VATUSA Forums

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kevin Kelm on November 23, 2011, 10:55:16 PM

Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on November 23, 2011, 10:55:16 PM
Hello all,

I have a question about the C3 controller rating. I've heard from various sources that VATUSA no longer awards the C3 rating, and was curious on what the exact reason was. If I am incorrect or misinformed, please let me know. I would like to apply for this rating and the GRP appears to fully support it, but there isn't much information available.

Thanks,

Kevin Kelm
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Daniel Hawton on November 23, 2011, 11:47:05 PM
VATUSA doesn't support it with the reasoning being there is no direction as to the exact requirements to qualify for the C3.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on November 24, 2011, 12:27:59 AM
Quote from: Daniel Hawton
VATUSA doesn't support it with the reasoning being there is no direction as to the exact requirements to qualify for the C3.

I assume if there was a necessity for a direct value, VATSIM would assign it in the GRP, right? The GRP simply states: "The rating of Senior Controller (C3) may be awarded by any VATSIM Division to give recognition of seniority,performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal Controller (C1) as determined by the local Region/Division."

Personally, I am bringing this issue up because I feel I meet and exceed these qualifications stated above, but am unable to obtain this rating within this division. The C3 rating is not meant to be a rating in which is automatically obtained by a controller by a given metric, say a specific number of hours, but to be awarded for "seniority, performance, or duties performed beyond that of a normal controller".
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: John Cierpial on November 24, 2011, 05:27:20 AM
Kevin,
Think about how subjective that statement you quoted is. What defines seniority? 6 months with an ARTCC? 1 year? 5 years with the Division or VATSIM? Think how many if's there are in the first part of that quote alone.

In addition, who cares about the rating? It's not like a C3 can control more or do more than what a C1 can, so why is it a necessity to get the C3 rating?
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Salvatore Barcia on November 24, 2011, 07:18:05 AM
Quote from: John Cierpial
Kevin,
Think about how subjective that statement you quoted is. What defines seniority? 6 months with an ARTCC? 1 year? 5 years with the Division or VATSIM? Think how many if's there are in the first part of that quote alone.

In addition, who cares about the rating? It's not like a C3 can control more or do more than what a C1 can, so why is it a necessity to get the C3 rating?


+1
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bruce Clingan on November 24, 2011, 12:44:27 PM
The key word Kevin is "may".  It is the divisions decision whether or not to award it, and as a division the leadership has chosen not to award it.  It is not fair to everyone to have a subjective award of a rating, and it de-values the idea of the rating if there was a reason for awarding it later on.

I know someone who under a previous DD became a staff member for an ARTCC, requested that the DD make him a C3, got his rating and left.  He has not been an active member of the ARTCC since.  This is exactly what I think the division is trying to avoid.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on November 24, 2011, 02:37:03 PM
Quote from: John Cierpial
Kevin,
Think about how subjective that statement you quoted is. What defines seniority? 6 months with an ARTCC? 1 year? 5 years with the Division or VATSIM? Think how many if's there are in the first part of that quote alone.

In addition, who cares about the rating? It's not like a C3 can control more or do more than what a C1 can, so why is it a necessity to get the C3 rating?

The sole purpose of the C3 rating is to reward excellence in controlling on the VATSIM network. Why does there have to be a defined metric? If its a special award rewarded by a division to a controller, why does their have to be a set "standard". Its like saying the medal of honor or silver star, or a rank in general should be awarded based off of years in service.

I understand it is at the discretion of the division to utilize the rating or not; I am not arguing that. But as a controller on this network for almost nine years, I feel myself, and the rest of us should have a say in how the division is ran.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Tom Seeley on November 24, 2011, 04:59:11 PM
You have a say, you're exercising it by posting your desire to be promoted here. If you want more of a say, I would urge you to apply when there is a staff vacancy in VATUSA.

With regard to the C3 rating, you are incorrect when you say "The sole purpose of the C3 rating is to reward excellence in controlling on the VATSIM network." Read the excerpt you yourself posted again:

"The rating of Senior Controller (C3) may be awarded by any VATSIM Division to give recognition of seniority, performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal Controller (C1) as determined by the local Region/Division."

There is nothing in that wording that specifies "excellence in controlling". Performance is ONE of the possible criteria mentioned by VATSIM but even that doesn't specifically cite "excellence" and it could be any number of things.  This division under its most recent prior director determined that there was too much ambiguity in the rating across the network, and suspended the awarding of the rating as is its right. There are still other divisions in VATSIM that do award the C3. It's always possible to transfer to one of those if that meets your purpose.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Ira Robinson on November 24, 2011, 08:48:05 PM
Quote from: Kevin Kelm
The sole purpose of the C3 rating is to reward excellence in controlling on the VATSIM network. Why does there have to be a defined metric? If its a special award rewarded by a division to a controller, why does their have to be a set "standard". Its like saying the medal of honor or silver star, or a rank in general should be awarded based off of years in service.

I understand it is at the discretion of the division to utilize the rating or not; I am not arguing that. But as a controller on this network for almost nine years, I feel myself, and the rest of us should have a say in how the division is ran.

I realize I haven't been around as long as some others but I must admit that I am a little confused by your request.  First you suggest that the award should be considered for "excellence in controlling".   Then you ask why there should be a set standard.  I don't know that
I know how to define "excellence in controlling" without at the least having something to compare it to.

You further cite the GRP:
"The rating of Senior Controller (C3) may be awarded by any VATSIM Division to give recognition of seniority,performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal Controller (C1) as determined by the local Region/Division."

