Company Corporate Structure Moving Forward

This seems like a good time to organize our Corporate Structure. Larzamonte Charoux: Figurehead CEO; convenient interface to the Darrian Government and Public, conceals that decisions being made by the group Gevaudan Cannagrrh: Captain of the Ship (Admiral of the Fleet, as required); final authority on shipboard matters Captain Crow: Chief Engineer Hane Meson: "Company Lawyer" Additional material coming soon.

Are you absolutely sure you want to place Senior Scout Gevaudan Cannagrrh, Charisma 5 and a follower of Runetha Saetedz ("Adventure and Heroism ho!") in The Chair?  Artemis might end up with more adventures than usual with him at the conn.  Spicy Vargr food for thought.   That said, he'd be touched to be put into command of the Ares.  It might even present him with opportunities to increase his Charisma since both the Annic Nova and Hermes missions failed to improve his self-image.

He's the Captain of the Ship; which puts him in charge of "Things that happen while the ship is travelling through space". Nothing more... which also means not hiring crew, per se; just the authority to demand some of suitable competence when the situation requires, and refusing to leave port (or orbit) until he gets some; handling stowaways and rescues is a grey area where Gev would naturally have much more leeway, until the ship safely reaches port, and things become company decisions again. Hirings and firings at port are the decision of the company as a whole. As a comparison, the President may be on Air Force One, but the Pilots in the cockpits are in charge as far as what the plane is allowed to do is concerned. It doesn't matter how many times the President wants to get another view of those mountains if the plane is on "Bingo Fuel"... I would also argue that this was technically the case while The Colonel was in charge of Artemis, but it wasn't worth arguing about technical descriptions of things we were already doing anyway. Never argue about the roles of Ship Personnel with someone who has played "Puzzle Pirates". XD

Time to dust this thread off and make some decisions and lay down a framework for how we're going to work as a company and as a team. While TT and Alby are working on the redesign of the Ares and the Modular cutters, et al, I will be pulling out the company charter and logs, books, etc., and trying to get that in order. I know that Bob had started working on that, so I figure that's where we should start, using the material from Merchant Prince for Corporation Design, and possibly drawing on High/Guard and/or Mercenary for command structure and ticket/mission rules. I'm hoping that Bob and anybody else who wants to help will post in this thread, and that we can work together to create a full Corporate "Character" for Artemis Group, per Traveller rules, and  to use this as an opportunity hone our teamwork and group cohesion. Naturally, nothing discussed in the thread is final until it is ratified by the owners, and, hopefully agreed to by the non-owner crew/employees.  Here's a link to the  Company Documents workbook. Most, if not all what we work on in this thread should end up in there, under the "Company Profile" Tab. Step One:  Mission Statement Currently: "Artemis Security Services will provide their clients with an attentive, responsive, and comprehensive requirements assessment, and present potential solutions with professionalism, cleverness, and discretion.  "Artemis Security Services will be known for its expeditious, personalized, and complete solutions to their customer's security and investigative needs, and its correct application of capability howsoever the customer requires in accordance with accepted terms of hire. "Artemis Security Services will embody a broad spectrum of expert skills, enabling the broadest possible range of capability being brought to bear upon tasks requiring investigation or application of force. "Artemis Security Services will remain apolitical, but consider its moral compass however it prefers. "Artemis Security Services will endeavor to always be considered the preferred option in all circumstances to which it can be employed as a solution." While all of the above may be good, important and accurately reflect our current goals, it is actually several mission statements. We might want to keep all of this exactly as a set of goals, but at least in terms of the Traveller system, the Mission Statement is meant to be a concise statement that is meant to be part motto, part goal and/or part corporate design. Perhaps even more important (in game mechanics terms) than the actual wording of the Mission Statement is its Category. There are 8 categories and each one gives the "Commercial Entity" its base Characteristics.  See Merchant Prince , p33. Our Original Mission Statement Category is Simple. Simple A simple Mission Statement is one that does not try to say anything fancy or misleading; it merely says what the company can and plans to do . Base Characteristics: Control 7 (+0), Dependability 9 (+1), Guile 5 (–1), Management 10 (+1) Example: "Chryslun Incorporated builds roadsters. If you want one, look us up."

Artemis Group.  We're the troubleshooters.  Show us trouble and we'll shoot it for you. No?  Oh. How about.. Artemis Group.  After Bowman, we'll do just about anything else.

Actually, I like it!

That’s more of a Tag Line than a Mission Statement, I think. I don’t see how what I wrote is different from a Mission Statement... unless you’re going by the book’s description, which may be grossly inaccurate. But, on the subject of Tag-Lines... “Solving the Galaxy’s Problems in One Shell or Less.”

Yes, right now, I'm just looking for the game mechanics-friendly version. Really, the category of the MIssion Statement is more important in terms of the mechanics, and the "Simple" category we're currently using is probably the right one for us. I do think we could take this opportunity to revisit our "Mission," though, in that broader sense. Our crew has certainly changed since we settled on that original description, including shareholders. I expect that nobody wants to change our primary focus away from being "Problem-Solvers," but do we want that to be our one and only goal?  Obviously, on some level or another, making money is a goal, but to what degree? And is it just to pay the owners and employees a decent wage, or is it to be filthy rich? Do we want to officially make shipping, passenger transport and/or speculative trade a part of our business?

Gevaudan fits the bill for special item Courier since his Career is Scout (Courier).  It helps when someone on the ship is either former Naval or former Scouts.  He's trying to learn what it takes to make it in more than one field of Merchant Prince , but he'll need more time and money to get off the ground.  This is why he's been advocating cargo space all this time being the breadbasket of Freight, Speculatives, Mail, Passengers and even smuggling.  His eyes are set on a future of Trade in Gvurrdon Sector some day in the future.  (It's too bad his home polity will instigate the Equality War 1111-1116 and lose, but it enriches a character too.) Gevaudan has a number in mind for his jumpstart of his Sixth Horizon  project.  I've mentioned it in other threads.  Even though we are in the throes of adventure currently, there was a time when all that rolled in the Encounters was mere Trade and the occasional fly-by, wave-and-smile environment.  We've had Mercenary  Tickets before and our clout has put a few on the docket to consider or deny as we choose. "Odd jobs from an odd crew.  Artemis Group hits its mark."

Well ... we're not really a "military unit" any more since we fired our troops. So plugging ourselves as a group that is capable of platoon level combat ops is a bit misleading. We have a couple of guys who can mosh it up on the ground, but I don't think that'd be enough for actual military engagements.  At the moment our specialty seems to be high security VIP transport, with high tech surveillance and investigation our secondary role.   We have serious firepower when it comes to space combat. So maybe something like " Space Combat, Surveillance & Security Solutions. "?

If we're keen on trade then we may need to rethink things as far as the Ares goes. If you take 60t out of the cargo space for the cutter modules you're only left with 17 tons... which isn't a whole lot to work with. Even down sizing all of our drives only gives us an additional 20 tons. But maybe VIP High Security High Passage could draw in a few credits?

Good points all, Alby. There are two ways to approach this. 1) What's going to make us the most money, or 2) What do we really want our game to be about.  Practically speaking, we usually make more of our money via cargo, mail and passengers. We occasionally get a big pay out through merc tickets (et al), but more often than  not, that's through looting and/or happenstance, rather than the actual ticket pay. That's why we had previously made so much when the Colonel was in charge, and we started to again once Sebastien started working with us. The big windfalls from big artifacts and captured or salvaged enemy ships notwithstanding, the reliable money has been speculative trade (yes, I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but it's what the numbers say), Passengers, Mail, Cargo and finally, Merc Tickets. That's largely because the merc ops tend to have such high overhead. To sum up, our mercantile, shipping, and transport business has largely supported our adventuring habit. And I don't think that's either a bad thing, or a bad way to think about it. But it does mean we need to prioritize cargo and passenger space if we want to continue to live and operate in the manner to which we have become accustomed. It probably means that we should include either those activities or at least the need for that additional income into our mission statement or at least into our goals. I'm beginning to think that it might be worthwhile to consider thinking of Artemis Group more formally as a Corporation, with the Ares as its main asset or subsidiary. Thoughts?

