sundancekat

Going back how far?  I wouldn't mind certificates for some of my earlier clearances, before the certificates were started.  I don't know if we have signatures for everyone, though.  I have all the other certificates saved, so I'm good there.
 
 
 
 
 

Hi Katrina Andrews～

Sorry, if possible I want to change the pinyin of my own name.
 
ID-41539 Chen Jiubao Kaori change to ID-41539  Chen Kubo Kaori
 
Thank you for your great work!
Thank you!
 
 
ID-41539 Cleared [Juno Eclipse-Rogue Shadow] Imperator Status"[102.1]

Hi,
 
Here is the links to both of mine
 
Executor
 
 
 
Imperator
 
Thanks
 
Michael
 

Thank you for doing this! I have not received a certificate for my cleared Imperator Daala and would like one. Here is my thread:
 

Would love a certificate for my Imperator Hux if possible please.
 
Here's my cleared thread 
 
https://www.imperialofficer.com/forum/index.php?/topic/12775-id20525-cleared-general-hux-imperator-status-961

We can change whatever we want in the form.   That's how I made the generic certificate I posted on Facebook last night.  I pulled the spelling of her name from her Imperator application, since it didn't match what was in the Legion database (which is how she wants it spelled on the certificate instead...my bad). I can update it no problem.

To anyone who has achieved Executor or Imperator status and did NOT receive a certificate when their application was approved:
 
If you would like a certificate, please post the link to your application thread here.  I will then generate a certificate and post it in your application thread.
 
This also applies if anyone has a certificate with incorrect info on it (misspelled name, wrong award level, etc.).  If you would like a corrected certificate, please post your application thread link here and note what is incorrect on your certificate.
 
A caveat: the one limitation with the certificate template is I can only generate certificates with the names and signatures of the current administration (that's Bob as CO, Kalani as XO, and me as DO) on it.  So, if you were approved by a previous administration I will not be able to put their names and signatures on any certificate I generate for you.  Everything else about your application (TKID, name, award level, date) will be correct though.
 
Update!  Tristan has enabled the previous years' administration on the certificate form, so I will be able to generate certificates with the name of the DO who actually processed your application! (Assuming, of course, that your application is from last year.   If it's older than that or I can't find the name of your approver in the certificate template, I'll just generate a certificate with the current year's staff on it.)
 
And if you want a certificate but haven't yet applied...get to applying!!   

To anyone who has achieved Executor or Imperator status and did NOT receive a certificate when their application was approved:
 
If you would like a certificate, please post the link to your application thread here.  I will then generate a certificate and post it in your application thread.
 
This also applies if anyone has a certificate with incorrect info on it (misspelled name, wrong award level, etc.).  If you would like a corrected certificate, please post your application thread link here and note what is incorrect on your certificate.
 
A caveat: the one limitation with the certificate template is I can only generate certificates with the names and signatures of the current administration (that's Bob as CO, Kalani as XO, and me as DO) on it.  So, if you were approved by a previous administration I will not be able to put their names and signatures on any certificate I generate for you.  Everything else about your application (TKID, name, award level, date) will be correct though.
 
Update!  Tristan has enabled the previous years' administration on the certificate form, so I will be able to generate certificates with the name of the DO who actually processed your application! (Assuming, of course, that your application is from last year.   If it's older than that or I can't find the name of your approver in the certificate template, I'll just generate a certificate with the current year's staff on it.)
 
And if you want a certificate but haven't yet applied...get to applying!!   

To anyone who has achieved Executor or Imperator status and did NOT receive a certificate when their application was approved:
 
If you would like a certificate, please post the link to your application thread here.  I will then generate a certificate and post it in your application thread.
 
This also applies if anyone has a certificate with incorrect info on it (misspelled name, wrong award level, etc.).  If you would like a corrected certificate, please post your application thread link here and note what is incorrect on your certificate.
 