Well If I understand you correctly you are also saying that it is not an award that should be given solely for years of experience.  So I am curious what you are basing it on because as I said earlier I am pretty new here and I don't know you, so for the benefit of the newbie in the room tell me why you feel you deserve recognition based on the GRP for, as stated, "performance or any additional role beyond that of a normal controller"

As someone who hasn't been here for nine years I too feel that we should have some input into division policy and am willing to listen to your argument and perhaps take up your cause.  But so far the only argument you have made is that the Division reconsider its position on the awarding of the certification, not that you are deserving of consideration.

Make your case sir.

Ira
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Scott DeWoody on November 24, 2011, 09:21:33 PM
In that statement, it was originally intended for persons such as, but not limited to persons such as the Event Coordinator, Facilities Manager, etc... those that contributed above and beyond that of normal controller duties, but as others have mentioned, VATUSA decided to not use it any more because of it's abiguity.

I think... I may be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on November 24, 2011, 10:15:00 PM
Allow me to clarify, my point in saying "excellence in controlling", was to encompass all of those ideas I quoted (seniority, performance etc); I didn't wish to re-quote the same exert again; sorry.

How do you put a "measure" on performance? Seniority you can, yes, but as I said before, I don't think its necessary to place a set metric, such as time on the rating. We trust in the VATUSA staff to regulate all of our operations while controlling, do we not trust them to make judgement calls on who qualifies for a C3 rating and who doesn't based on things such as but not limited to: staff positions held, instruction/mentor hours, and the obvious total time controlling? Controlling on VATSIM is 100% a volunteer job; instructor/mentoring/acting as a staff member are simply roles that while you may receive some joy from, serve the sole purpose of keeping the system running.

Referring to my sentence above, just because you cannot easily place a judgement on something like performance, that does not mean the entire rating should be ignored. I think it is necessary to continually reward those who stick around on the network and go "above and beyond" the call of duty. How does VATUSA go about incentifying those to become staff members to help run the day-to-day operations of each ARTCC; it's very difficult. In my opinion, this is part of the reason why the turnover rate is so high.  Like I said earlier, we trust VATUSA to regulate every part of what we do; but we don't trust them, and apparently they don't trust themselves, to make judgement calls on such an issue.

Will awarding a C3 rating somehow change the mind of a controller considering hanging up their headset? Maybe, maybe not, but my intent is that if VATUSA already has tools to use to reward things like good behavior, dedication, and effort in time on the network; why aren't they using them? "Too broad" is the only reason? Are they worried about hurting feelings? If they are that worried about it, then fine, set a "1000 hour" control limit, or a "time in staff/instructing etc" limit, or whatever it may be. As said before, if we trust them to regulate all of our activities, can't we trust them to make calls either by case-by-case basis (maybe via a controller application for the rating), or by trusting them to set a metric of some fashion? I don't necessarily want it to be a set rule, but heck, if they are that nervous about its vagueness, then make it xxxx hours controlling, staff positions etc; just don't waste the chance to reward experience and dedication; at least utilize a tool that VATSIM has already provided.

On a different note, Happy Thanksgiving all!
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: John Cierpial on November 25, 2011, 05:59:58 AM
Kevin,
When reading through your response, it appears you want the C3 rating to serve as a reward of some sort, correct? This is part of the reason I don't understand the reason for a C3 rating.  All of the other ratings on this network are ones you have to fulfill a set criteria in order to receive (S2 proficiency at local tower services for example), whereas C3 does not have anything like that. Instead, it would be given out when a staff member feels like it, contributing to the subjectivity and ambiguity of the rating that myself and others in this thread have pointed out.  

Additionally, it sounds like the C3 rating is another flashy title that someone can add to their signature block. When I see signatures in emails or on forums such as:
John Smith
VATSIM Senior Controller
XXX ARTCC Events Coordinator
Assistant to the assistant of assistant webmasters
President of ZZZ VA
etc. it tells me that people are viewing this as a game where the idea is get as many objectives as possible to get the highest score.  In a situation such as this, the C3 rating would just serve as another badge someone can pin on themselves, which is something I believe the Division wants to avoid happening.

In summary, you got your C1 rating, you've been on this network for 9 years (longer than I have) and you have made countless contributions to your ARTCC. Congratulations!  Now, continue in your efforts to make VATSIM a better place.  Like Tom said, perhaps you should apply for a position on the VATUSA staff when one opens, or apply for a staff position at your local ARTCC.  You can do all of these things (as many already have and continue to do so) without the C3 rating.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Jonathan Cox on November 25, 2011, 11:26:28 AM
Personally I think the C3 should just disappear. It's nothing more than a "badge" rating (as everyone else has said) and serves no extra purpose, and if it's going to sit, confuse people, and bring up issues of people "wanting" it, it's better to just remove it or make a firm decision that nobody will get it.

Although John, I politely disagree with what you said about the forums/emails signatures. In my view, that has nothing to do with any sort of "score" or recognition, when people see me post and they ask "who is this guy?" they can see who I am and what I do in terms of Vatsim. And I would hope it would be the same with others.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Salvatore Barcia on November 25, 2011, 12:19:01 PM
I was very curious in the past about bringing back the C3 rating, but I realized that it would cause many headaches within Vatusa that aren't needed. I was told that each ARTCC would be responsible for distributing the rating according to the qualifications of each facility, and this is where the problems will start. There are going to facilities that give the certification away faster/easier than others. Then you'll start hearing stuff like this " It's not fair!! The XXX ARTCC allows controllers to get their C3 rating much faster than here! Why do I have to work harder than other people to get this rating? I'm transferring! "....  This is one of the many ways of politics and headaches starting and the meaning of the rating will be non-existing over time