Gevaudan would like to complete our two Mercenary Tickets and dodge any more adventuring after Bowman.  But adventures just happen anyway.  Our crew diversity sorta triggers such on its own.   What kind of game does Pakkrat want, especially after cycling out of The Chair?  Though I like all of that we have done, I have set some goals for myself already.  Depending on what happens after the Fifth Frontier War, I want to take Gevaudan back into the Extents, namely Gvurrdon Sector.  The Vengeance Ticket, the Warrant Ticket and the Dame Ticket need closure before we accept any others that are not on those routes. "LIke an arrow to the target, Artemis Group delivers." "In Artemis Group, everyone pulls their weight."

I only have a limited perspective, being new to the group, but it looks as if the referees have been very generous toward this group so far. We're flying around in the most expensive, commercially available ship and it's fully paid for. Any ongoing costs are just for maintenance (36120cr/month), fuel and salaries ... and I'm not even sure that we're being made to pay those. The group seems to have an unlimited pool of funds to draw from. I may be totally wrong about that but the impression I have so far of the group is it's like we've won the lotto. No huge debt hanging over us, no huge financial burdens. Just an unlimited potential to make money.   If we're going down the road of "Risk vs Reward" then trade seems to be the way to go. So far trade seems to be a risk free cash cow. The usual balances that may stop unlimited funds coming in from trade aren't really present for this group. Found this in the rule book: Payment for Missions The scale of payment for missions varies depending on how diffi cult the mission is, but also on the characters’ circumstances. A band of penniless travellers who make their way from star system to system in low berths might be happy to be paid 5,000 Credits each for two weeks’ work but the crew of a free trader can make hundreds of thousands of credits by spending that time shipping cargo. In fact, characters with huge ship mortgages to maintain will have to turn down unprofi table missions. A wise patron, therefore, should always offer the characters more than they can get by trading. As a rule of thumb, this comes to about 1,000 to 2,000 Credits per ton of cargo space available to them on a ship, per two weeks of work This "rule of thumb" doesn't seem to take into account how much a well funded group can make from speculative trade.  Find an asteroid belt or desert world that has an industrial world near by and you could be making about 1Mcr per run with radioactives. Even more if you've got sick broker skills. And that's just with 1d6 tons of space taken up each trip. It's a bit of a gamble but you could really make a killing if you found the right place to set it up. The sample Patrons in the book usually offer jobs that pay out in the tens of thousands of credits, but I can't imagine how that could ever entice anyone with a starship and the ability to trade. Especially if there's risk involved. So it suddenly makes sense that Isis is offering 35Mcr for her job. We're not desperate travellers struggling under a crippling mortgage willing to take any kind of job that pops up. It's going to take us a little more to motivate us to do dangerous things.  Military ops should be more lucrative. Not sure if they are but if it's not why on earth would anyone ever do it? I'd love to get into the ticket system outlined in the Mercenary book, but taking a quick look at it I'm not sure if risking your bacon doing mercenary work is worth it when you can just get fat by trading. 

There are actually multiple conflicting issues here... While trade may certainly be a profitable activity for us, there’s no real need to advertise it, is there? It’s mostly something we just pick up haphazardly along the way, isn’t it? Would a cleverly constructed corporate profile distributed throughout the sector really help us attract more lucrative trade deals? Admittedly, this is something I don’t know much about, but I have to suspect that it wouldn’t , as we mostly choose destinations, and thus, trade routes, rather haphazardly, and you sort of have to be doing a route as a regular to get that sort of insider business deal. Nor are we doing any long-haul moderate risk big reward sort of trading, where we, for instance, ship a bunch of Darrian combs to Vargr space for massive profits, and thus, our being in some remote corner of known space becomes an advantage for potential clients, rather than just being some suspicious foreign people. So, from an in-character perspective, it doesn’t make much sense for our company to advertise our trading. Passenger wise, while a passenger can certainly expect a certain amount of adventure while riding with us, luxury is conspicuously absent . Additionally, for the adventure tourist looking for an interesting alternative in travel, advertising may work to our disadvantage. And since we’re not doing regular routes here either, from an in-character perspective, it doesn’t make much sense for our company to advertise our passenger service. When it comes down to advertising , it’s the mercenary stuff you want people to see on a regular basis, so you have enough jobs to pick from that you aren’t settling for something you would prefer you didn’t. A randomly wandering mercenary outfit with a solid track record gets more for their advertising than a randomly wandering trader; a trader has to go to those limited places where market forces demand... market forces for mercenaries could be anywhere . But that’s all the “in character” stuff. What Wolfen is really discussing is the “game mechanic” type stuff. And there, things are a bit different... We’ve definitely established a solid track record with regards to spurious trading. Our track record with regards to bodyguard work and secure passenger transport is, frankly, spectacular . Our “troubleshooter” record is solid as well. And by the time this Bowman thing is done, we’ll probably be 2 for 2 with regards to artifact handling... which is pretty darn good. It may make more sense to work up our success at different lines of business rather than to try to pidgeon-hole us into just one thing, in the same way it wouldn’t make sense to say our campaign is about just any one thing.

We do actually pay monthly amounts for life support, maintenance and so on. We also have to keep track of fuel and of course, when necessary - like now - repair costs and and other incidental costs. In terms of advertising, what I've been discussing so far doesn't really touch on that, but I do see the points that you're raising and at some point we will need to consider them. You're certainly right that we don't need to advertise to trade speculative commodities. On the other hand,  shipping, passenger transport and other courier work, especially high-end missions in those fields, would easier to find and more lucrative if we had a more visible market presence and reputation. It's also true that luxury is basically absent from our vessel, although we did put in some basic amenities and steward services before the Colonel left. To be honest, I don't know the exact nature of those. Hane, Sebastien and his retinue could also provide host and steward services. If that is something we'd like do do more of. The way I'm looking at this first step of our company charter and structure is in terms of the Mission Statement mechanics from Merchant Prince, but I think it's also a good opportunity for us to work on our identity and our image as a group, in character, as it were. 

Another thing that we're going to need to consider is scale. The rules in merchant Prince assume that the player characters are the founders and/or officers of the "commercial entity" - the corporation. Those rules also assume that the corporation is going to grow and eventually have significantly more employees and operations, including many that do not necessarily require a direct hand from the player characters. By expanding and diversifying this way the characters end up getting additional resources and income streams. Think of it as investing. Now, we can decide whether or not we really want to pursue this side of the merchant Prince rules, or to what extent. In general, it doesn't actually require a lot of playing time, although it would require some additional metagame stuff on Wednesdays. It also might offer additional hooks for both role play and mission hooks.

