• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 July 2024 is YE 46.5 in the RP.

Approved Submission [Species] Alien Goo

Jimmy

Jimmy

Lover of Purple
Inactive Member
Submission Type: Hostile Alien Species
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=species:alienum_ire_vulgaris (New link)

OLD LINK: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=species:alien_goo No longer functional

Faction: None
FM Approved Yet?: N/A
Faction requires art?: N/A

For Reviewers:
Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? No.
Contains New art?: No.
Previously Submitted?: No

Notes:
Another one of my side projects which I've been working on over the last six months or so in my off hours. This one is designed as a typical growing threat which produces nightmare creatures for PC's to do battle with and try to contain and destroy. Good fun for any GM's interested in such.

Draws inspiration from the aliens in Natural Selection, the Blob from SS13, and I'm sure some other bits of pop culture in the back of my addled mind that refuse to rise to the surface. Designed to be able to be molded into whatever the GM needs for the occasion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
Jimmy, I am going to be very direct and upfront about this.

Looking back at the first version you submitted, it was in no shape to be approved. The article is NOT up-to-spec nor has it ever been. To answer your accusation as to why the article has not been approved; yes. It's what I have been trying to tell you from the get-go. "The way words have placed on the article" may not seem important to you, but it is a big deal regarding whether or not an article will be approved or not. The same goes for every single article, and not just this one. It goes without exception. Let me be as clear as possible that this is a Wikipedia entry. It needs to fit the standards of writing, organization and grammar for said wiki in order to be approved. That it does not is simply a hard fact that cannot be handwaved aside. One that I remind you that that I'm trying to help with, except I have only gotten a lot of frustrating and unreasonable resistance. If you are willing to discuss or suggest changes that can help improve the article and work with me, we can proceed. Otherwise, I will have to reject this article, something I do not want to do since the idea itself is a good one.

That aside, I'm sorry that this isn't as fun as you expected it to be.
 
User was warned for this post
Did you just use the words standards and wikipedia in the same paragraph? You poor poor deluded fool. I truly wish I could see the world through such halcyon eyes as you must.

No, this is not wikipedia. This is not an encyclopedia. The only standards here are the ones we make, and the ones we change for some but not others. Stop justifying yourself by standards that have no, and should never, have any sway here. If you had any idea how wikipedia worked, or the process of submission behind other encyclopedias, you would understand this.

The resistance you have witnessed has come from your own inept change requests and vague instructions. While the article was definitely not ready to be approved on first iteration, it has been changed much since then and your own change requests have done nothing to improve it in my honest opinion. If anything, you've had me splice together sentences from other sections into a Frankensteins monster of other new sections just to satisfy some obsessive desire to have information made irrelevant in new sections it does not belong.

Your dawdling and unsatisfactory editorial demands are the cause for this situation we now find ourselves in, and I will no longer have it. Unless some reconciliation can be bridged it becomes clear that either a new reviewer, unfettered by the conflict we now face, come in and adjudicate going forward or this article is deleted and forgotten and you can I can spend the next few years glaring at each other childishly over make-believe.

The choice is yours.
 
Jimmy, if I were someone else, I would have rejected this article just due to the fact that you stooped down to making personal attacks. I don't know why you seem to be blaming me for the article's problems, but the current situation is not my fault. I'm not the one that made it - I'm only the one that's reviewing it, and I'm telling you the facts as-is.

This submission just doesn't cut it; our standards are not met.

As I've said before, this article was never, at any point in time, acceptable. Because of that, changes were needed, and so, I asked for changes to be made hoping that they would be what was needed. Just because they failed does not mean the fault should lie with me, nor does that mean attempts to make changes and improve the article should be abandoned. I won't insist on fixing what isn't broken, but I will insist on fixing what is. Though I have stated the article's main problem is that it's information is scattered across its various components rather than being contained in the relevant sections, that is only one problem on top of several others.
  • The About section does not give a brief overview of the subject
  • The language used is not objective or 'professional' - it is bombastic at certain points
  • The appearance of many of the forms it can take on is completely lacking
  • The behavior of many of its forms is very rudimentary
I prefer tackling one problem at a time, but it does not look like you want to follow my suggestions as I go about doing that. If it is because you feel they're too vague, you need to say so; I do not, under any circumstances, want to micro-manage your own creation. If that is not the case, you can instead make your own attempts to correct whatever issues I point out if that better suits you.

If you are unwilling to make any improvement on the article however, I will have it be rejected.
 
Standards, huh. Do we call these standards? Do we, eh? (I totally needed that last word in there to actually fit all the links for any similar critter I could find)

Now that I think I've thoroughly destroyed your platform about standards, I'll move on. It was an ad homien, not a personal attack. E.g. You are wrong, therefore, you are dumb. The most simplest of all counter-arguments that you could not even formulate a basic rebuttal to. It's a nuance, but it means I'm attacking your opinion, not your character.

Now I get to inform you that I've asked @Exhack to review this page in your stead, since you clearly seem unable to grasp the spirit or the required mystery of the article. I will act on his reviews from here on. I believe you will agree that they're unbiased, having not known about this page before last night at all.

Good day.
 
Yes Jimmy, standards.

Just because previous articles in the past were of a low standard, doesn't mean we should let that continue on. With this article, it's not a matter of lacking spirit or mystery either that has made me decide not to approve it; it's about clearly defining the things that are actually important to Game Masters and Players. Reading the article, I can't even tell what color this alien is supposed to be. I can't tell if you intended it to be opaque or translucent. And if it's supposed to be translucent, the article doesn't even say if things like organelle's or even its lunch/victim can be seen floating around inside. Hell, it doesn't even say that it's color can be all sorts of shades. It doesn't even mention anything at all. Those are just some examples of how short this submission comes, and I can point out much, much more that's outright lacking. And that's all on top of the previous faults I have pointed out

The fact is, the article is currently lacking in overall quality.