That's my 2 cents... 
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on November 25, 2011, 01:06:44 PM
You guys are making valid points, but I guess where I'm caught up, is why does the fact that 6/7 ratings are based on a set criteria, mean that this one has to be? It doesn't have to cause headaches; let VATUSA decide who gets it, we're all gentleman (and gentlewomen :$) here, don't cry about it. There needs to be means of incentifying experience John, otherwise the network is going to keep losing experienced controllers. The overhead to training new students up to C1 so a ARTCC can stay frequently staffed costs a huge amount of time for the ARTCC. Maybe you don't want this to be seen as a "game" where you rack up points, but to be honest, for many people, adding to their total time is the only reason they control; sad yes, but it is what it is. And furthermore, we need those controllers, even if that's why they control. There are only two controllers left at Seattle controlling that were there when I started back in 2004, and they control a minimum amount of hours. Why not issue in a new means of rewarding controllers; other divisions use it just fine, even some who don't use it for center controlling; why waste the infrastructure?
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on November 25, 2011, 01:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jonathan Cox
Personally I think the C3 should just disappear.

If it were up to me, it would be gone, period.  Completely agree.  If we can't return it to a control rating, it's absolutely useless.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Salvatore Barcia on November 25, 2011, 01:38:30 PM
I'm not disagreeing with your points, I was just giving my opinion. I feel that C3 wouldn't be useful in this division. But I agree with what was said above, apply for Vatusa staff vacancies in the future and maybe you can make it happen, because I don't see it happening in the near future.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: William Lewis on November 25, 2011, 05:11:09 PM
If The C3 is just an incentive to continue to control maybe we should set a standard of 5000 controlling hours with 3000 hours as an instructor and 2000 has a staff member.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Rahul Parkar on November 25, 2011, 05:57:59 PM
Kevin,

You say that the C3 should be issued to reward controllers, and you refer to people from 2004, Let's say they got their C1 in 2005 (for arguments sake) and their C3 in 2006 or 2007, There are no "rewards" after that so why should they continue to control, (Also, most people leave for real life commitments, or burnout, I don't see why they would leave because they weren't rewarded via a rating) I see the C3 rating as a rating that would either cause arguments because someone got their C3 and another person didn't, or just a single reward that came after a bunch of hours and after that there would be no incentive other then getting on to enjoy it, but as you say, they wouldn't do that because they are just adding hours to a tally for a reward they have now obtained.

Most if not all of the controllers I speak to, hop on and control not to add hours to a tally, but to have fun and enjoy the experience and enhance their own knowledge. So why is the C3 necessary, why can't we just leave it at the point where, we're not issuing the C3 rating, therefore no arguments over it (except this one) and everyone continues on with daily life?

-Prepares to be shot down-

Cheers!
Rahul

Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Robert Prescott on November 26, 2011, 09:50:02 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
If it were up to me, it would be gone, period.  Completely agree.  If we can't return it to a control rating, it's absolutely useless.

Back in the day it wasn't and I worked and studied my tail off to get it...granted it is irrelevant now, but I earned it and being irrelevant is fine with me :-)
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on November 26, 2011, 11:11:40 PM
I had the pleasure of speaking with a staff member about the issue for almost an hour today. After reading some of these points, I have come to agree that the C3 rating itself really wouldn't incentify controllers to stay on and control anything more than any other rating; I do not control for hours or ratings, and as "flashy" as a C3 rating is, it wouldn't make me personally stay on any longer to control than if I had a C1.

I did discuss with the staff member that I think it is important that VATUSA recognizes the power of awarding controllers for experience and longevity; even things as simple as the badges they create for controllers who hit 1000 hours etc, and we were in agreement on some of these issues. I do appreciate your guy's input on the issue, it did help open my eyes a bit to really analyzing the issue more objectively.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Tom Seeley on November 28, 2011, 06:56:50 AM
I agree with Bryan. The rating now is useless in VATUSA. I'm also in the same boat with Rob. Back when I got my C3, it wasn't given away ... you had to be approved by your staff and pass an exam. However once awarded it still served no purpose that I am aware of. You had no additional privileges, no additional control responsibility. I would have no objection to it disappearing, but that might not sit well with those who did earn it over time. We can't just do away with it, as long as there are other areas in VATSIM that still utilize it (last time I checked). VATUSA did the next best thing - ceased using it in this division. Pretty much end of story.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Charles Rizzi on November 28, 2011, 08:43:23 PM
Quote from: Tom Seeley
I agree with Bryan. The rating now is useless in VATUSA. I'm also in the same boat with Rob. Back when I got my C3, it wasn't given away ... you had to be approved by your staff and pass an exam.

Back when?  As the one that gave it to you (I think) the "point" of the C3 rating at that time was to reward those individuals who had done the work to go beyond the minimum required to simply run a CTR position somewhat respectably at moderate traffic levels (at the time that was all it took to get a C1).  The rating was supposed to be based entirely on controlling ability and 7110.65 knowledge (not just VATUSA training).  It was a very effective way to motivate good controllers to become really, really good controllers.  Then GRP arrived and it was converted into whatever ill defined administrative or political merit badge it is now.

Bet you thought I was dead ;-)

CR          
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bob Carmona on November 29, 2011, 09:09:54 AM
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Back when I got my C3, it wasn't given away ... you had to be approved by your staff and pass an exam. However once awarded it still served no purpose that I am aware of.[/quote]

When I received my C3 it was before GRP. Back then the rating was given to those that achieved the level of "CTR" controller.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Copeland on November 30, 2011, 03:10:55 PM
Ha! the ole C3 discussion rears it's head again  

Another facet to this is: You already have C3 rated controllers in VATUSA.
For some, this was a cert based on knowledge and for others (a majority I would guess) it was time and hours as a C1 with no extra knowledge required.  

