Make the Executive Officer the ship's second in command.

[Dreamix]

Dunno, after some thinking and stuff, I'm actually against it. The current heads situation is nice, with all heads being equal under the captain.

I like that XO can be as chill or as involved as you want, and I find that comfy.

XO being 2IC would probably make XO as stressful and involved as Captain, if there is no Captain on shift.

[WickedCybs]

To me the only real solution to XO being a superfluous role is either this (formally becoming the 2IC) or cutting the Operations Manager out and returning their duties to the XO. They both overlap a lot and the separation kind of ended up creating two really light-on-duties roles that have people asking why they exist at the moment. The XO at least is still often considered the natural successor to the Captain and de-facto second due to their position on the bridge, which is more than I could say for the OM. Renames wouldn't fix that.

I do like the idea of a better chain of command by actually having a clearly denoted second though. I can't really think of many situations where the current "flexible" way amounted to much more than voting on an acting Captain instead of coming together for every decision, or entering a command gridlock where nobody can really agree or figure out what to do. In the situations where there is a Captain, another thing tends to be that heads are more occupied managing their own department and find it hard to collude with each other. Not a problem if the Captain takes an active hand, but if they try to delegate and be hands off I'd frequently see stuff like "Well, I told them to prepare the Intrepid, not sure why it didn't take off for more than an hour."

Not really a coincidence then that most events now just directly have people spawn where they need to be. That said, that was just a random example. I know the Intrepid has problems in ease of getting people aboard, although over preparation has always been the main killer.

[Scheveningen]

Cutting the OM out or just demoting them down kind of recreates the issues we already had with the quartermaster role, in that it had no authority and was functionally useless. 

Since we effectively have +1 head of staff over what we used to, and the XO's technical skills involving with piloting the ship equivalent to the captain, in addition to using the other weapon/utility systems, there is genuinely no reason why not to empower the XO to be second to the captain. That's the definition of what an Executive Officer to a naval ship is - and this is regardless if the ship is military or not. Most people regard it as being not, but having a more clearly defined chain of command and 2 persons with absolute authority who can easily push command out of decision gridlock is essential.

The role of the XO would be fairly simple, however. The captain is chiefly responsible for delegating their orders. It is the responsibility of the XO, and other members of command, to execute those orders. However, the XO can simply intrude into another lane and ensure the respective head of staff is getting the requested job done, so that the captain does not have to show up and ensure that is what is being carried out. This frees the captain up to have physical presence elsewhere, organize what they need to and otherwise spend their attention on equally/moreso pressing issues.

On a secondary note, may as well just make the OM the O&SM (or OSM, if it sounds better). It would not be too much to extend the OM's authority a little more, and cut some of the unnecessary chaffe from the XO's purview. Operations and service are not difficult departments to manage - as one side is distribution and the other is essentially retail, and I believe service would GREATLY enjoy the interconnectivity that would be established with operations, being able to ask their head of staff directly for anything instead of having to go through a sophisticated chain of command just to get through to operations.

Edited March 4, 2023 by Scheveningen

[LordPwner]

From a lore standpoint the XO is the manager of payroll, accounts, the bridge, access management, paperwork nerd, and head of Service. Taking operations out from under them and making the OM was a good change, it narrowed their field from all above + cargo/mining operations (Ye Ole Aurora).

But honestly, having Service under the XO is starting to make less and less sense. 9/10 times the XO is on the bridge, talking with other ships, coordinating away missions, getting heads of staff to check their departments for volunteers or doing it themselves. Operating as a de-facto (Or promoting a) Warden/HoS during lower pops or just lacking command staff. Changing access, being assigned random task by the Captain. Manning weapon systems, piloting, working with bridge crew during these events.

Yeah, we should just make them the OSM, and allow the XO as the right hand of the Captain. If players start overstepping too much, just hit 'em with the bwionk. If it becomes too big of an issue can always move the XO back to the same level.

[Sycmos]

Change the name of XO to something else that doesn't imply they are a 2IC. The use of XO is confusing and implies a level of naval hierarchy that simply does not exist on what is supposed to be a corporate vessel. 

We do not need a non-captain command role that has authority over the others. If you want to play captain, simply play captain.

[kermit]

I agree with a lot of the previous points made against 2IC XO, I won't repeat them all.

HoP being renamed to XO and the connotation that has is the only reason I believe we're here. Were it renamed to something more befitting it's function aboard the ship – managing the helm and its staff, managing service (though I'm all for an Operations & Service Manager per Schev's comment) – we may not have even arrived here imo, as the notion that XO is an unofficial 2IC would never have been reinforced.