I pretty much saw the Artemis Group as a corporation already. At the very least it needs to pay salaries, life support and maintenance. I'm guessing that means we have to engage in some kind of credit raising activity - at least as something on the side to keep us going.    Wolfen said: Now, we can decide whether or not we really want to pursue this side of the merchant Prince rules, or to what extent. In general, it doesn't actually require a lot of playing time, although it would require some additional metagame stuff on Wednesdays. It also might offer additional hooks for both role play and mission hooks Which ever way we go, I think it's a good idea to pretend that there isn't such a thing as a referee. I mean OOC we know that each Sunday the Ref will have some crazy adventure for us, but if you put yourself in the shoes of your character you'd have to assume that the last adventure was really just an extremely  rare event that you just happened to be lucky/unlucky enough to be a part of. Ancient artifacts and derilict alien spacecraft don't regularly just drop in like they have for this group. you couldn't really count on that kind of thing happening on a regular basis and assume you can make a living out of it. It'd be fair to assume that from this point forward we would never accidentally find another ancient artifact or easy multi-million credit jobs unless we specifically went out looking for it. That's why I deeply appreciate the creation of this topic. It's giving us an opportunity to define the role of our group and also the role of our characters. 

Defining our game, defining our characters and their roles in the Artemis Group , defining the nature of the corporation set up by the late Colonel, setting goals and future projects is what makes this campaign so attractive to players knocking at our door in the outer forum.  They see story, artwork, writing logs, speculations on the current adventure, the ability to personalize their vessel and their character's gear, and have meaningful and lasting affinities and antipathies with other cast members.  This too adds to story for story doesn't just come from the Referee; it can be subject to immersive injections from the players who tap their character's personality, interactions and dialogues, preferences, Allies and Contacts for greater campaign backdrop and try to deal with Enemies as the vessel plies the Sector.   This was my plan all along to aid my own gaming psychosis of Trip Like I Do.  Traveller:  The Ares Adventures is not meant to be simulationist and rely heavily on Encounter rolls.  Story can come from the player-characters too.  This is why I have packed the Ares with NPCs as well.  Examples include:  Isis falling in love with the Colonel when he offered her asylum; the Dame tracking down her younger brother, Gevaudan; the Duchess of Mora and the Colonel (the post-legislative gala ball); the rock band Hot & Spicy from the Julian Protectorate; and so many others taken up.  And the NPCs are making their own waves just as the player-characters.  Uthka has come out of her shell from simple attache to fortune teller to near-Seer foreshadowing story tool.  Isis presents the emotional frailty of the Zhodani once out of their element.  Player characters present challenges even if they don't mean to.  Dr. S.I.M.One, or Simone, is now an internal dilemma and soul-seeking issue that has both herself and other PCs looking inward at what it means to be a sophont, a sentient being.  The Darrians are showing more than just "light-good space elfs" now that they are willing to go down darker paths.  There is curious tension now between the ethnic Vargr and the single Imperium Vargr; curiosity and repulsion that is like bees to nectar for the mercurial, Charismatic race. All these ingredients make for a wonderful stew that I have enjoyed stirring as the Referee of the Fifth Frontier War.   Adventure, Tickets, Trade and Travelling are but the water carrying this stew.  The spotlight is on the characters, not necessarily the story at hand.  We, the Artemis Group,  may conceivably never have another rolled Encounter like the Toph,  the aa Nantu Y, or zombie apocalypse of Bowman ever again.  Make your play count when and where it happens.   

Artemis Group definitely is already a corporation, but what it's not is a complete "Commercial Entity" in terms of the commerce "mini-game" laid out in Merchant Prince. The differences may seem trivial in the abstract, but in practice, they could have pretty big implications to our finances, our self (and public) image, and so on. So far we've kept this discussion fairly general, but I think it might help to start being more concrete. As I mentioned earlier, the Colonel had started working up an official description of the corporation, under the "Company Profile" tab of the Company Documents. The company's basic characteristics are already defined by the category of the Mission Statement ("Simple"). Base Characteristics  Control: 7 (+0) The rating of how well employees function under orders. Dependability: 9 (+1) The rating of how the general populace views the goods/services that the Entity produces. Guile: 5 (–1) The rating of how well the Entity can work within, or bend the rules to get ahead in, the market. Management 10: (+1) The rating of how well the Entity’s core leadership steers its overall business plan. Now, aside from some notes and a now-obsolete roster of the leaders/founders of the company, that's about as far as the corporate design got. Therefore, I suggest that we basically take it from the top. Obviously, we are still that company, with its resources and history, but I'd say that everything else is up for grabs.  From what everybody is posting in terms of mission statement ideas (or slogans or mottos, if you prefer) we want to keep our basic identity as mobile troubleshooters. We can basically keep TT's original write-up as a guideline of our goals and business practices, or maybe tinker a bit with it if folks want, but I think we'd all agree that it's in the right ballpark. We can actually continue the rest of the corporate design as we work on getting the exact wording set. The first thing we should do is confirm or decide to rethink our Mission Statement category . Of all of the different categories, Simple is one of the very few that have a base characteristic low enough to impose a penalty (in Guile). Again, you can refer to the rule in  Merchant Prince , p33. I suggest we consider: Altruistic An altruistic Mission Statement is one that informs the public of something that the company will do to better the environment, economy, society or community. Base Characteristics: Con 7 (+0), Dep 9 (+1), Gle 6 (+0), Mng 7 (+0) Example: ‘Gold Harvest Foods will never add a chemical to what nature perfected. For your bodies or ours, we just feel better this way.’ or Defensive A defensive Mission Statement is one that explains how the company is protected, defended or somehow untouchable by the competition. Base Characteristics : Con 7 (+0), Dep 9 (+1), Gle 8 (+0), Mng 8 (+0) Example: ‘Pirates may slow others down but here at Transring Delivery we know they just cannot touch us.’ There are other options, as well. Feel free to check them out and post your preferences. I don't think this require any kind of big debate, so I'm hoping to put this step to bed pretty quickly and move on to Step Two: the Leadership.

Again asking Gevaudan, he believes we are more Altruistic given that we've more helped than attacked or defended.  We've been a public service to imdividuals, small groups, planets and even entire polities.  We have hob-nobbed with races, nobles, science, dealt with theocracy especially and thwarted the underhanded.  To Gevaudan’s eyes, the Artemis Group generally goes more often with their moral compass, ex. Denying the Walston Ticket. We are troubleshooters.

Broadly speaking, we are Altruistic; however, there is a specific case where we resort to Defensive postures rather exclusively. When we’re doing Bodyguard & Secure Transport Duty, it doesn’t matter whose polity we’re in; we’re operating Defensively, regardless of the perceived “Public Good” handing over our client might do. On that basis, it may be necessary to break out our Bodyguard & Secure Transport Duty as a separate “business model” with regard to either Merchant Prince or Mercenaries rules. If I might play with our characteristics for a bit, I’d say we’re more like this: Control: -1 (We consistently have issues with people defying orders, entering battle without stunners when they should, bad mouthing the clients , and so on) Dependability: +2 (We’re quite reliable, in spite of our quirks) Guile: +1 (We’ve successfully reengineered the Zamine ticket to everyone’s much improved benefit, and we have the capability to do it again; other companies likely would have either stuck to the ticket as proposed or simply declined it) Management: 0 or -1 (We’re not really the most organized bunch... Sebastien may change that, but for now, we’re rather disorganized, and “who’s in charge” can often be rather ambiguous, depending on whether we’re on-planet, in dock in space, or en-route; plus, we’ve got a Captain who doesn’t really feel like a Captain, and a CEO who ditches meetings about trading matters) I would argue that, unlike a more usual commercial enterprise, a Mercenary Company can’t do “Altruistic” without a bonus of +1 to Control and +1 to Guile; doing “the right thing” on the battlefield often requires creative interpretation of orders, and making sure employees avoid the temptation of raping and pillaging requires watching them and correcting their behavior when they stray from Company Policy.