This equals a polluted pool of C3's.

Now, if VATUSA decided to bring back the C3 and put restrictions on it to mean this that or the other then you'd have different classifications of C3s and how would you tell the difference?
It should have just been left alone. UNLESS, you were going to downgrade all the current C3's to C1 and then start from scratch.

Who really cares if someone has "C3 senior controller" in their signature? I think that's a petty argument. Why should people be ashamed of their accomplishments whatever that may be?

Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Ryan Geckler on November 30, 2011, 08:27:25 PM
Per regs you cannot remove a rating from a controller (instructors being an exception).. so now what to do?
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Jonathan Cox on November 30, 2011, 10:04:09 PM
I wasn't around when they changed the way the ratings work, could someone fill me in on why they changed? I'm wondering if it would ever make sense to go back to the way it was and make the C3 actually stand for something (i.e. CTR certified).
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Andrew Wolcott on November 30, 2011, 10:14:59 PM
C3 used to have a benchmark. It represented 200 hours or more controlling as a C1.

Now it has come to be more of an indicator of who has served as a TA, or otherwise served in an ARTCC Staff position or higher.

Getting rid of the C3? Nothing doing.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on November 30, 2011, 10:59:24 PM
Quote from: Jonathan Cox
I wasn't around when they changed the way the ratings work, could someone fill me in on why they changed?

I honestly don't remember why or who actually came up with the idea, however, before GRP was introduced, there were 3 ratings schemes proposed:

GND Controller (S1) DEL, GND
TWR Controller (S2) TWR
TMA Controller (S3) APP/DEP
Enroute Controller (C1) CTR
C3 explicitly defined within GRP


S1 = GND (DEL/GND)
S3 = TWR (TWR)
C1 = TMA (APP/DEP)
C3 = ENROUTE (CTR)


S1 = GND (DEL/GND)
S2 = TWR (TWR)
S3 = TMA (APP/DEP)
C1 = ENROUTE (CTR)
C3 not defined within the scope of GRP

VATUSA and VATNA (though not all Divisions within VATNA) were the only ones who said Option 2 would be a doable system.  I honestly think the reason we have it, is because Europe was under the impression that they would be able to use the C3 rating as a control rating for their supercenters, EuroControl or whatever.  They fought VERY hard, in fact, to get the C3 rating for their use.  Another early use was that it be given to Mentors, but seeing as the C3 rating cannot be taken away, how much sense would that make?

Since Europe has been shut down on the concept of using C3 as a control rating, I can assure you that they no longer hold the same position on the C3.

Without divulging too much information, since we are in very preliminary discussion right now, I will say that the EC is heavily discussing the current rating scheme, and exploring the possibility that other ratings schemes might be more conducive to training, etc.  One preliminary outcome of these discussions has been the S1/S2 rating stuff that came out a couple months ago.  Also in the discussions is the C3 rating, which the majority of us view as being completely useless in its current form.  



Quote from: Jonathan Cox
I'm wondering if it would ever make sense to go back to the way it was and make the C3 actually stand for something (i.e. CTR certified).

It would absolutely make sense!  I see it as a priority to eliminate some of the stupidity that came as a byproduct of the original GRP, and I'm not the only one on the EC with that point-of-view.  Remember the huge mistake that was made with forcing all initial training offline?  It took a while, but we fixed that little issue.  I'm hoping it's only a matter of time before we bring some common sense back to the ratings scheme, the C3 being no exception.  We'll just have to see how it plays out.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Jonathan Cox on November 30, 2011, 11:09:02 PM
I think if it would resolve a lot of these kind of issues, bringing it back would be cool. I didn't know S2 and C2 didn't exist at the time, I had heard those were part of the rating system then too.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Tom Seeley on December 01, 2011, 06:42:49 AM
Quote from: Charles Rizzi
Back when?

Bet you thought I was dead ;-)

CR

Charlie Rizzi! Yes sir, I did indeed think you had vaporized into the ether somewhere. Glad to 'see' you again, hope it's not a one-time thing.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Daniel Hawton on December 01, 2011, 11:09:02 AM
Quote from: Andrew Wolcott
C3 used to have a benchmark. It represented 200 hours or more controlling as a C1.

Now it has come to be more of an indicator of who has served as a TA, or otherwise served in an ARTCC Staff position or higher.

Getting rid of the C3? Nothing doing.

I was TA and never got it.  Thankfully I don't mind being a C1.  C3 is, to me, another way people can add a "special" title to their list.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 01, 2011, 01:37:48 PM
Quote from: Andrew Wolcott
C3 used to have a benchmark. It represented 200 hours or more controlling as a C1.

Now it has come to be more of an indicator of who has served as a TA, or otherwise served in an ARTCC Staff position or higher.

Getting rid of the C3? Nothing doing.

The sole reason they got rid of it as this purpose (200 hours as C1), according to Gary Millsaps, was because people were complaining about how "broad and unfair" it was, in simple terms (which seems funny because setting an hourly metric on the rating is 100% less broad than VATSIM's definition of a C3).

It was never awarded based on a staff position etc, as before the "200 hours as c1" ruling, it was used to represent the ability to control Center, as someone posted earlier above me. Now as I said before, I wouldn't mind using it as an incentive to reward controllers for "overall good performance" on the network; as decided by maybe a board of several members on VATUSA staff.

People need to get away from this idea of "fairness and equality" in regards to this rating. As is today, those with C3 ratings already have it because of completely different reasons. Pre-GRP, because it was necessary to control Center; and after that, awarded at 200 hours. Gary himself told me that the primary worry with the "200 hours" was that a ton of people would come to reap the benefits of the C3, basically "diluting" the market for it; to his surprise, this actually did not happen. Not that many people, even with that set # of hours, applied for the rating.

