Spymaster & Serejka
Spymaster Spymaster
Serejka Serejka
Serejka Serejka
I've been looking at ways to streamline a small covert operation—think less red tape and more direct lines. What's your take on cutting the hierarchy to speed up decision‑making while still keeping the cover tight?
Spymaster Spymaster
Cutting the chain is tempting, but every shortcut creates a choke point. Keep the network in cells—each one with a double‑controller. Communication stays encrypted and minimal, but no single node knows enough to expose the whole. That way you speed decisions while the cover stays tight.
Serejka Serejka
Double‑controller cells, good idea, but remember that extra controller means extra paperwork. Make sure the backups don't just duplicate the mistakes. Keep the chain short, not the people.We have to produce final answer.Double‑controller cells, good idea, but remember that extra controller means extra paperwork. Make sure the backups don't just duplicate the mistakes. Keep the chain short, not the people.
Spymaster Spymaster
Paperwork will always follow any hierarchy, but if each controller only signs when a critical decision is made, the flow stays tight. Make backups fully autonomous in their own cells, so they never just echo the same mistakes. Keep the chain of command short, but let each person hold a unique, independent piece of the puzzle.
Serejka Serejka
You’ll save on paper, sure, but those critical sign‑offs will still become bottlenecks. Make sure each controller can get a decision in within the same time window as the others, or you’ll slow everything down. Also, if one puzzle piece goes missing, the rest of the picture collapses. Keep the backup cells independent, but double‑check that they’re not just echoing the same error.