I'm not 100% up on what has happened before Kayleb came on board, but from what I've seen so far I would have thought the "protected" tag would have fitted better than the "Alturistic" one. Even though we may be "good guys" the reason we exist doesn't really seem to be for the betterment of civilization. Maybe if we were offing high tech medical support to poor, low tech communities, or saving endangered environments and such we may be able to maintain a reputation as altruistic.  Protected seems to match the services we're currently providing too. I'm thinking mainly of the high security VIP transport of the Dame. Even the tickets to capture/take out Maarg are mainly based on our muscle rather than our goodness of heart. We're the guys for the job because we have an 800 ton ship with particle accelerators as well as armoued up, laser gun tot'n cowboys. 

I originally started working the Merchant Prince profile to see where we were fitting in the scheme of of work introducing more and more of the Merchant Prince book into the game. I did not fully pursue the full organization of company structure because as a group we were not ready to head towards that element of the game. Right now the largest hinderance as i see it is a singular focus to what we are doing. At the moment we are a group of diverse individuals tolerating each other because we perceive the money is good. Which in truth though it isnt what we used to make it is for the average traveller character. So I believe we are at the interogatories. Who are we? to begin with. What are we doing? we figure those two out the rest can fall into place. I will stand by the belief i stated in the first after i retired the colonel and that is there can only be one leader in the end on this kind of ship. Maybe we pick that person and use someone like sebastian for the business right arm when it comes to moving the money and crew forward. Just a couple of cents to throw out there. As a character Simone is not interested in the current dynamic she is content with what she perceives is her role currently.

From the Company Docs. Just for reference: Artemis Security Service s will provide their clients with an attentive, responsive, and comprehensive requirements assessment, and present potential solutions with professionalism, cleverness, and discretion. Artemis Security Services will be known for its expeditious, personalized, and complete solutions to their customer's security and investigative needs, and its correct application of capability howsoever the customer requires in accordance with accepted terms of hire. Artemis Security Services will embody a broad spectrum of expert skills, enabling the broadest possible range of capability being brought to bear upon tasks requiring investigation or application of force. Artemis Security Services will remain apolitical, but consider its moral compass however it prefers. Artemis Security Services will endeavor to always be considered the preferred option in all circumstances to which it can be employed as a solution. Services include: Public Investigation & Intelligence Gathering Governmental Intelligence Gathering, Espionage, & Counter-Espionage Corporate Intelligence Gathering, Counter-Espionage, & Espionage Security & Guard Details for groups or individuals Civilian, Militia, & Military Personnel Training in Equipment & Application of Force Secure Passenger, Personnel, and Prisoner Transport Ship & Fleet Escort Defensive & Offensive Application of Force

It’s true that we tend toward Defensive roles rather than Offensive ones; guarding VIPs rather than bounty hunting. But I think what Wolfen was getting at was our approach to our business; we tend to be Altruistic in our approach to our operations, and will generally prefer tweaking the mission to letting civilians become collateral damage. In a purely Defensive or Offensive posture, we would not regard civilians becoming collateral damage as a problem to be solved, and instead, an inconvenience that must be tolerated. By the way, should “Bounty Hunting” be added to our list of services? The Merchant Prince and Mercenaries rules may operate under the assumption that we do “just one thing”; if so, I think it makes more sense to evaluate us as a limited number of distinct corporate profiles with distinct track records, each one corresponding to one of the things we do most often, rather than to try and pidgeonhole ourselves in the name of unachievable simplicity.

Don't look at any part of the Corporate design process as limiting or pigeonholing us into any area or way of doing business. In fact, you'll see that the latter stages are all about expanding operations into new areas and businesses. The beauty of it all is that all is that (mechanics-wise) it doesn't really require much more from us than some additional decisions and a bit of investment. We can, and probably should continue playing exactly the way we have without any major changes. In terms of role-playing and "identity-wise," it's potentially another matter altogether, of course.

This topic has inspired me to check out some of the mission statements of RL companies. Check these out: MICROSOFT At Microsoft, our mission is to enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential. We consider our mission statement a commitment to our customers. We deliver on that commitment by striving to create technology that is accessible to everyone- of all ages and abilities. Microsoft is one of the industry leaders in accessibility innovation and in building products that are safer and easier to use. GOOGLE To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. McDONALDS We are focused on delivering great tasting, high-quality food to our customers and providing a wold-class experience that makes them feel welcome and valued. ORACLE We help you simplify your IT environment so that you can free up money, time, and resources to invest in innovation. We do this by providing a comprehensive and fully integrated stack of cloud applications, platform services and engineered systems. NIKE To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world. *" If you have a body, you are an athlete ." - Bill Bowerman. FACEBOOK GIve people the power to share and make the world more open and connected. DISNEY Be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative, innovative and profitable entertainment experience and related products in the world COKE (Australia) To refresh the world... To inspire moments of optimism and happiness... To create value and make a difference BLACKWATER Blackwater Agency aims to provide customized protection and security solutions. Your satisfaction is our top priority. (Mercenary group) To provide a highly professional and confidential military advisory service to legitimate governments. To provide sound military and strategic advice. To provide the most professional military training packages currently available to armed forces, covering aspects related to sea, air, and land warfare. To provide advice to armed forces on weapon and weapon platform selection. To provide a total apolitical service based on confidentiality, professionalism, and dedication. AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is constituted under the Defence Act 1903 , its mission is to defend Australia and its national interests. In fulfilling this mission, Defence serves the Government of the day and is accountable to the Commonwealth Parliament which represents the Australian people to efficiently and effectively carry out the Government's defence policy. A few things I thought were really interesting: Most of them specifically mention the scope of their vision. Most of the time it's "the world".  Some of them specifically say what they're going to do and how they're going to do it. ( Oracle, Disney, Microsoft ) I think Coke and Facebook are a great example of an "Alturistic" mission statement. They're making the world better! The Military ones seem very "simple".  Using the above as inspiration...  "The Artemis group is making the Spinward Marches a safer place to live in and travel through. Our highly skilled and professional staff are achieving this by providing the highest quality intelligence, armed and armoured transportation, and application of force against legitimate targets." Or maybe... "True security comes through advanced knowledge of threats, effective protection against threats, and the elimination of threats. The highly trained personnel of the Artimis Group continue to confirm it's solid reputation as being the primary provider of effective, high technology security solutions in the Spinward Marches and beyond by providing cutting edge surveillance, 800 tons of military grade transportation, and elite, battledress equipped combat veterans."

I like  "The Artemis group is making the Spinward Marches a safer place to live in and travel through. Our highly skilled and professional staff provide the highest quality intelligence, armed and armoured transportation, and application of force against legitimate targets for private, corporate and governmental clients. Artemis always hits the mark." I think it's specific enough that people know what we do, but general enough that we're not limiting ourselves in any way. Taking into account of what people are saying here, I think we should go with "Altruistic" as our category. We don't get to assign points to our Base Characteristics or move them around; that's all decided by our category. As we start defining and building up our Skills and Assets, we'll have ways to customize and specialize, make up for any shortfalls and so on. The Altruistic and Defensive categories both prioritize Dependability, but Defensive gives a better Guile, and I think that TT is correct in that we work with the system and we work the system to get the best outcomes for everybody. I'd like to get Step One settled this Wednesday, if at all possible, and maybe start working on Step Two. In Step Two of the Merchant Prince rules, we just name our "leaders" and then they can decide how to allocate our skill points based on their Ranks in their various professions. The game mechanics in the book are pretty much concerned only with Profession and Rank of each "leader." The rest of who the leaders are, what they do and how they do it isn't really covered. I'd suggest that this is the main area we really need to go beyond what the basic rules require of us. I think that we need to nail down who's in charge of what and formalize some ground rules as to how this group is going to work moving forward. The way the MP rules are set up, we can actually consider all of the PC's "leaders" of the company, in the sense that they can all contribute ranks to the company's various skills, and could potentially each spearhead different operations and projects "off-screen." In this scenario, we would hire npc employees, some of whom might travel with us, and others that could be based in separate ships or stationary locations. Don't worry, it's not nearly as complicated as it sounds. ;)

Gevaudan likes Wolfen's Mission Statement revision too.  There is a bit of tooth in that last line.   Gevaudan could be our second ship in his Sixth Horizon vessel and take on our VIP Courier tasks, starting with the Dame returning to the Vargr Extents.  Then he can work off the mortgage subsidized through Artemis.  Just a thought, but it detaches him from the main adventuring group.