Have VATSIM staff come up with an appropriate means of evaluating each candidate, and open up an application to several members of the Staff as a board. Maybe they can set a minimum # of hours just to stop EVERYONE from trying to apply; but that way, no one can complain. We don't complain about the way we have to take tests or receive training from VATUSA, or even if we do, it is how it is; why not take the same stand with this rating?

My real feeling, is that the C3 rating itself isn't going to really make people stay on and control more, but something needs to be done to incentify controllers to stay. I don't want VATSIM to become a "game" any more than the rest of you; but if there was a reward/points system; I guarantee you the staffing levels would greatly increase. This really isn't a new idea. VATSIM has already recognized this with things such as the Iron Mic award, the newer Golden Mic award, and also those little images that people can attach to their signatures that rewards them for controlling for 1000/2000+ hours. VATSIM woke up and realized this, now it's VATUSA's turn to implement something. Gary mentioned in our discussion about plans to implement a system of rewarding controllers for time on the network. We'll see if it comes through. I don't want this to be something like BF3 or Call of Duty where you get "unlocks" and "XP" for controlling, but something similar seems necessary for the growth of the network.

Why do you think rank systems are being implemented in almost every single game released for PC and Xbox? Because it's effective; and people come back and play; not even just because they love the game. We have supervisors and staff to watch each ARTCC that C1s aren't controlling "Uncle Bobs Airport Clearance Delivery" positions just to get hours; so that's a pretty weak argument to make against it.

That's just my two cents.

Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Rahul Parkar on December 01, 2011, 02:52:24 PM
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]We have supervisors and staff to watch each ARTCC that C1s aren't controlling "Uncle Bobs Airport Clearance Delivery" positions just to get hours; so that's a pretty weak argument to make against it.[/quote]

So now you'd have to work hours outside the tower cab to get the C3?

Moving on,

I don't see why there needs to be ratings and incentives to do this, this isn't a game where the objective is to have you buy the product and keep you so glued that you come back for the next installment,

This is a hobby that people love, and well, go a bit OTT about, and in one that takes up so much real time over an elongated period of multiple years for most, we have to recognize that we cannot keep them here by handing out new pretty pictures and new ratings and whatever else.

They will leave for their own reasons, whether it be family or personal issues with others, or controlling burnout, and using "handouts" won't stop that.

Heck, I would be willing to bet that the key cause of burnout is the near-requirement of having to work with people who don't have the faintest clue of what they are doing, and although it's not their fault as they are not required to learn anything except how to connect, controllers go through a lot of training to go on the scopes, it is viewed as totally unfair, and it's a growing argument for, in my opinion, the growing number of controllers burning out.

Cheers!
Rahul
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 01, 2011, 03:41:22 PM
Quote from: Rahul Parkar
So now you'd have to work hours outside the tower cab to get the C3?

Not sure I understand; the only thing I can see that would be problematic is controllers controlling positions they know they wont get traffic on just to log time.

Quote from: Rahul Parkar
Moving on,

I don't see why there needs to be ratings and incentives to do this, this isn't a game where the objective is to have you buy the product and keep you so glued that you come back for the next installment,

This is a hobby that people love, and well, go a bit OTT about, and in one that takes up so much real time over an elongated period of multiple years for most, we have to recognize that we cannot keep them here by handing out new pretty pictures and new ratings and whatever else.

They will leave for their own reasons, whether it be family or personal issues with others, or controlling burnout, and using "handouts" won't stop that.

Heck, I would be willing to bet that the key cause of burnout is the near-requirement of having to work with people who don't have the faintest clue of what they are doing, and although it's not their fault as they are not required to learn anything except how to connect, controllers go through a lot of training to go on the scopes, it is viewed as totally unfair, and it's a growing argument for, in my opinion, the growing number of controllers burning out.

You're right, it wont stop everyone from leaving; nothing will. But with a turnover rate of over 90% (number from my own experience at ZSE since 2004), something has to be able to change it.

If it doesn't make a difference, then how come VATSIM has started implementing these kind of things I mentioned above? Whether you want to realize it or not, the kinds of systems I referred to the post prior to this do work to incentify people to come on. People don't just leave because of "real world reasons"; they straight-up get bored. We have an opporunity to fix that. You yourself Rahul might not need any incentive to control, I'm with you on that. But not everybody is the same way, in fact, I think most do not enjoy it for the reasons we do; at least not in the long term.

Many people say they enjoy it purely for the controlling, but if that is the case, why is the turnover so high?


Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Rahul Parkar on December 01, 2011, 03:50:03 PM
Yes,

But I never saw a public post by the BoG / Founders making the program an incentive, note that they privately sent the email to those who had amassed the hours in a show of respect, this has a secondary effect of making it an incentive, but that does not seem to be the primary effect sought by the VATSIM BoG / Founders to my eye.

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Many people say they enjoy it purely for the controlling, but if that is the case, why is the turnover so high?[/quote]

For the reasons I stated above and some new ones

Edit : Added a clause to the unfairness reason.

Cheers!
Rahul
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on December 01, 2011, 03:56:35 PM
Quote from: Kevin Kelm
You're right, it wont stop everyone from leaving; nothing will. But with a turnover rate of over 90% (number from my own experience at ZSE since 2004), something has to be able to change it.

Many people say they enjoy it purely for the controlling, but if that is the case, why is the turnover so high?