I don't believe 2IC XO solves any problems with the role, and is simply a change 'because that's what XOs are in real life, it makes sense'. One argument I've seen elsewhere is that this reduces the HoS/Captain monopoly on the round, but a 2IC XO doesn't change the fact they aren't meant to weigh-in on Security matters (which accounts for nearly every issue that comes up during a round) – XOs immediately take point when anything overmap related occurs, and Security/the HoS laughably sit to the site waiting for the boarding actions which won't come lol. Another argument mentioned here, I believe, is that XOs haven't got much to do, though I don't see what making XO 2IC adds to the role besides making them a switchboard for the captain. 

The biggest issue I personally have, and most relevant to me as a captain player, is that it's really not gonna leave much for captains to do most rounds. The majority of a captain's duty in any round is managing headless departments, which would now fall under a 2IC XO who becomes a barrier to interaction if you respect the proposed chain of command and avoid overstepping. It reduces captain to yes/no'ing anything over the Command channel, but even that can be rare and depends on how talkative command are in a round.

The above said, I wouldn't enjoy playing XO or Captain as much as they are in their current states if the chain of command was altered. Of course it's hard to say without it being trialled, but I get the feeling this is just going to lead to really awkward dynamics between XOs and Captains, as well as a lot of bickering.

As for what I think would actually do some good for the XO role:

I think renaming XO to something First Officer-like (but that's the other thread), remapping the Bridge to have defined XO and Captain command stations (already being done thanks to LordPwner) to cement the XOs position as it's head and ensuring captain's don't steal the most attractive duty of XO (managing the helm), and taking Service away from XO to allow them to focus 100% on the helm, will make the XO more enjoyable to play than just making them the captain's lapdog, and gives them all of the overmap content to work with. This relieves the captain of the duty of coordinating the helm, which isn't their job per the chain of command while the XO as a role in any state exists. The biggest issue I had as someone trying to get into the XO role was captains just yoinking 50% of my job which also happened to be the most interesting 50%. Amending that will do more than making XOs 2IC imo, and is something I've been trialling in-game which I've gleamed has some positive effect for both captain and XO alike.

Edited March 21, 2023 by kermit
aaa mentioned the wrong person, sorry

[Kelnor]

I think there needs to be a clarification here about what "second in command" means.

There's succession of command (if the Captain isn't on deck or is dead or incapacitated, XO has top authority.)

And then there's Chain of Command (This means all concerns going to the Captain should go through the XO, and the XO's word carries the Captain's authority barring some kind of malice or lack of good faith on the XO's part, and barring some orders only a Captain is trusted with issuing.) You would have to have a good reason to bypass the XO and go straight to the Captain if the XO is in the Chain of Command as second.

In the real world, the XO's job is to run the ship and handle crew to let the Captain focus on big decisions, they are not primarily a second in command or a right hand man, and they're definitely not a specialist, at least not anymore. They're a secretary with leadership requirements mostly. They're getting experience in ship operation and command leadership for when they become a Captain, and the Captain is expected to groom the XO for the big chair.

In militaries, they want a clear succession of command and chain of command. So the XO holds the second position in both. They don't want to hold a command staff vote for the next Captain in the middle of a firefight or have multiple Department heads issuing conflicting orders and crew not knowing which to follow.

The question is whether the Horizon wants the XO to be second in both, one or neither of those chains.

 

Edit:

I should also point out that militaries would have all command line officers in order of succession of command.

If we make XO the second in succession of command, it doesn't really make sense not to go all the way and just list the succession of command all the way down the entire Command Staff. After all, the whole point of the XO being second in command is to never have any confusion of who has command now if the Captain goes down... so why wouldn't you want to do the same for if the XO goes down too... and then the next in succession of command... etc.

Edited March 20, 2023 by Kelnor

[Sycmos]

On 20/03/2023 at 09:09, Sycmos said:

Change the name of XO to something else that doesn't imply they are a 2IC. The use of XO is confusing and implies a level of naval hierarchy that simply does not exist on what is supposed to be a corporate vessel. 

We do not need a non-captain command role that has authority over the others. If you want to play captain, simply play captain.