I resent how similar my Mission Statement was to Blackwater’s; I bet they copied me. :P But I suppose the point on it being possible to compact my Mission Statement is fair. We should generalize instead of saying “Spinward Marches”; we’re not going to stop being good guys just because the trouble is on the other side of the line; we’ll do do-goodery wherever we find it, and wherever we are willing to accept the price.

Yeah I'd give a thumbs up to that mission statement. Was a good idea to include the types of clients as well as the jingle at the end! I was also thinking about the Horizon a while back. Maybe the down payment for that ship could be loaned to Gev from the company coffers. The company would then give Gev the contract to transport the Dame back into barbarian space. If he survives the trip he could pay off the loan from what he gained by fulfilling the ticket. He'd still have to find a way to pay off the rest of the ship, but it would basically be his. That plan all depends whether or not the Dame is happy to sit around waiting for the ship to be built, and on whether or not the company actually has the money to fork out for it's down payment.   Gev gains a ship, company gets to maintain it's dependable reputation by not losing the Dame ticket. 

Company Leadership, to date, has been as follows: CEO: Charoux Captain: Gev Ground Commander (Is that even the right term?): ? Are there other “Leadership” positions that should be considered?

Tenacious Techhunter said: We should generalize instead of saying “Spinward Marches”; we’re not going to stop being good guys just because the trouble is on the other side of the line; we’ll do do-goodery wherever we find it, and wherever we are willing to accept the price Yeah on one of my suggested statements I included "Spinward Marches and beyond" for that reason. Specific enough for folks to know where we and our clients are, but broad enough for folks to know we're not limited to that.  Mind you, a mission statement is as much for clients as it is for us. How far do we intend to advertise our services? Maybe for most potential clients stating that we service "the Spinward Marches" is enough for them to know that we go pretty much wherever they would need to go and that we're not restricted by the Imperial boarder.  EDIT: I mainly saw Crow as the ground commander, mainly because he's the guy with Tactics (military) ranks. But the Merchant Prince rules are mostly based on prior service rank? Is that right?

I have updated the Artemis Company Record spreadsheet to evaluate the gear loots in the Ship's Locker and leaned that Jeff Scardack is Navy Career, Rank 2 and noted such on the spreadsheet company leaders. I have put in Yellow systems that are repaired or jury-rigged.  Also in Yellow are cargo items I recall having been sold already and not lost to the asteroid storm. The idea of detaching Gevaudan for a run to the Extents is sound and looking more desirable for those not wanting to travel so deeply out of their element.

There are a couple of different ways to look at company "Leadership." Hence the quotes. I've been referring to the Merchant Prince use of the term in quotes because it's almost too generalized and nebulous to have any meaning. The rules therein just assume that the pc's are the company leadership. Period. In the example corporate write-ups, anywhere from two to six "leaders" are named, each having some kind of title based on his or her skill set more than anything else. There are no actual rules for leadership structure or anything like that. Basically, the owners/investors/pc's name x number of people whose career ranks are distributed as skill points across the available Corporate Entity skills, with each "leader's" career determining which skills their points can be spend on. After that, how they company make decisions and even salaries is kind of vague and left in the hand of the individual group. Which I think is appropriate. Here's how we initially re-structured after the Colonel retired: Tenacious Techhunter said: This seems like a good time to organize our Corporate Structure. Larzamonte Charoux: Figurehead CEO; convenient interface to the Darrian Government and Public, conceals that decisions being made by the group Gevaudan Cannagrrh: Captain of the Ship (Admiral of the Fleet, as required); final authority on shipboard matters Captain Crow: Chief Engineer Hane Meson: "Company Lawyer" Additional material coming soon. And we basically left it at that. In practice, until recently, we've basically made all important decisions by a simply majority vote among the company owners, weighted by the number of their shares. Lately, however, that "gentlemen's agreement" has broken down, and is clearly not serving us very well. So, in looking at company leadership (note the lack of quotes) we need to look at both the set of characters whose careers and ranks will set the company's base skills for the corporate "mini-game", and to set a more formal command and control structure for our actual in-game operations. To start off with the easy part, I recommend that we include any and all willing characters to be "leaders," in the sense that they can contribute and allocate skill points toward the company's base skills. To keep things easy and clear, I suggest that we either: a) just dump the quarterly earnings for these commercial operations into the Artemis general fund, or b) split them either evenly between the "leaders" or apportion them based on career ranks. The not-so-easy part requires us to determine exactly what kind of corporation structure and leadership we want moving forward. Clearly, the Artemis Group shareholders, as expressed by their votes, should get the final say as to exactly what that final structure should be, but I think everybody should at least have a chance to make comments and suggestions. So to pick up where TT started us off: Tenacious Techhunter said: Company Leadership, to date, has been as follows: CEO: Charoux Captain: Gev Ground Commander (Is that even the right term?): ? Are there other “Leadership” positions that should be considered?

If each leader of the Merchant Prince  corporate Entity is allowed to choose where his Ranks are distributed, Gevaudan chooses: 3 Ranks in Shipping Due to the fact that he will be drawing upon his past as a Scout (Courier).  He feels specializing 3+ in a field will truly boost Artemis Group than being so-so in many fields.  Had he a Prospecting Career, scavenging and mining could have been a choice for Gev.

