Section 4 — Decommissioning for Non-Viability (a) If the commanding officer fails to remediate after warning, any EC member may move to decommission the vessel. (b) Decommissioning requires a motion, a second, and a majority vote of the EC. (c) Upon decommissioning, the crew is reassigned through the Fleet Placement Officer. The commanding officer’s rank and standing are not affected unless separate disciplinary action is taken. Section 5 — Removal of a Commanding Officer (a) The EC may remove a commanding officer for violations of the Constitution or its Bylaws, independent of ship viability. (b) Upon removal, the First Officer or ranking officer assumes temporary command under Bylaw 5, Section 2. (c) The EC may restrict the removed officer’s access to community channels during the proceedings. (d) Removal requires a motion, a second, and a majority vote of the EC.
I suggest swapping sections four and five to better reflect a logical progression of actions. Reading the document sequentially, it currently implies that decommissioning is the first step following a good-faith warning.
Decommissioning is quite a drastic action and has a massive knock-on effect for the whole fleet, not to mention the possible stress it may cause for the crew and the interrupting of an individual's progress towards command or any other goals they may have in the fleet.
I think here, stability should be the priority, and I think the EC's default should be that the current section five comes first, with decommissioning happening only in the most extreme circumstances.
I look at the Astraeus's decommissioning and from my perspective as a non-CC simmer at the time, I was left wondering why the first officer couldn't take over, or a new/experienced commanding officer couldn't be air dropped in like had been done with Denali.