The turnover rate at ZSE is not at all indicative of the turnover rate for VATUSA or VATSIM as a whole.  My question to you then, is why is the turnover rate so high at ZSE?  
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Ryan Geckler on December 01, 2011, 04:00:45 PM
*grabs popcorn*
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Rahul Parkar on December 01, 2011, 04:02:24 PM
*Nicks some of Ryan's popcorn*

Bryan,

I was trying not to hit on that issue..... XD

Cheers!
Rahul
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Don Desfosse on December 01, 2011, 04:14:10 PM
*Grabs a 12 pack and some Cracker Jack....*
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on December 01, 2011, 04:27:01 PM
The turnover question was just rhetorical.  We really don't need to address the turnover rates at specific ARTCCs.

My point is that the turnover rate isn't nearly as high as Kevin is making it out to be.  Member retention is always something we want to look at, obviously, but I highly doubt the C3 rating is causing a massive exodus.  There just isn't anything to support that conclusion.  In fact, I have not heard from one single member who left because s/he can't get the C3 rating.  Rahul provided a very good list as to the possibilities.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Rahul Parkar on December 01, 2011, 04:30:43 PM
Hold on, wait, stop for one second here...

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Rahul provided a very good list as to the possibilities.[/quote]

I did good? Oh boy! Yippee! Finally I did something right...

Moving swiftly on,

I'd have to agree with Bryan, I've never seen anybody leave because they couldn't get a rating, or didn't have any "achievement badges" (As I will now refer to them) to show off.

But if there is any evidence of such, I'm sure that we can begin to address the problem, should there be one.

Cheers!
Rahul
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Don Desfosse on December 01, 2011, 05:11:24 PM
Sorry, too bad... I've already started drinking and I'm from Boston.  Gonna finish the 12 pack and the Cracker Jack....
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 01, 2011, 05:13:17 PM
*Grabs a few of Don's cold ones.

Agree to disagree, I'd say that ZSE's turnover is very similar to others. How many active controllers are still around your guys's ARTCCs from the start of VATSIM?

Rahul, your list contains valid reasons, but I feel its a bit of an over-generalization. Do people stop playing computer games because of "family issues" more often then because they get bored with the game?

Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 01, 2011, 05:19:53 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
The turnover question was just rhetorical.  We really don't need to address the turnover rates at specific ARTCCs.

My point is that the turnover rate isn't nearly as high as Kevin is making it out to be.  Member retention is always something we want to look at, obviously, but I highly doubt the C3 rating is causing a massive exodus.  There just isn't anything to support that conclusion.  In fact, I have not heard from one single member who left because s/he can't get the C3 rating.  Rahul provided a very good list as to the possibilities.

Bryan, might I add that I never said once that the lack of the C3 is causing any exodus of such, nor am I drawing that conclusion. What I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with using rewards and such to encourage controllers to log hours. Is there any evidence to support it would hurt membership?

**EDITED, quote from my post above: "My real feeling, is that the C3 rating itself isn't going to really make people stay on and control more, but something needs to be done to incentify controllers to stay"
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on December 01, 2011, 05:31:21 PM
Quote from: Kevin Kelm
Agree to disagree, I'd say that ZSE's turnover is very similar to others. How many active controllers are still around your guys's ARTCCs from the start of VATSIM?


If you really want to know, about 57% of controllers who signed up at the start of VATSIM (2001) are still online doing something, and about 58%  of those who signed up within the first 3 years.  That doesn't necessarily mean they're controlling, but they're still here enjoying VATSIM.  Throughout VATSIM's entire existence, about 60% of all controller-rated members are still active on the network.  VATUSA sits around 58%, and VATNA sits basically with the average, at 60%.

Over a 10 year period, those are actually fairly good numbers for a hobby of our size.

I can assure you that 90% of the members are not leaving.  Perhaps 90% of the members are leaving ZSE for another place on the network, but they certainly aren't leaving VATSIM.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on December 01, 2011, 05:33:47 PM
Quote from: Kevin Kelm
**EDITED, quote from my post above: "My real feeling, is that the C3 rating itself isn't going to really make people stay on and control more, but something needs to be done to incentify controllers to stay"

Why should we have to provide incentives?  The incentive is that you are participating in a hobby that you enjoy.  That's the "incentive" that comes with most hobbies.  If you're no longer enjoying the hobby, no amount of incentive (outside of cash ) is going to get you to stick around.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 01, 2011, 05:43:19 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
If you really want to know, about 57% of controllers who signed up at the start of VATSIM (2001) are still online doing something, and about 58%  of those who signed up within the first 3 years.  That doesn't necessarily mean they're controlling, but they're still here enjoying VATSIM.  Throughout VATSIM's entire existence, about 60% of all controller-rated members are still active on the network.  VATUSA sits around 58%, and VATNA sits basically with the average, at 60%.

Over a 10 year period, those are actually fairly good numbers for a hobby of our size.

I can assure you that 90% of the members are not leaving.  Perhaps 90% of the members are leaving ZSE for another place on the network, but they certainly aren't leaving VATSIM.

Bryan, my estimations are from members I knew at 2004 that are still on today. I sure hope ZSE isn't the worst out there for turnover, but I'll have you know we are doing excellent on staffing currently  I was not aware the numbers of returning were that good. Where did you find this information? I'd like to be able to keep track myself (or is that a VATSIM staff-only thing)?
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on December 01, 2011, 05:54:42 PM
Kevin, yeah, unfortunately the numbers are staff-only access, on the CERT level.  You have to take into consideration as well that I can't currently differentiate between how many of those members are actually controlling.  Same may just be observing, some may have switched to flying, etc.  So I can't say that 60% of controllers are still controlling.  But 60% of the controllers are online doing something.  What that something is, is anyone's guess.

So in all fairness I can't call your numbers completely incorrect.  Perhaps 90% of the controllers left and are now flying, for all I know.  There is really no way to currently tell, aside from looking every single member up on the stats and seeing what they've been up to.  Not going to happen.  Ha!

Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 01, 2011, 06:23:51 PM
Quote from: Bryan Wollenberg
Kevin, yeah, unfortunately the numbers are staff-only access, on the CERT level.  You have to take into consideration as well that I can't currently differentiate between how many of those members are actually controlling.  Same may just be observing, some may have switched to flying, etc.  So I can't say that 60% of controllers are still controlling.  But 60% of the controllers are online doing something.  What that something is, is anyone's guess.

So in all fairness I can't call your numbers completely incorrect.  Perhaps 90% of the controllers left and are now flying, for all I know.  There is really no way to currently tell, aside from looking every single member up on the stats and seeing what they've been up to.  Not going to happen.  Ha!

Bryan, if those numbers you gave, even due to your uncertainties are even slightly correct,  I really was not aware the numbers of activity were that good. Just from observation it seemed very much a different story; but I will definitely consider that, thank you for letting me know.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Charles Rizzi on December 01, 2011, 08:06:07 PM
[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Charlie Rizzi! Yes sir, I did indeed think you had vaporized into the ether somewhere. Glad to 'see' you again, hope it's not a one-time thing.[/quote]

Be careful what you ask for.

If anybody wants to hear more of the history.  I only put this here because I think I'm one of the very few left that lived through the whole thing (expect Bryan).

[blockquote]The ratings (S1, S2, S3, C1, C2, C3) originally came from SATCO.  In the beginning of SATCO there were no controller ratings.  Anybody could do anything.  Guys would fight over positions, try to steal each other's traffic buy calling pilots out of their airspace, CTR controllers would refuse to hand off arrivals to anybody "below" them, etc. etc. it was chaos, often belligerent and almost unimaginable to anybody involved in VATSIM as it works now.  "Service" to pilots was awful.  SATCO implemented controller ratings but did not standardize how those ratings would be used because I think it would have been politically impossible for them to have done so at that time.  This carried forward into VATSIM (which dropped the C2/S2).  Remember that at that time nobody had ever done this and nobody really knew what would work and what would not.  It was the age of great experimentation trying to see what would work the best to retain the most trainees.  So before GRP we had a system where what a rating meant depended mostly on when and where you got it.  You had S3s in sectors with strong training programs that had far more hours and know how than C3s for other areas.  Not much of a rating system network wide.  The EC tried to fix this with GRP1 and that's about where I decided after seven years as an instructor that I was going to get away from it.  GRP1 first introduced the notion of also giving rating "credit" for things other than controlling skill.  That had never been openly done before but I'm sure it probably had been done "under the table".  Bryan's post from above tells the history from there.[/blockquote]

In the end it all comes down to the issue of how many "upgrades" between newbie and full performance CTR controller are necessary to adequately recognize, reward and retain students without becoming too silly or complex.  Personally I always thought the more "attaboys/gold stars" I could hand out as an Instructor the better I could move students up and retain them.  I'm well aware that others would disagree strongly with that point of view and apparently that discussion continues to this day.  When GRP first was conceived I don't think anybody promoting it had any idea how hard it was going to be to get to a system that would both work for everyone and be accepted by everyone globally.

Best all,

CR
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bruce Clingan on December 01, 2011, 10:48:34 PM
Page two of this reads like an Intro to Sociological Study course I teach.  We can't look at our personal experiences and expect to get a clear picture of what is happening with a large population.

A vast majority of my closest VATSIM friends are not active on the network.  That doesn't mean that the network is failing.  It simply means that they were involved in a situation under certain leadership that changed their opinion of VATSIM forever.

Even Brian's stats really don't give us a clear statistical picture of overall retention on the network.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 01, 2011, 11:07:27 PM
Quote from: Bruce W. Clingan
Page two of this reads like an Intro to Sociological Study course I teach.  We can't look at our personal experiences and expect to get a clear picture of what is happening with a large population.

A vast majority of my closest VATSIM friends are not active on the network.  That doesn't mean that the network is failing.  It simply means that they were involved in a situation under certain leadership that changed their opinion of VATSIM forever.

Even Brian's stats really don't give us a clear statistical picture of overall retention on the network.

Maybe not, but that's all we got.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bruce Clingan on December 02, 2011, 08:24:36 AM
Just because the raw numbers may not now give us an accurate picture doesn't mean that they can't.  More information would be necessary though.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bryan Wollenberg on December 02, 2011, 11:54:50 AM
Quote from: Bruce W. Clingan
Just because the raw numbers may not now give us an accurate picture doesn't mean that they can't.  More information would be necessary though.

We're working on it.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Bruce Clingan on December 02, 2011, 02:33:40 PM
I know Bryan.  My statement was really pointed at the idea that you can't get a good picture by saying that VATSIM has bad retention because all of the older controllers from one ARTCC have left.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Andrew Wolcott on December 02, 2011, 06:08:20 PM
Okay,

Let me clarify. Ratings came from SATCO. Some of you don't know what that is, but it may only be a handful. Now, C3 rating was meant to acknowledge that a Center Rated controller worked 200 hours on a "_CTR" position. The hours did not count for sitting on east bumble delivery. They had to be logged on a "_CTR" position.

Now, here is the question for Kevin and anyone else. How many cookies and golden star stickers and badges must be passed out to people on this network to make them feel appreciated? Should I just arbitrarily honor you for some set number of hours you've logged working a regular position?

Or should I respect and reward you for putting in time and effort to help make this community better, such as assisting an EC, designing an ARTCC Logo, doing website work, performing staff duties as an ARTCC or VATUSA staff member, help author countless numbers of SOPs, LOAs, or learning how to develop sector files and keeping them up-to-date for others to use?

