop being a dick, better do it" is part of the charter already. Finely worded, too.
So what is this except charter repetition? Just something someone with too much time on their hands can and will use to trip other people up, really. And it raises the PF's workload. (Instead of, say, handing it to a Guardian or other.) And creating a tool for use by random people that don't like you and enjoy digging stuff up on the web to hold over your head when you're being creative - Sorry, no. We should know better than that.
Please rethink this effort. Its overkill. Big time.
I'm sure the same small positive effects pointed out above can be reached via a 3-liner added to current storyteller rules, much like "this also applies to ship names", without making people call a lawyer if they have an idea for a simple thing as naming their newest 'spacy wacy point n wastey'. And a list.
I know I'm being rather negative here, but every rule has a downside, and we already have a lot of rules. We're not space lawyers, and we shouldn't aspire to be. I think family can and should be handled without lawbooks, which is the spirit I see in the charter. This kinda makes it fade out quickly, I feel sad, seeing 'we now need rules for the simplest things', too.
I say we can do better. Let's.
|
|
mobius395
Member
In life, you need to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
Posts: 47
|
Post by mobius395 on May 2, 2016 12:37:54 GMT
Gotta agree with Chris here. This whole effort seems a bit... perhaps redundant is the word.
|
|
|
Post by johntechgaming on May 2, 2016 13:32:08 GMT
I agree with Chris as well. Alot of the proposed rules are redundancies from the fleet charter, and therefore something that is pretty much already looked at. Im cool with having some sort of document to keep track of ship names to avoid duplicates, heck, i really like that idea. But how often do we really add new ships/member to the fleet? I feel like something like a ship name would be better handled on a case by case basis, rather then establishing large, all encompassing rules, given the infrequency in which we have to deal with something like this. And generally among the Tellers, I get the impression that if we had a recruit with a ship name that wasnt appropriate, we would all sorta let them know what we were thinking.
|
|
|
Post by FoxCDN on May 2, 2016 15:26:07 GMT
I don't know if this is really necessary, as long as it's not duplicated, conflict with the charter or game standards it should be okay. Names that if by some reason fall into a grey area can be handled onto a case by case basis.
A better focus may be on inclusion as well as further developing our mentors and recruiters.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on May 3, 2016 11:14:23 GMT
I think some of the posts here are going a bit off track. This isn't a pending unstoppable edict coming into effect. This is a discussion of an idea. Specifically, HS has been looking at what other fleets in the Armada do, and is picking ideas to discuss to see if any of them might be helpful to our fleet, with the full understanding that the fleet may be okay with some but not with others. Alright, make yerself some tea here.. Rule #1 rules out a very, very big portion of names, including random generated ones and that of a current RP ship, with a single, highly subjective word - "tragic". Example: "Man, that was pretty tragic how Britain deported jews back to germany after WW2, against their will and by force. How can you name a ship after that?" -> Byebye USS Exodus. I think a clarification here would be helpful. I believe the intent was to avoid names like the Arizona or the Titanic, ones that involved the loss of most/all lives involved, and not every ship that had something unfortunate happen aboard. ... Rule #2 is already game policy. Right click, report. We don't need to do Cryptic's work. We don't need recruits who don't follow the game's own rules of conduct either. Let them sort it out if that's a ban, rip Teller tag off of the offender for.. If the fleet is okay with the notion of possible direct action as potential removal of someone on the grounds of existing TOS and Wheaton's Law, then I'll agree this part is unnecessary. But I'll note that the kind of people who would use such names are the kind of people who will argue the lack of a rule explicitly forbidding something, and I will point out rather insistently that even when people have been removed for overwhelmingly bad violations of rules with overwhelming evidence supporting it, there have still been people who have raised alarms over the removal, and attempted to characterize the removal as some sort of oppression or agenda. So that's not something I think is as clear-cut as you think. ... Rule #3, which is part of the charter already and needs no duplicate. And you're done handling it. Going to have to agree with this one as stated. Rule #4 would require a person to know over 190 countries, their leader's names, the people in their senates/derivates, and all those people standing next to a highway with a 'vote me' sign in their hands. Is this realisticly wanted? I have a hard time remembering the names of my own country's politicians, since they don't interest me a bit. You don't want fights over