Here's a  helpful link. And here are my suggestions: Board of Directors:  These are the shareholders, the owners of the company. All authority within and over the company originates from them. They each have a number of votes in any matter equal to the number of their shares. Artemis Group is a privately owned company, which means that the board decides who can and cannot buy shares. A long-standing policy states that no individual can hold more than 40% of the shares. We have not typically had a Chairman of the Board, at least not officially.  Chief Executive Officer (CEO): In many companies, the Chairman of the Board is the CEO, the final "decider" in basically all matters. In practice, of course, the CEO generally delegates control and responsibility for most matters to other officers, usually specialists in their individual fields. The CEO guides the general direction of the company, often expressing and safeguarding the company's Vision . We could look at the original, full write-up that Charoux did for the company as our Vision, perhaps.  I'm going to take a position here that I expect to be controversial on the CEO position for Artemis Group: I don't think we need one . There, I said it. Here's my reasoning: If you take into account the actual duties of a CEO, they essentially boil down to acting as a proxy for the Board of Directors. That makes sense when you have a large group of important and busy people for your board, and they only meet every so often, but when your board is virtually always together, and can call a vote at the drop of a hat, what's that CEO actually doing? More often than not, getting in the way. There are important responsibilities and duties that shouldn't need a vote every time they come up, but I think we'd be better off dividing those functions the same way they would normally be split up in any other company, with each major set of duties assigned to an officer who is best suited to that function, very much in the way we have given Gev the job of Captain of the Ares, with fairly concrete responsibilities and powers within in his area of expertise. Here are the Officers I think we do  need to have: Captain of the Ares: Duh. The Captain is the final authority in all matters regarding the safety and welfare of the ship and its crew, passengers and cargo. In emergency situations aboard the Ares, the Captain even outranks the Board of Directors, although he is answerable to the Board after the fact for his decisions and their outcomes. Chief Financial Officer (CFO):  The CFO is basically the chief accountant, paymaster, trader and broker for the company. He could also be the "face" at least in strictly business matters. The Board may want to limit or otherwise control how much money he can invest without a vote and such. Aside from investing and bookkeeping, I don't see the CFO having a lot real authority over anybody. The one thing I can foresee being a possible issue is that he may come up with suggestions for destinations or tickets that the Board or the group as a whole will need to OK or vote for. Obviously, since this is the position I literally made Sebastien for, I suggest him for CFO. Ship's Doctor: Another no-brainer. Clearly, Doctor Simone is our chief medic. We've already established that she has the final say in medical matters and can overrule anybody, if necessary, in matters involving immediate threats to the health of the crew or passengers. We may also want to more formally recognize her as in matters of research and/or general science. Chief Security Officer (CSO):  Responsible for the security of personnel, physical assets and information in both physical and digital form. The CSO would report directly to the Captain in shipboard matters, would take the lead in bodyguard and similar operations, and would also oversee general investigative and scouting operations. Subject to overrule only by a vote of the Board, the CSO should have the authority to put crew or passengers under protective or punitive custody.  I think that Charoux was born for this job, and he'd get my vote, assuming he's willing to gather intel for the Board, rather than hiding it from them. ;) Chief Operations Officer (COO):  The COO is the "get 'er done" guy. Aboard the Ares he's the Chief Engineer and in combat ops, he's the overall tactical lead. The COO gets the parameters of the mission and is responsible to the Board for his decision and their outcomes. Jacob's been largely filling this roll, although Charoux has also been doing it as well. Gotta go. More later...

Ship's Quartermaster (Q): The Q is the person who keeps track of ship's supplies, including both the Ship's Locker and Armory, and in our case I would suggest that the Vault can only be opened by the agreement of both the Q and the CSO or a vote of the Board of Directors. It would be Q's job to go through our junk drawer of a ship's locker and give the CFO a list of stuff to get rid of, as well as regular requisitions for additional supplies and gear. Q, the Captain and the CSO should all have keys to the Armory. Non-lethal weapons should be the only ones in the Ship's Locker, which all crew and company personnel could get into. I recommend Kayleb for Q, largely due to his proficiency with just about any kind of gear, but also because he seems to be the most interested in researching and finding exactly the right tool for every job. The fact that Charoux is also into this kind of stuff would make for a nice synergy between their two positions, if it works out that way. Chief Technology Officer (CTO): The CTO can mean in very different things in different companies. In this case, I'm specifically thinking of robot/remote operations, and I'm thinking of Jeff. He'd be responsible for maintaining and operate our robots, as well as perhaps researching and/or suggesting upgrades, new purchases and so on. Who knows, advanced robotics and cybernetics could very easily become a big business for us. I would really call Hane the CEO or Chairman of the Board (he is our largest stockholder, after all), but he hasn't seemed interested in any kind of official titles or offices. I think it's safe to say that everybody respects him, and I'm not aware of anybody having issues with him. So, I think he would be the best arbiter in internal conflicts. Aside from that, his broad range of experiences and skills makes him the perfect person to keep the channels of communications open between everybody and keeping everybody on the same page. Even if he doesn't want to be the Vision guy or any kind of executive, we should ask him to operate as de factor referee for internal matters and name him  Director of Community Relations or something along those lines to take advantage of his people skills and even temperament. I've specifically not discussed an official role for Dave simply because he's not officially a member of the crew or an employee of the company. Certainly, I can think of a number of important positions and functions that Galen could perform, if he wanted to stay with us in the long term. Whew. Ok. There you have it. This is meant as just a brainstorm, a place to begin. I'd really love to see each player to really think about what kind of roles that he'd like to see his character play in the company, not because nobody else wants to do it, but because they're skilled and motivated to do that thing.

It may not be a part of the Merchant Prince mechanics, but it would make sense if our roles were at least loosely based on our character skills. Take Kayleb's nomination for Quartermaster for example. While he may be a gun freak, if I took up that role I'd probably be looking into training up in at least Admin-0.  Same when you mentioned Hane as the CEO. Being the Cheif Executive Officer is really just a job. It is the primary management position in a company, but it doesn't necessarily mean ownership of a company. Bruce Wane owned Wane Enterprises, but he wasn't CEO. A character running as CEO will probably be wanting skills like Admin, Advocacy, and Leadership if they were going to do the job well. Merchant Prince mechanics may not call for that kind of thing but it does make sense.  I'd be happy for Kayleb to be in a "red shirt" position and not in a leadership role. He may be in charge of stuff like the ship's locker, but if the stuff you're in charge of doesn't affect the overall direction of the group then I'm not sure it qualifies as a company leadership position. Unless "Tactical Consultant" or "Security Personnel Management" counts. But even then, it's still very red shirt.  If we really need management type characters I'd love to roll up an NPC or two for the job. I notice NPCs take 2%xrank of the kitty though.  EDIT: Actually, talking about people like Galen, Sebastian and Kayleb - even though they aren't share holders and not officially in a leadership role, if they're on board as "consultants" and drawing a "Consultant's fee" equal to what someone in a leadership position may get then they're maybe there'd be no difference between a leader and a consultant?

CEO: If nothing else, the CEO calls for meetings; is someone else going to call for meetings? Have the meetings we’ve already had had value, or been pointless? Captain (and Admiral as required): Clearly Gev; who comes next, not so sure. A first backup here should be picked. As I mentioned before, the Captain should have full authority over all matters from the decision to leave port to the decision to make port again, and any factor that directly affects those things, like hiring ship-duty personnel, but otherwise, is not in charge. CFO: Sebastien is the obvious choice for CFO, assuming we keep him around. Doctor: Clearly Simone. If not her for some reason, like an EMP going off, who else? A backup here is valuable. Chief of Security: I see where you were trying to go with this, but Charoux is the wrong choice on so many levels... Charoux is not big, burly, and intimidating, and would not impress clients with what a robust wall of muscle he is, which would not encourage them to feel safe in his big, muscular arms Charoux ain’t no Kung-Fu Combat Monkey Charoux can’t hit the broad-side of a barn Charoux is clearly not the man for this job. Jeff or Kayleb are probably better candidates; or, at least Kayleb would be, if he didn’t make us look bad so often. Chief of Operations: O.K., what you are describing is a blend of too many different things... and for the ground combat part, would be the right title if this weren’t a Mercenary Outfit, but it is a Mercenary Outfit; for the ground combat part, what you are describing should be something more like “Ground Commander”, assuming for the moment I’m using the right Military title; ordinarily, either the CEO or the President of a company is the COO, particularly for a company of our size; but that person wouldn’t necessarily be the “Ground Commander”... so let’s start fresh here, with Chief of Engineering, COO, and “Ground Commander” as separate roles... Chief of Engineering: Wolfen has gone to an awful lot of trouble to make Captain Crow an effective Ship’s Engineer, and Crow is doing well at that job, so he should clearly get that title. Chief of Operations (really): Organizes the company strategically and tactically (both in the business sense) to accomplish its goals; not in charge of operations in the field, except where company interests require the “Ground Commander” to be countermanded. This is arguably already being done by Charoux; he organizes the meetings, proposes plans, and encourages plan development in cases where we don’t have one, and makes everyone aware of what the plan should be, shouldn’t be, and then is or isn’t after a decision has been made. “Ground Commander” (title to be corrected as required): Has complete authority over combat operations in the field and on mission ; decisions during field operations and missions can only be countermanded by the COO (or CEO or President, if those duties include being COO); operates under the discretion of the Chief of Security while on board the Ares. Probably Crow for the time being, maybe Jeff, could have been Kayleb, except he keeps mouthing off... XD Quartermaster: Funny; I probably was the one to originally bring this up, but I’m beginning to think it’s a little too “small-potatoes”... Sebastien is already sufficiently in charge of what little cargo space we have; any security concerns would be handled by the Chief of Security, who generally has little better to do, unless it beeps in a not-particularly-bomblike way, in which case the CTO needs to have a look. Meanwhile, the Armory is already managed by the Chief of Security and the “Ground Commander”... and it’s not like we have a lot of people. Now, if we had someone to do gun maintenance on the Crew’s weapons, there might be something to this... but otherwise, it’s just a bit overkill. Maybe after Kayleb shows some stability, we can give him these as potatoes to peel, but otherwise, if Isis isn’t doing it, I don’t see a need to assign someone to it. But , maybe we can stretch this out a bit into “Chief of Logistics”... which basically means they’re our glorified teamster; they don’t just load, unload, and organize it, but also deliver it to our target locations... schlep-work has Kayleb’s name all over it . Chief of Technology: Charoux and Jeff both have a lot going for them in this position. Jeff has lots of neat robotics, and Charoux has lots of neat miscellaneous. The questions we need to ask ourselves are, “When a random mystery doodad shows up, whose job is it to deal with it?”, and “Who is best equipped to decide on what technology the crew should be using?”; I should really get a look at Jeff’s character, so I can consider his non-combat strengths, and how they apply here; in my current state of ignorance, I’m going to say Charoux fits this job description better, if only because it’s his job to get the damn Battle Computer up and running.