A caveat: the one limitation with the certificate template is I can only generate certificates with the names and signatures of the current administration (that's Bob as CO, Kalani as XO, and me as DO) on it.  So, if you were approved by a previous administration I will not be able to put their names and signatures on any certificate I generate for you.  Everything else about your application (TKID, name, award level, date) will be correct though.
 
Update!  Tristan has enabled the previous years' administration on the certificate form, so I will be able to generate certificates with the name of the DO who actually processed your application! (Assuming, of course, that your application is from last year.   If it's older than that or I can't find the name of your approver in the certificate template, I'll just generate a certificate with the current year's staff on it.)
 
And if you want a certificate but haven't yet applied...get to applying!!   

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Greetings from Paris and the French Garrison, where  I transferred to after a number of years spent in my hometown and Home Garrison, Tyranus, Virginia.
 
I thought I'd post any Paris/Star Wars related photos here, just to get them out there and share a bit of that SW Spirit...and a shout out to my new French Garrison Buddies!
 
Hope you are all keeping well,
 
IC-23462

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Awesome, thank you! I greatly appreciate the detailed feedback. I'll go through and work on that and eventually submit for the new CRL too.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the clarification! Can't wait to see these changes incorporated!

The spirit of L2 approval is supposed to be "a step up from basic approval", as opposed to L3 being the "you look like you stepped off the screen" level, so L2 is not meant to be nearly as picky.  As long as the applicant's rank bar (and code cylinders) met the L1 and L2 criteria I would not contradict what I just said above and I would approve the applicant with that particular configuration.  However, I would strongly recommend to the applicant that they change up their rank bar/code cylinder configuration to one that is more closely aligned with what we've seen on actual staff officers, particularly if they wish to apply for L3 (where a film canon rank bar is required), and point them to the rank bar guide for further information.
 
This brings up something that should be on the list of potential CRL changes (if it's not already): making sure L3 rank bar criteria are consistent across all applicable CRLs (so ANH Staff Officer, Staff Officer (Non-Saga), Line Officer, and the now retired Staff Officer).  Line Officer and Staff Officer already specify "Rank chosen must be referenced from film canon officers."  ANH Staff Officer does not specify this, but it's not necessary as the L1 requirements already specify the four possible rank bars for this uniform.  Staff Officer (Non-Saga) does not have any L3 requirement for the rank bar. 
 
I'd like to see all these CRLs (except ANH I guess ) with consistent L3 criteria, and update it to state "rank chosen must be from LFL official sources" as opposed to "film canon officers", since we have a lot more LFL official sources than the five Empire-era movies to pull from (e.g. The Mandalorian, half a bazillion comics, oh and let's not open up the can of worms that is Rebels rank configurations  ).  The rank bar guide I linked above also needs to be updated (and possibly referenced in the CRL itself if that's a thing we can do).  It was last updated in 2017 so contains info from R1 and Solo, but not from The Mandalorian or any newer comics.

The spirit of L2 approval is supposed to be "a step up from basic approval", as opposed to L3 being the "you look like you stepped off the screen" level, so L2 is not meant to be nearly as picky.  As long as the applicant's rank bar (and code cylinders) met the L1 and L2 criteria I would not contradict what I just said above and I would approve the applicant with that particular configuration.  However, I would strongly recommend to the applicant that they change up their rank bar/code cylinder configuration to one that is more closely aligned with what we've seen on actual staff officers, particularly if they wish to apply for L3 (where a film canon rank bar is required), and point them to the rank bar guide for further information.
 
This brings up something that should be on the list of potential CRL changes (if it's not already): making sure L3 rank bar criteria are consistent across all applicable CRLs (so ANH Staff Officer, Staff Officer (Non-Saga), Line Officer, and the now retired Staff Officer).  Line Officer and Staff Officer already specify "Rank chosen must be referenced from film canon officers."  ANH Staff Officer does not specify this, but it's not necessary as the L1 requirements already specify the four possible rank bars for this uniform.  Staff Officer (Non-Saga) does not have any L3 requirement for the rank bar. 
 