politics? Then please don't require foreigners to memorize U.S. politicians, dead, alive or in the making. The process of doing so will bring up a lot of politics and history. "Heads of state" does not include senates or other legislative bodies, or anyone holding signs next to roadways. Not sure where that even came from. Nor are past or dead heads of state included in this, only current ones. And going to question the excessive characterization being used here: nobody is required to memorize anything, and the claim of such is both inaccurate and going way off topic. Though in the case of the US, I'm pretty sure everyone is likely to know the one and only current US head of state, being a single name. Rule #5 is a no-brainer and can go sit with #3 and have a snack. (see below) Where I come from, waving a lawbook at your family members over the coffee/gaming table is considered highly impolite. Are we really doing this now? This is not "waving a lawbook" at anyone, this is a discussion HS brought up for people to talk about. The dismissive tone is unnecessary. Other fleets have similar rules written down, and the thought he had was to see what people in the fleet thought of the idea. Rule #6 is sortof okay.. just that there's zero ways of actually proving that e.g. a USS Dauntless was named before they made a Dauntless class. You're trying to regulate people by their word here, while the reason for regulating it stems from "we dont believe you that this really was thought as a joke". This isn't likely to work out. A valid point, and I'm not sure how we could address this, offhand. At the very minimum, though, I'd say restricting the naming of a ship after existing canon classes and major ones such as the Odyssey would be appropriate. Rule #7 is the only thing truly novel here. Packaged together with things that can be happily misused by anyone with ill intent, it makes this one look rather funny as well. I'm pretty sure "if a pathfinder tells you to stop being a dick, better do it" is part of the charter already. Finely worded, too. I can agree this one is already covered with the charter. I will disagree with the characterization of it as the creation of a tool for willful malicious intent. So what is this except charter repetition? Just something someone with too much time on their hands can and will use to trip other people up, really. And it raises the PF's workload. (Instead of, say, handing it to a Guardian or other.) And creating a tool for use by random people that don't like you and enjoy digging stuff up on the web to hold over your head when you're being creative - Sorry, no. We should know better than that. What this happens to be is a discussion. We have those from time to time to discuss ideas. And the implication that the leadership is hovering in wait to trip people up is one I object to. And I don't see how contradictory phrases like "too much time on their hands" and a concern about "raising the Pathfinders' workload" contribute to the furthering of the discussion, and quite frankly I find the former to be dismissive and insulting. Working on guiding the fleet's RP through thoughtful and mindful discussions is kind of our job. ... Please rethink this effort.... That's the whole point of this thread. To think, to talk about the idea and get input. To act as if it's already an immanent thing that's been decided on barely one day after it was posted for discussion is both alarmist and misleading. Nothing has been decided at all yet, and even after a discussion, if the opinions presented were equally divided or close to it, then it would go to vote, to be decided by the fleet, not arbitrarily instituted by the Pathfinders. I know I'm being rather negative here, but every rule has a downside, and we already have a lot of rules. We're not space lawyers, and we shouldn't aspire to be. I think family can and should be handled without lawbooks, which is the spirit I see in the charter. This kinda makes it fade out quickly, I feel sad, seeing 'we now need rules for the simplest things', too. I say we can do better. Let's. No. We do NOT have "a lot of rules". In the past 3 years, we've added only 3 or 4 rules, total, to which the fleet's response has been (by overwhelming majority) "Well, about time we did that!" Of all the major RP fleets, we are considered to be the most lax in our rules. At least two that I know of require you to APPLY to be a member, and have your character APPROVED. We only confirm that the character complies with a (very small) handful of requirements (like not being higher ranked than Captain or having an IC ship that is of a barred class) and don't delve any further into it. I'm going to point out (again) that before these discussions, we had people bitterly complaining about certain behavior and characters and " why don't the Pathfinders do something about it?" So we did, and the rules that resulted were agreed upon by unprecedented majority of fleet members. When I log in to complaints about an issue over and over again by multiple members of the fleet about multiple instances of said issue over extended periods of time, don't expect me to just dismiss it. And again, I reject the attempt to characterize this as "lawyers and lawyering". The whole point of these proposals (and any rules that may or may not come from it) is to create the common framework for all of us to RP without having to deal with bickering or squabbling over things, by getting a consensus on the very things that people have historically argued about, and eliminating the point of argument with a decision. I'm sure the same small positive effects pointed out above can be reached via a 3-liner added to current storyteller rules, much like "this also applies to ship names", without making people call a lawyer if they have an idea for a simple thing as naming their newest 'spacy wacy point n wastey'. And a list. This is something I would have liked to see. If you have a counter-proposal, post it. This is what the discussion is about. Put that 3-liner here, and proposed additions to the current rules (such as "this also applies to ship names") so we can see what you had in mind. A better focus may be on inclusion as well as further developing our mentors and recruiters. We're focusing on several things right now, this is only one of them. Mentors is another, and coincidentally a new Mentor is being announced this week, so stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by FoxCDN on May 3, 2016 12:35:23 GMT
I'm just getting the sense that no one really feels it's needed at this time, considering the processes and guidelines we currently have in place.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on May 3, 2016 17:55:57 GMT
It think this discussion is needed. I'm always in favor of clarifying and codifying the rules so as to avoid problems resulting from ambiguity.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on May 4, 2016 0:08:02 GMT
I'm just getting the sense that no one really feels it's needed at this time, considering the processes and guidelines we currently have in place. Not every one will feel the need for, or interest in, every topic. That's normal, and okay. But as you can see: It think this discussion is needed. I'm always in favor of clarifying and codifying the rules so as to avoid problems resulting from ambiguity. It is of interest to some, and if it is of interest to some, it's worth discussing.
|
|
|
Post by Tiana on May 4, 2016 1:00:15 GMT
Just throwing my two cents in here. I agree with a lot of what's been said, mostly on the camp of people saying the rules aren't really needed, but I thought I'd throw in some real ships in the United States Navy that would seem to fly in the face of some of these rules. I know that Starfleet isn't precisely a US Navy clone, but it's the closest we have to a guideline. Regarding ships named the Arizona or the Pueblo... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arizona (there have been 3 ships in the US navy with that name) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_%28AGER-2%29As for ships named after tragedies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pearl_Harbor_%28LSD-52%29As for ship names that are overly aggressive... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Devastator_%28MCM-6%29Most ships seem to be names of states, battles, notable people such as presidents and military commanders, cities, and the occasional platitude, weather phenomenon, and insect. But on the whole I'm on board with rules 5 and 6. -Spots
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on May 4, 2016 1:31:28 GMT
Just throwing my two cents in here. I agree with a lot of what's been said, mostly on the camp of people saying the rules aren't really needed, but I thought I'd throw in some real ships in the United States Navy that would seem to fly in the face of some of these rules. I know that Starfleet isn't precisely a US Navy clone, but it's the closest we have to a guideline. Regarding ships named the Arizona or the Pueblo... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arizona (there have been 3 ships in the US navy with that name) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_%28AGER-2%29As for ships named after tragedies... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pearl_Harbor_%28LSD-52%29As for ship names that are overly aggressive... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Devastator_%28MCM-6%29Most ships seem to be names of states, battles, notable people such as presidents and military commanders, cities, and the occasional platitude, weather phenomenon, and insect. But on the whole I'm on board with rules 5 and 6. -Spots The last ship to bear U.S.S. Arizona on that link is the one that was destroyed in Pearl Harbor, and no ship has born that name since, thus the using of it as an example. The U.S.S. Pueblo was captured, but only one crewman died during the altercation, all remaining crew were repatriated alive. Thus not really a "tragedy" on the scale of the Arizona. Gonna have to say...the U.S.S. Pearl Harbor is a strong argument on the point of ships named after tragic events/locations. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on that one. The U.S.S. Devastator is, in fact, quite an aggressively named vessel, but I think the idea is the Federation is trying to promote diplomacy over violence, and having a ship called the U.S.S. Devastator in the fleet would kind of undermine that image. I'm interested in hearing further thoughts on this.