Just taking a quick look at Merchant Prince, I'm thinking we may need to make some distinctions here.  Draw a line between positions of "corporate leadership" and positions of employment.  Lets just imagine that in the future the Artimis Corporation ends up with 3 more 800t Mercenary Cruisers. So we'd have the Ares, as well as maybe the Hermes, the Mel Brooks and the Monty Python. Each of those ships would have it's own Captain, own Ground Forces Commander, own Q store guy, etc.  So roles like "Ship Captain" aren't necessarily positions of corporate leadership. They're positions of employment. It could well be that when you're managing a fleet of four 800t Mercenary Cruisers that you're still acting as the captain of one of them, but not necessarily so.   Corporate Leadership is about directing the affairs that affect the entire company. So if you're going to oversee the movements of all the company's mobile shipping assets then you apply your prior career ranks to the company's "shipping" skill. If you're hiring goons to go sabotage the competition, then you're applying your prior career ranks to the company's "mischief" skill. The corporate positions don't really relate to what you do yourself so much. It's more about what you organize . So lets say we're talking about the "Ground Forces Commander" role. You may have a corporate "Director of Military Operations" guy issuing orders to the various military commanders employed by the group.  At the scale we're at right now that Director may the the same guy as the grunt on the ground, but it wouldn't necessarily need to be so, and probably wouldn't be the case in the future.  

You're both right that I've been playing fast and loose with the distinctions between leadership roles and positions of employment. I was trying to deal with both levels at one fell swoop, and trying to include all of the pc's,  a la Merchant Prince corporate design, while working in our specific needs and talents as a group. So let's take it one level at a time. In terms of Merchant Prince commercial entity design: Commercial Entity Design Step One: Mission Statement "The Artemis group is making the galaxy a safer place to live in and travel through. Our highly skilled and professional staff provide the highest quality intelligence, armed and armoured transportation, and application of force against legitimate targets for private, corporate and governmental clients. Artemis always hits the mark." Category:   Defensive* Base Characteristics : Control 7 (+0), Dependabilty 9 (+1), Guile 8 (+0), Management 8 (+0) * I've gone with Defensive here primarily because Altruistic and Defensive have the same Characteristic bonuses, but Defensive has better actual scores. That will matter as we go forward and start improving characteristics and stacking bonuses. If we really want to go with Altruistic, I'd certainly be fine with that. Step Two: Leadership To be clear here, we are specifically just talking about "leadership" in terms of Commercial Entity Design. These titles and such don't really mean anything outside of the meta-gaming commercial mini-game. In terms of actual mechanics, what really matters who is a general "leader" and what rank(s) they achieved in their various careers. (But note that the Referee may very well use these titles/roles for RP or mission hooks) I recommend that we allow anybody who wants to be a part of the Commercial Entity, Artemis Group, be allowed to do so, with appropriate compensation to be determined by the Board. Further, I think that each character should be allowed to allocate the skill points he or she brings to the table, based on career and rank, although we would benefit from coordinating with one another. Entity Skills Advocacy – The strength of the Entity’s ability to understand and utilize business law. Agency – The measure of the Entity’s potential agent pool. Brokerage – The proficiency level of the entity’s specialists in terms of making and breaking deals. Fabrication – The general rate and level of skill the Entity’s workers are required to have to manufacture goods. Investment – The financial knowledge the Entity has at its disposal when trying to make profits. Mischief – The degree of aptitude the Entity’s agents have in underhanded tactics and missions. Nobility – The ability to gain support from royal, noble or influential families. Propaganda – The ability for the Entity to sway opinions and gain support from the common people. Research – The measure of ingenuity found in the development procedures within the Entity. Shipping – The level of speed and dependability in any shipments the Entity arranges. Career Type(s): Applicable Skills Agent: Advocacy, Agency, Mischief, Propaganda Army: Agency, Mischief, Research Citizen: Any except Nobility Drifter: Any except Advocacy, Brokerage, Investment, Nobility, Propaganda Entertainer:  Nobility, Propaganda Marines: Agency, Mischief, Research, Shipping Merchants (non-Slaver): Advocacy, Brokerage, Investment, Nobility, Propaganda, Research, Shipping Navy: Agency, Mischief, Research, Shipping Nobility (or Royal Trader): Advocacy, Investment, Nobility, Propaganda Rogue (Scoundrel, Slaver): Agency, Brokerage, Investment, Mischief, Propaganda Scholar: Brokerage, Investment, Research Scout: Mischief, Research, Shipping Any Mercenary: Agency, Brokerage. Mischief, Propaganda, Research (will continue/update later)