More on this, now that I've had time to digest the topic:

The primary issue that spawns from making the XO a true 2IC is that it has the potential to replicate the dilemma of unseating a captain or choosing an acting captain, without the simplicity of having a general command vote, which then forces the remainder of command to fall into a hierarchy in the event there's an absence of authority. If the 2IC's authority supersedes that of the other command staff they can simply choose to take acting captain regardless of whether or not command are comfortable with the character in question simply by virtue of their station, and if their authority supersedes that of the other command then ultimately they can choose to throw a vote of no confidence against the captain by weight of their station. If there is no XO, do we fill the position of 2IC or skip straight to acting captain? What if there isn't an XO available and the captain chooses a command member to fill in as 2IC? You then have the issue of who gets picked for this secondary position, and thus an entirely new problem of establishing a hierarchy arises.

A more simple fix that would avoid the issue of navalizing command would be this:

- Give OM authority over Service and Operations, leaving the XO to duties involving the bridge and its armaments, coordinating with Operations to load guns and Engineering to prime the Leviathan and optimize the engine
- Rename XO to something that does not deliberately imply being second in command, like Flight Chief or Crew Chief, implying their responsibility for the Horizon as a flying vessel, its operators (Bridge Crew), and its satellite vessels (Spark, Intrepid)
- (Whitelist/CCIA issue) Write and enact step-by-step protocol on choosing a new captain with X amount of command staff to keep accountability

The further away we stay from militarizing the positions on the Horizon the better we will be able to keep similar trends from our setting, which will serve to better set us apart from being compared to Bay.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Sycmos

[kyres1]

Personally, having played both enough to get comfortable, I can certainly say both XO and OM are boring roles.

The split of authority made by the two between service and cargo/ops ended up giving them far less to do with far less people to interact with, while simultaneously providing no alterations to gameplay - not positive, nor negative.

That said, if QM returned (in the event that, somehow, the XO is overloaded enough to delegate) it could easily warrant merging OM into XO. Then, XO would be set apart, controlling most low-priority functions and service personnel on the ship, making it more fun and more reasonable to label as our second-in-command.

[Scheveningen]

2 hours ago, Sycmos said:

- Give OM authority over Service and Operations, leaving the XO to duties involving the bridge and its armaments, coordinating with Operations to load guns and Engineering to prime the Leviathan and optimize the engine
- Rename XO to something that does not deliberately imply being second in command, like Flight Chief or Crew Chief, implying their responsibility for the Horizon as a flying vessel, its operators (Bridge Crew), and its satellite vessels (Spark, Intrepid)
- (Whitelist/CCIA issue) Write and enact step-by-step protocol on choosing a new captain with X amount of command staff to keep accountability

The further away we stay from militarizing the positions on the Horizon the better we will be able to keep similar trends from our setting, which will serve to better set us apart from being compared to Bay.

Yeah, do all this. No other solution would address the status quo as succinctly.

[Dreamix]

 

I've not played OM, but I absolutely disagree that XO is boring or a bad role. It can be as chill or involved as you want. You can involve yourself in security matters, easily justify visiting or inspecting any department or area, and help with any departmental matters, filling in as heads of staff that are absent. Or you can take it chill, and let everyone else handle the things.

 

6 hours ago, Sycmos said:

- Give OM authority over Service and Operations, leaving the XO to duties involving the bridge and its armaments, coordinating with Operations to load guns and Engineering to prime the Leviathan and optimize the engine
- Rename XO to something that does not deliberately imply being second in command, like Flight Chief or Crew Chief, implying their responsibility for the Horizon as a flying vessel, its operators (Bridge Crew), and its satellite vessels (Spark, Intrepid)
- (Whitelist/CCIA issue) Write and enact step-by-step protocol on choosing a new captain with X amount of command staff to keep accountability

This is very neat, and I really like this. As long as XO keeps the security channel, and current access and account duties.

[CatsinHD]

8 hours ago, Sycmos said:

- Give OM authority over Service and Operations, leaving the XO to duties involving the bridge and its armaments, coordinating with Operations to load guns and Engineering to prime the Leviathan and optimize the engine
- Rename XO to something that does not deliberately imply being second in command, like Flight Chief or Crew Chief, implying their responsibility for the Horizon as a flying vessel, its operators (Bridge Crew), and its satellite vessels (Spark, Intrepid)
- (Whitelist/CCIA issue) Write and enact step-by-step protocol on choosing a new captain with X amount of command staff to keep accountability

I like this, and it also ropes in the other thread:

Gives OM more to do, makes the XO's role clearer, and also satisfies the issue of succession of captain's powers with the protocol. I think there might be some conflict over the responsibility of the Spark, since that is sort of under the OMs oversight.