|
|
|
Post by FoxCDN on May 4, 2016 1:31:30 GMT
great resources Spots
|
|
mobius395
Member
In life, you need to know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
Posts: 47
|
Post by mobius395 on May 4, 2016 1:33:02 GMT
I feel it should be noted that certain classes of ships have names that are in line with the type of vessel that they are. For instance, Defiant-class ships (and their later STO models) have had a history of names based on traits seen as brave or courageous (Defiant, Valiant, Gallant, Vigilant) while Intrepid-class ships have more scientific names (Voyager, Bellerophon, Cochrane, Discovery), so on and so forth. Certain names that are a bit more warlike would be somewhat uncharacteristic for Starfleet (IE, seeing a USS Revenge, or a USS Devastator is a tad unusual) but could be justified based upon certain ship designs/classes. Emphasis on could, by the way. It'd likely vary case by case based upon the combination, and this is simply my two cents here.
|
|
|
Post by hszmv on May 4, 2016 1:44:07 GMT
Quick Clarification on the Tradgidies... It is for ships that are associated with a tragic event, not battles. Battles are a common RL naming convention. There is a U.S.S. Gettysburg, and a U.S.S. Iwo Jima.
The Arizona has not been used since the sinking of the Battleship at Pearl Harbor. The U.S.S. Pueblo is still considered active, despite being a museum in North Korea. The Titanic is quite obvious. It's with deference to the people who suffered in those vessels, where as naming after Battles is to honor the courage of the people who fought in them.
|
|
|
Post by Geralyn on May 4, 2016 1:48:42 GMT
Quick Clarification on the Tradgidies... It is for ships that are associated with a tragic event, not battles. Battles are a common RL naming convention. There is a U.S.S. Gettysburg, and a U.S.S. Iwo Jima. The Arizona has not been used since the sinking of the Battleship at Pearl Harbor. The U.S.S. Pueblo is still considered active, despite being a museum in North Korea. The Titanic is quite obvious. It's with deference to the people who suffered in those vessels, where as naming after Battles is to honor the courage of the people who fought in them. I can get on board with this clarification, but I'm going to reiterate on the Pueblo that with 82 of the 83 crew returning home alive and well, I don't think that one really qualifies.
|
|
|
Post by hszmv on May 4, 2016 2:59:58 GMT
While the crew was returned, the ship is still considered captured and is still considered Commissioned by the USN. North Korea has been trying to use this fact as a bargaining chip to get the United States to deal with them and make policy concessions.
At the time of the incident, we were not at war with North Korea and the attack was unprovoked and the ship was in international waters. The crew were brutally tortured throughout their 11 month ordeal as prisoners of war. They were even beaten for a final time right before their release. It represents one of the few times in the history of the United States that a ship was captured and memorial services are still held by both the IC community and the Navy.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on May 5, 2016 19:28:20 GMT
I would think that Starfleet would easily have some ships with warlike or aggressive names. Classes like the Avenger or Arbiter are clear candidates for that sort of thing, as even the most diplomatic power would want some ships around that scream "BEATSTICK" with every fiber of their being. Of course, it is also quite easy, with some thought, to give a ship an impressive and intimidating name, especially by looking at any wikipedia list of Royal Navy ships.
|
|
|
Post by firebringeraxel on May 5, 2016 21:35:47 GMT
I've alphabetized the ship list on the google spreadsheet (ignoring U.S.S./I.S.S. for Federation ones). Please attempt when adding more to the list to add it in the proper place in the order.
I also moved 1 ship (Andorian vessel) to the Other/Independent section as the top area is for Starfleet vessels, this would not include other Federation groups.
|
|