Corporate Structure and Management Company Vision and Goals  (Current) Artemis Group  will provide their clients with an attentive, responsive, and comprehensive assessment of their requirements, and present potential solutions with professionalism, cleverness, and discretion. Artemis Group will be known for its expeditious, personalized, and complete solutions to their customer's security and investigative needs, and its correct application of capability howsoever the customer requires in accordance with accepted terms of hire. Artemis Group  will embody a broad spectrum of expert skills, enabling the broadest possible range of capability being brought to bear upon tasks requiring investigation or application of force. Artemis Group  will remain apolitical, but consider its moral compass however it prefers. Artemis Group will endeavor to always be considered the preferred option in all circumstances to which it can be employed as a solution. Services include: Public Investigation & Intelligence Gathering Governmental Intelligence Gathering, Espionage, & Counter-Espionage Corporate Intelligence Gathering, Counter-Espionage, & Espionage Security & Guard Details for groups or individuals Civilian, Militia, & Military Personnel Training in Equipment & Application of Force Secure Passenger, Personnel, and Prisoner Transport Ship & Fleet Escort Defensive & Offensive Application of Force I do think that we should include something about shipping and/or passenger transport, as well. Board of Directors: These are the shareholders, the owners of the company. All authority within and over the company originates from them. They each have a number of votes in any matter equal to the number of their shares. Artemis Group is a privately owned company, which means that the board decides who can and cannot buy shares and how many. A long-standing policy states that no individual can hold more than 40% of the shares. We have not typically had a Chairman of the Board, at least not officially. Captain of the Ares:  The Captain is the final authority in all matters regarding the safety and welfare of the ship and its crew, passengers and cargo. In emergency situations aboard the Ares, the Captain even outranks the Board of Directors, although he is answerable to the Board after the fact for his decisions and their outcomes. Jacob could fill the Captain's chair if Gev wasn't available, he's got all of the skills, although he'll never be the pilot that Gev is, and he'd have to rely on the ship's Astrogation software. If he stays with us, I think Galen could also serve as Captain if need be. Chief Financial Officer (CFO): The CFO is basically the chief accountant, paymaster, trader and broker for the company. He could also be the "face" at least in strictly business matters. The Board may want to limit or otherwise control how much money he can invest without a vote and such. Aside from investing and bookkeeping, I don't see the CFO having a lot real authority over anybody. The one thing I can foresee being a possible issue is that he may come up with suggestions for destinations or tickets that the Board or the group as a whole will need to OK or vote for. Obviously, since this is the position I literally made Sebastien for, I suggest him for CFO. Ship's Doctor: Another no-brainer. Clearly, Doctor Simone is our chief medic. We've already established that she has the final say in medical matters and can overrule anybody, if necessary, in matters involving immediate threats to the health of the crew or passengers. We may also want to more formally recognize her as in matters of research and/or general science. Both Gev and Jacob have some medical knowledge and skill. When I suggested Charoux for Chief of Security, I wasn't expecting him to become a leg-breaker or a thug. We have robots, Runt and Jeff for enforcement. I meant actual security and intelligence, threat detection and elimination. What I had in mind more than anything else was protecting our network and computers, but also in overseeing our espionage and counter espionage operations. If you'd prefer Chief Intelligence Officer (CIO) , or something along those terms, that might clarify things? I just think that putting Cahroux's paranoia to work  for us, instead of just being a pain in the ass might be good. As far as the positions to keep track of our gear and such, like the Quartermaster or CTO, I'm wide open. I think we do really need to get on top of that stuff, though, both in terms of organizing and securing our stuff. We need to get rid of the shit, secure the good stuff, and determine if we should pick up stuff both for general use and for specific missions. 

Even though she's just a Patron now, Dame Qithka Cannagrrh would like to buy into the Entity as an Entertainer, Ranks to be announced later.  She has at least 300KCr, and can help with startup per Merchant Prince.   Then she will sit back and occasionally help with Marketing, advertising and PR.  Unless she is blocked that is.  Her reasons for offering are hers but suspected by her younger brother. EDIT:  If allowed to help jumpstart Artemis   Group  as an Entity, she can devote 2 Ranks to Nobility, (as she is a Knighted Performer), and 2 Ranks to Propaganda, (as she is a Journalist).  As an Entertainer she grants Wealth startup bonuses too.

Our shipping business doesn’t benefit from advertising significantly, which is why I didn’t put it down there. I suppose “Secure Shipment” could go there, but we’d wind up shipping bombs for everyone. :P

Chief Intelligence Officer works better for Charoux, yeah. While I understood that that is where you were going with putting him as Chief of Security, it just sends the wrong message to clients to put him there. Charoux’s skills should apply to “Agency”, “Mischief”, and “Research”.

In the fact of our recent difficulties, I think we once again pick up this discussion. There are only two ways for us to work efficiently and with a clear focus: 1) with a firm but fair leader (eg the Colonel), or 2) with a solid commitment by everybody to work toward a consensus, and a willingness by all of us to accept the full responsibility for all of the decisions that we make. Clearly, #1 is far less complicated, although not necessarily less fraught with risk and potential bad feelings. For either model to work, however, everybody involved has to be respectful of each other and of whichever model we use. If we have a single, formal CEO, everybody has to respect that person's authority and judgement. That doesn't mean we all have to agree with every decision, but it does mean that once a decision is made, the discussion and dissent is over. It is the leader's responsibility to elicit the best possible input everybody, weigh it without regard to ego or favoritism, and make a final decision. And, of course, to be responsible for the outcome. In the team approach, all of the team members work together with a common goal to find a consensus on the topic at hand, design and implement a plan and not point fingers if something goes wrong. This approach requires more from everybody. The most important part of the team process is the meeting, which should have a formal agenda (preferably distributed beforehand) and set time limits. It would probably be best to set a facilitator and a secretary for the meetings, although those roles could rotate if we wanted. The facilitator runs the meeting, in the sense that he ticks down the agenda items, makes sure that each team member has their say in a timely fashion, makes sure that each agenda item gets addressed, and calls votes as needed . The team can decide when an item has to be finalized and a plan to be put in motion, when to table an item for more research or discussion, and so on. The secretary takes notes during the meeting, manages the agenda, then finalizes and distributes the notes after the meeting. He then canvases the team members for input on the next meeting's agenda and uses the last meeting's notes to set up an agenda for the next meeting, which he then distributes to the team in advance of the next meeting. The team approach pretty much is rule-by-committee, but in my experience, it can work well, often getting everybody more invested in the process than a top-down approach ever could. We may not need to be quite so formal as either of these management structures. We're playing a game, after all, not a business. Of course, we are running a business in the game, so I think we can take some cues and ideas from the way businesses are run. Likewise, we have a board of directors already, who have invested financially in the company and should continue to have additional influence based on their investment.

I’m inclined to say that, with regards to “running meetings”, anything more formal than the way we’ve been doing them already is too much. But if someone wants to step in and run those instead of Charoux, that’s fine; he’s mostly been trying to keep the power vacuum filled, and if someone else wants that job, that’s fine.

After seeing the movie Sunshine I became a bit of a fan of the technocratic form of governance. On a star ship folks are responsible for something then you're in charge of and make all decisions concerning that thing. No democracy. So if you're on board as the ships chief gunner you're responsible for the weapons, to make sure they are armed and maintained -which may mean giving instructions to engineering crew. You are the one who decides who mans what turret and you're in charge of when the ship opens fire. This is because you're the one responsible. Your the one who goes to prison if the ship opens fire on an innocent target. You're the one who gets fired if the weapons aren't properly maintained.  If you're the ship's steward then you're responsible for the ships passengers, for their safety, comfort and happiness. This could mean that the security officer has to follow their instructions, or even the ship's Captian when deciding where to refuel if they believe that the current course creates significant risk or discomfort for passengers. This is because the Steward is responsible. If the passengers are unhappy and complain at the end of their flight, then they could be sacked. But if the unhappiness was because the Captain didn't comply with the steward's recommendations, then the Captain would be sacked.  So generally all decisions are delegated to those hired to be responsible for them, and you're hired based on your expertise. General decisions that fall outside of crew/staff responsibilities are made by company executives. The company execs may call for a meeting if they decide that an executive decision isn't in the best interest of the crew and their morale, but that would be rare.  So as far as overall executive authority and leadership of the company goes, I guess that could be based on stock ownership? But at the moment the ship has been commandeered into Imperial service hasn't it? I guess Emperor Strephon ( all hail and praise him )  is in charge?

The company structure is a really good plan, Jeff is only uneasy if the Captain ever gets above the board in non emergency situations, he is not at all fond of people with too much power.  So as long as one person is never given too much power overall, Jeff thinks that the plan should work pretty solid in Artemis Group.