OOG Topics — Findings & Resolutions

Based on discussions in #strategy and #recruitment-discussion (Feb 10–19, 2026) and the recruitment survey (20 responses).

1. Discord Roles — Replace the “Governor” Role

Consensus: Strong agreement to act.

The purple “governor” role no longer accurately reflects either governor status or OOG seniority. There are respected long-term members without it and inactive members who have it.

Resolved:

Replace with a new role for long-standing, respected members who also handle Discord admin tasks (role management, pinning, adding bots, etc.)
No separate color. Near-universal agreement that a visible color hierarchy would create a “tiered ranking” feel contrary to OOG culture.
Selection method: Nomination by existing members — someone the corp already listens to and trusts, not simply the oldest accounts. Archiel’s proposal and sidepipe’s framing both landed well: “If there’s a person you already listen to a bit more because you respect their opinions, that’s who should have the role.”
Name: Not fully settled, but most energy around something that doesn’t imply superiority. Options with support: Senior Partner, Veteran, Anchor Investor. Booger Keeper was popular as a joke to signal that it’s not a prestigious position.

Open item: Finalize the name and run an initial nomination round.

2. Formal Leadership Group

Consensus: No.

The reaction poll was decisive: ❌ 8 vs ✅ 3 against creating a centralized leadership group.

The discussion clarified an important distinction that had been conflated:

Discord admin (role management, moderation) — needed, solved by the Veterans role above.
Organizational governance — not needed. OOG’s lack of formal hierarchy is widely credited as the source of its longevity and cultural health.

Key sentiment (sidepipe): “I don’t want a COSM-style leadership that speaks and expects everyone to fall in line.”

Key sentiment (tanda): “The only thing centralized leadership is going to be able to do is disenfranchise at least some of those opinions.”

Key sentiment (exeler): “We’re all equals here. We should keep doing what we’ve been doing — a good ol’ poll and letting the OOG Shareholders decide.”

Resolved: The Veterans role handles Discord admin only. Corp-wide decisions continue via open discussion and polls. No separate governance tier.

3. Planet Roles

Consensus: Remove them.

No meaningful dissent. These made sense when ANT had 5 planets and members relied on each other’s local production. That era is over.

Resolved: Delete all individual planet Discord roles.

4. Planet Channels

Consensus: Convert to a Forum.

The proposal with the most support (exeler, sidepipe, others): replace the individual planet channels with a single forum channel with one thread per planet. This preserves the ability to follow specific planets, reduces channel bloat, allows self-service addition of new planets, and is easy to scroll or ignore.

puzzlingblueorange’s concern about keeping planet-specific discussion filterable is addressed by the forum/thread model.

Resolved: Create a “Planets” forum channel with per-planet threads. Archive or remove the old individual channels.

5. Inactivity

Consensus: Done and ongoing.

Sidepipe completed a cleanup in mid-February, retiring a substantial number of long-inactive members. The last prior cleanup was August 2024.

Resolved:

Inactive members move to a Retiree role (can still see public channels, always welcome back).
Periodic review going forward — sidepipe has taken ownership of this.
Activity indicator: production drop-off is the best available signal (days-active is not in FIO).

6. Intelligence / Space Politics

Consensus: Use existing channels; no dedicated intel channel needed now.

agm114 raised the idea of an intel channel due to concerns about discussing sensitive inter-corp intelligence in public. tanda distinguished between intelligence gathering (fine) and espionage/active sabotage coordination (not OOG’s thing). General sentiment: sharing screenshots from private servers is bad; discussion of inter-corp dynamics is fine.

Resolved:

Use #space-politics with threads for sensitive topics. Short thread titles let people choose whether to read.
An intel/sensitive-discussions channel could live inside the Veterans/senior area if the group wants to add it later.
No policy against discussing game intelligence; implicit norm against coordinating active espionage.

7. Recruitment Standards

Consensus: Several clear signals from both discussion and survey.

Minimum account age: 30 days — strong consensus. This is a floor, not a proxy for skill. jackinabox86: “Whatever the standard is, stick to it so we don’t have to re-discuss this constantly.”

Skill / engagement floor: 3+ bases — survey showed 0% disagreement (no 1s or 2s). This matters more than raw time played. puzzlingblueorange: “There are things you learn in the process of getting 3 bases that we don’t want to be teaching inside OOG.”

Sponsor/relationship requirement: The poll’s top result (13/20 reactions) was option 3: “invite-only / needs an OOG member to vouch.” The refined consensus is: a recruit should have an existing working relationship with at least one OOG member. This can be formalized as sponsorship (someone actively vouches) or simply be an implicit gate in discussion.

Trial period: The survey showed a preference for extending beyond 7 days. Discussion landed around 14–30 days, with Discord activity during the trial being a strong signal of fit (50% rated it a 4, 20% a 5).

PRO License: Preferred but not a hard gate. Slight survey support, not overwhelming.

Pace of intake: No appetite for mass recruiting. Some appetite for slow, deliberate growth. exeler’s proposal of capping at 2 trials/month got positive traction as a way to enforce selectivity and make membership feel meaningful.

What OOG is not: Multiple voices aligned on this. OOG is not ADI. It is not a new-player support org. It is not a grant organization. Basic player assistance belongs in ADI. OOG should be the place you graduate into, where conversations operate at a higher level.

8. Off-Topic Channel

No consensus either way. agm114 noticed there isn’t one; swatacular expressed preference for keeping the discord “professional.” Left as-is for now unless someone makes a proposal.