I'd like to see all these CRLs (except ANH I guess ) with consistent L3 criteria, and update it to state "rank chosen must be from LFL official sources" as opposed to "film canon officers", since we have a lot more LFL official sources than the five Empire-era movies to pull from (e.g. The Mandalorian, half a bazillion comics, oh and let's not open up the can of worms that is Rebels rank configurations  ).  The rank bar guide I linked above also needs to be updated (and possibly referenced in the CRL itself if that's a thing we can do).  It was last updated in 2017 so contains info from R1 and Solo, but not from The Mandalorian or any newer comics.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.

Hey everybody!  Bob mentioned this topic earlier today in his detachment newsletter, but the discussion for it has thus far been on the staff-only section of the forums, which isn't visible to the membership at large.  So, I would like to duplicate my comments here to solicit more feedback.
 
I would like to make three changes to the judging standards used by deployment officers to judge L2/L3 (Executor/Imperator) submissions.  I believe these changes will remove some subjectivity and ambiguity from the process.  These changes primarily affect Imperator (L3) submissions since the criteria for those is higher than they are for Executor (L2).
 
1. Judging done on CRL specifications only; no unwritten/subjective criteria
 
In the past, applicants have been judged on criteria that are not explicitly spelled out in the CRL, such as the presence of undyed vs. dyed edges on belts, edge grooves on belts, numbers of belt holes, jodhpur shape, tunic length, etc.  Since these are not spelled out in the CRL (or were not in the past; some may be now), there is no way for the applicant to prepare in advance unless they are "in the know", and there is no guarantee the unwritten criteria will be applied consistently across all applicants and different deployment officers.
 
Going forward, we will judge applicants solely based on what is explicitly stated in the CRL.  Some of the criteria I mentioned above have since been added into their respective CRLs (such as undyed belt edges on the ANH Staff Officer CRL) anyway.  If any deployment officers or other IOC staff believe we should be judging based on criteria that are not currently in the CRL, we will discuss them as CRL edits and get them added there (if the consensus goes that way) before they will be used to judge any L2/L3 submissions.
 
This does not mean that deployment officers are prevented from making recommendations or suggestions to applicants based on details that are present in reference material but aren't explicitly stated in the CRLs.  However, these recommendations will be in the form of suggestions only, and will not be used to deny L2/L3 applications.
 
 
2. Emulating an on-screen/canon officer is encouraged, but not required.
 
One of the current expectations for L3 submissions is that the applicant emulate a specific officer configuration (in other words a specific rank bar + code cylinder + belt box + glove + sidearm + any other accessory configuration).  Again, for "generic" CRLs, this isn't spelled out as a L3 requirement.  As long as the applicant's individual costume pieces meet CRL criteria and they are in a configuration that makes sense for that costume (for example: no OT rank bar with Rogue One belt boxes), we will not require that the applicant pick a specific officer configuration and emulate them.
 
We still encourage applicants to emulate a specific officer configuration since that's the easiest way to be really really accurate  and it's a way to show love to a favorite canon officer , but again, this is only if the applicant wants to.
 
 
3. One submission per CRL/version
 
In the past, multiple L3 submissions have been allowed on a single CRL, due to the requirement that applicants emulate an on-screen officer.  Some applicants were then able to rack up many L3 awards on a single costume by switching accessories (for example: submitting their line officer as Admiral Piett, then General Tagge, then Captain Needa). Instead, we propose to allow only one L2 and one L3 submission for an approved costume on a single discrete CRL.  
 
The exception to this will be for CRLs with version tabbing.  An applicant can submit one L2 and one L3 submission for each version of a CRL.  For example, Krennic has four version tabs, so someone could conceivably submit four L2 and four L3 applications if they have all the required options.