Anybody who wants to be rewarded because of hours should only want to be rewarded for the time and effort they put in GIVING BACK. Jockeying a computer for hours on end with watching youtube videos, twittering about how you just posted a comment or link on someone's facebook wall all the while plugging a position working little to no traffic at odd hours of the day or night is not with recognition on the level of being GIVEN any sort of rating. Period.

Senior controller recognition should come not only because of time plugged in, but rather the showing of dedication, pride, and at times disgust, many of us here have put into or received from this community.

The big difference is the willingness to give back, versus asking someone else to always give to you.

I earned my C3 with pride, and I know what it stands for to me. Hours on position ain't it.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Rahul Parkar on December 02, 2011, 06:57:06 PM


Now that was well said.

Cheers!
Rahul
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Harold Rutila on December 02, 2011, 08:44:33 PM
Exactly. I'm honestly a bit shocked that people thought those banners were the coolest things since voice ATIS. We need commitment from each and every member who wants to become a controller. We highly encourage staff participation if that member is capable of providing it. The 1,000 hour banner isn't resume-type material. Neither is a C3.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Kevin Kelm on December 02, 2011, 10:25:54 PM
Quote from: Andrew Wolcott
Okay,

Let me clarify. Ratings came from SATCO. Some of you don't know what that is, but it may only be a handful. Now, C3 rating was meant to acknowledge that a Center Rated controller worked 200 hours on a "_CTR" position. The hours did not count for sitting on east bumble delivery. They had to be logged on a "_CTR" position.

Now, here is the question for Kevin and anyone else. How many cookies and golden star stickers and badges must be passed out to people on this network to make them feel appreciated? Should I just arbitrarily honor you for some set number of hours you've logged working a regular position?

Or should I respect and reward you for putting in time and effort to help make this community better, such as assisting an EC, designing an ARTCC Logo, doing website work, performing staff duties as an ARTCC or VATUSA staff member, help author countless numbers of SOPs, LOAs, or learning how to develop sector files and keeping them up-to-date for others to use?

Anybody who wants to be rewarded because of hours should only want to be rewarded for the time and effort they put in GIVING BACK. Jockeying a computer for hours on end with watching youtube videos, twittering about how you just posted a comment or link on someone's facebook wall all the while plugging a position working little to no traffic at odd hours of the day or night is not with recognition on the level of being GIVEN any sort of rating. Period.

Senior controller recognition should come not only because of time plugged in, but rather the showing of dedication, pride, and at times disgust, many of us here have put into or received from this community.

The big difference is the willingness to give back, versus asking someone else to always give to you.

I earned my C3 with pride, and I know what it stands for to me. Hours on position ain't it.

Andrew,

You bring up a fantastic point, and to be quite honest, its one that I don't have an answer for. That's a very valid question, but let me sit on that before I give you one if I could.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Romano Lara on December 03, 2011, 08:04:42 PM
Just abolish the rating system and replace it with a certification system = no more C3 debate.

Kidding aside, for me the rating is just a rating, it serves no valid significance that will grant you access to anything special. Like previously said, there's really nothing a C3 can access that a C1 cannot. If we're talking about seniority, or perhaps, those who goes above and beyond the expectations, I know a lot of C1, even S3 (that I also happen to respect a LOT). It doesn't have to be a C3 guy walking around to earn someone's respect. It's how you demonstrate yourself to others, not by rating, or "experience" alone. As long as we're all enjoying the hobby while giving back one way or the other, it's all that matters.

One could really give all his/her efforts, not for the genuine intent to actually 'give back', but for a certain rating. At the end of the day, when you don't get what you were expecting, it will only leave you disappointed.

My 2c for what it's worth..
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Salvatore Barcia on December 04, 2011, 03:16:26 PM
Quote from: Romano Lara
Just abolish the rating system and replace it with a certification system = no more C3 debate.

Kidding aside, for me the rating is just a rating, it serves no valid significance that will grant you access to anything special. Like previously said, there's really nothing a C3 can access that a C1 cannot. If we're talking about seniority, or perhaps, those who goes above and beyond the expectations, I know a lot of C1, even S3 (that I also happen to respect a LOT). It doesn't have to be a C3 guy walking around to earn someone's respect. It's how you demonstrate yourself to others, not by rating, or "experience" alone. As long as we're all enjoying the hobby while giving back one way or the other, it's all that matters.

One could really give all his/her efforts, not for the genuine intent to actually 'give back', but for a certain rating. At the end of the day, when you don't get what you were expecting, it will only leave you disappointed.

My 2c for what it's worth..


Couldn't have said it any better.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Christopher Lajoie on December 21, 2011, 01:47:56 AM
Evening Or Morning to Others!
    I achieved my Controller 3 Rating back in 2005 and this was before VATSIM revoked the chance of achieving it. Although it is an honor to have it is not anything special as everyone has said. The fact that you are a Center Controller at one of the busiest ARTCC's is a great accomplishment in and of itself. Great job and thank you for your service to the VATSIM community!
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Daniel Hawton on December 21, 2011, 09:44:11 PM
Quote from: Christopher Lane Lajoie
Evening Or Morning to Others!
    I achieved my Controller 3 Rating back in 2005 and this was before VATSIM revoked the chance of achieving it. Although it is an honor to have it is not anything special as everyone has said. The fact that you are a Center Controller at one of the busiest ARTCC's is a great accomplishment in and of itself. Great job and thank you for your service to the VATSIM community!

VATSIM didn't revoke it.  VATUSA stopped issuing it.
Title: C3 Rating
Post by: Ryan Geckler on December 22, 2011, 06:51:51 AM
Can we just let this thread die already...