Jimmy said:
You poor poor deluded fool.
Click to expand...

I believe that's something called an 'insult' Jimmy. I have been both very tolerant and patient up until now, but only because I expected better from you. That you would calm down and act your age. However, this has gone far enough. Unless you drop the passive-aggressive sniping and otherwise unacceptable behavior from this point on, I will reject this submission, @Exhack or not, as it won't even be a matter regarding the article itself anymore.

Rather, you yourself.
 
Color? You're asking for color from a creature that violently and wildly evolves into plethora of different and unique forms depending on situation and circumstance? It's questions like that that tell you just don't get the point of the article and why trying to work around your demands is so frustrating when the goalposts keep moving.

Also, it may be an insult, but I genuinely pity you for your view of the quality assurance of wikipedia and other encyclopedias, and wish I could return to a much younger less jaded me that still believed in such things as well. But I can't.

I believe it is my right as a player to request a new reviewer should I find the current one impossible to work with. A right I have exercised by requesting Exhack review the article in a constructive and helpful manner which you have not been able to do in the months, months, this thing has been cooking.

It has been your own folly, sir, that has driven me so. So you can take your petty revenge for a poster not meekly submitting to your ruling, or you can do the right thing and let it pass on to someone else who can help me make it a better article without stripping out its soul and making it impotent for any GM use like you have been doing.
 
The submission rules specifically mention that low-quality or OP submissions of the past are not usable as excuses to approve low-quality or overpowered submissions in review.

Let's keep a respectful tone.
 
I well understand the point of the article, but just because it's meant to be incredibly flexible so that any GM can pick it up and do with it as they please, does not excuse that there is no baseline example of what it's like. The article does not even state that "it is most often this color or that color" or even "it can be any color" for an example. Instead, it doesn't say anything at all. I don't consider that as making a highly malleable species; I consider that as lacking. The thing is, the goalposts never shifted; there's a whole laundry list of things I wanted to air out about this article, but refrained from doing so because I'm not fond of taking big dumps on people who submit things either. However, because of the direction of how things had went, I started to reveal more and more of what I found was lacking with the article and it's a lot.

You're free to have Exhack review the article instead, but I wanted you to know just why I did not approve this article, and why I did not find it acceptable.
 
After all the blood shed on this particular hill, it'd be a shame not to reach the summit. I'm just not particularly keen to die on it either. Sure, review it when you have the time. It's been here long enough, it'll keep a while longer while it goes through the queue.
 
This review is for:
Alien Goo

The submitted article is/has …

[x] A very high level of overall quality
[x] A general topic sentence under the title header
[/] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)
[x] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[x] In the proper format/template
[x] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[x] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[x] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[x] No red and/or broken links
[x] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[x] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not …

[x] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[x] Obtusely redundant
[x] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[x] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[x] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[x] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[x] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[x] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[x] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[/] Lacking detail
[-] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has …

[-] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[-] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[-] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[-] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.

Status: This submission is in progress.

1. I have a hard time believing that there's not been a government team, from any of the known galactic states, that's attempted to track down exactly where this stuff comes from, or at least how it got there. I understand such a thing would ruin the mystique, but it bothers me that something so incredibly powerful has not at least got more information than base theories. Even the Neko OS has more than this.

2. We see that fire takes out all of the Types, but lasers don't and neither does scalar. Is that a matter of energy? What about xasers/microwaves, plasma and aether? Neutron weapons? How do bullets kill goo beings?

3. Can you spell out what Types are actual slime and what are more solid organisms?

4. Is there any evidence that sensors can detect the masses?
 
Been sitting on this due to other business and putting some thought into my answers.

1. It's not my place to create entire government departments in other factions or form massive international treaties to create a Galactic Health Organization. If you look at some of the efforts undertaken by the real-life World Health Organization, you'll see what incredible amount of effort, political cooperation, and expedience are required to combat dangerous diseases.

Were such measures and government bodies available then I could perhaps ask them about such measures. Until then SARP remains rather backwards on the international anti-viral effort.

2. Fire provides sustained heat right through the structure of the Goo. Things like lasers would create a charred outer-layer that would protect the interior. Xasers would slow, but not eliminate the Goo due to its DNA regenerative properties. Microwaves would cook the Goo but probably not be cost-effective for the amount of effort required to kill a small area. Scalar would probably be effective against the Goo at first, but it could probably adapt if it can tap into a large enough powersource and use that to provide a sort of low-level shield or something. Honestly, GM-fait on most of that, but I'm a traditionalist, so fire.

As for the Goo creatures, they have actual vertibrae and organs, so microwaves and xasers and bullets are more effective against them. The largest creatures would resemble more Claymation creations than straight up Goo.

3. Only the first type is actual slime, the rest are creatures spawned of the Goo.

4. Dunno. Heat sensors would probably pick it up easily, IR and UV might show it too. Still pondering psychic senses, maybe a low-level sort of glow on the walls and floor if I had to visualize it, certainly nothing like a sentient creatures brain, would be easier to detect if you knew what to look for. LADAR would only detect its shape, not sure how effective RADAR would be either.
 
I think this answers most of my questions, but we talked in IRC about other energies and how they might damage a single "unit." I can see that fire works best for larger infestations, however.

Can you address those other energies on single units, please? After which, I'll call it approved.
 
Funnily enough, ended up working on this the night before you asked. Changed most of what I remember, let me know if there's anything else you wish to change.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top