[RyverStyx]

On 22/03/2023 at 07:05, Sycmos said:

A more simple fix that would avoid the issue of navalizing command would be this:

- Give OM authority over Service and Operations, leaving the XO to duties involving the bridge and its armaments, coordinating with Operations to load guns and Engineering to prime the Leviathan and optimize the engine
- Rename XO to something that does not deliberately imply being second in command, like Flight Chief or Crew Chief, implying their responsibility for the Horizon as a flying vessel, its operators (Bridge Crew), and its satellite vessels (Spark, Intrepid)
- (Whitelist/CCIA issue) Write and enact step-by-step protocol on choosing a new captain with X amount of command staff to keep accountability

I quite like this. I think it'd be good for service players because it always feels like the XO is barely around.

[NG+7 Gael]

Sooo, as someone who has played HoP/XO a good amount, I think I'm fairly against the idea of XO being made 2ic. The thing is, I don't play XO to be 2ic. If I wanted to be in command of command, I'd play Captain. I like XO as-is bc, as others have stated, it can often kinda be as involved or not involved in the round as you'd like. I enjoy this. I don't wanna be forced into a 2ic role. And yes, I know that like w/ Captain you can just delegate decisions to the other Command members, but I think the current power structure works just fine.

I'm also, like, super against Service being removed from XO's oversight. XO doesn't inherently have a ton to do right now anyways, especially when other Command staff are around; while Service is usually fine w/o any command intervention at all, it's also basically the only thing the XO oversees that requires any intervention at all, occasionally. Giving service to the OM won't make service need any more oversight than it already does, and it sure doesn't mean the OM is gonna interact with Service any more than the XO would. Also, imo command not interacting with their department is (often, not always!) on either/both the command member themself and/or the people actually in the department. I think that I, personally, do a fairly good job of making sure to interact with Service while playing XO without being a micromanager, so long as people in the department are willing to interact with me. Aside from that, the bridge pretty much requires just as little management as service on a typical round as long as you're not trying to force it, and you're not a direct overseer of security, obviously. Coordination with Operations doesn't really exist, or need to, as the bridge crew have access to the Command channel and can, imo, much more easily coordinate with the OM directly, and that's if that's at all required in the first place.

 

Edit: I forgot to add this, but if XO did lose oversight of Service, I think I'd be much more open to the idea of XO being 2ic, bc I think it would make a lot more sense and also would actually give XO something in place of Service. To be clear, I also don't hate the idea of XO being 2ic, I'm just not really too sure how it would play out, and I would hate to have XO turn into something that I, personally, no longer enjoy- which isn't to say XO being made 2ic would do that, but it could, so I'm a bit skeptical about big changes like this. Still, it could be worth testing at least to see how ppl feel about it?

Edited April 6, 2023 by NG+7 Gael

[N8-Toe]

I think the XO should be 2IC. Having a 2IC under the captain helps command keep a lid on things during hectic moments, and I think is a fun dynamic of the captain having a "right hand man.".

 

if we want to get away from "military connotations" I'd rename it to "First Officer" which is a position on civilian ships.

 

 

[Carver]

Pretty sure the poll for this was a 'no' given we had this added to the wiki the day after the poll ended.

[CatsinHD]

2 hours ago, Carver said:

Pretty sure the poll for this was a 'no' given we had this added to the wiki the day after the poll ended.

I wasn't made aware of the results of the poll when I wrote that. Since neither Cael nor Bear seemed to have an issue with it, I assume the results were no as well, but that may not be true.

[GeneralCamo]

On 14/04/2023 at 16:00, Carver said:

Pretty sure the poll for this was a 'no' given we had this added to the wiki the day after the poll ended.

This was in progress for months before the pole, and hasn't changed since the initial draft. 

[Dreamix]

So... I hate to be that guy. But. The results of the pool? It's kinda been a while now, with no word on its status or anything like that.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Dreamix

[Arrow768]

There will be some info regarding the outcome of the poll / this discussion soonish.

 

[ReadThisNamePlz]

Any news, @Arrow768?

[Fluffy]

Any news about the poll result, @Arrow768?

[Afya]

Any news, @Arrow768?

[Arrow768]

That topic has been on my todo list for quite a while.

I just haven’t found the time to sit down and write a proper post about the outcome of the poll and the planned changes as a result.

I should be able to find the time to do that next weekend

[greenjoe]

Would there be renaming of the XO as came up in another thread as part of it?