Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities of Faction Managers.

Hey Star Army,

Behind every active faction there's usually a person or small group of people who maintain its articles and basically manage its day-to-day business. This faction manager is the central point of contact for GMs who want to know if their plot ideas make sense in the context of that faction.

Lately due to a personal disagreement much of the site leadership has been involved in a dialogue about what rights a faction manager does or doesn't have, and we've concluded that it's not exactly clear at this point.

For reference, here are the currently listed responsibilities of a faction manager:

Responsibilities
Responsibilities of the Faction Manager include:

• Overseeing consistency and continuity within his designated faction
• Approving factional characters
• Final authority controlling NPCs of the faction
• Recruiting and approving factional plot Game Masters.
• Ensuring factional compliance with the Military Buildup Limitations
• Roleplaying the leadership and other NPCs of his faction as necessary
• Designating an assistant and/or backup FM who can run his faction should the FM become indisposed

Faction Managers do not necessarily have the ability to approve articles (that falls to staff of New Technologies and Setting Elements). However, all articles must be approved by the appropriate faction manager before the NTSE staff can approve them.
​

What's not clear is what the "powers" of a faction manager really are, and that's what we hope to clarify in this thread. @Kyle has helpfully made a proposal for FM rights. It's my feeling since some of these will affect everyone, we need transparency and input from all users before we move forward.

In particular, I'm concerned with a balance. I don't want to see FMs as lords up in the castle looking down on player peasants. Building a faction is hard work and those creations should be respected, but making a collection of wiki articles doesn't necessarily qualify someone as a leader or site staff member. Anytime we give site members power over other site members, that needs scrutiny and careful consideration. Regular players should be empowered too, but obviously not to the point they can wreck a whole faction on their own.

So I'm asking your opinions:

1. Should faction managers have the ability to keep their faction's tech or species from being used out of the faction? Even when it goes against the actual roleplay canon?
   
2. Should faction managers have the right to remove underperforming game masters from their faction? Or is that the staff/admin's job?
   
3. Should faction managers be able to make RP threads non-canon or retcon if they feel their faction wasn't played right? If so, how would we protect against abuse of this right?
4. Can FMs "faction ban" a player? If so, for what reasons?
   
5. Should GMs need to ask an FM before they use their faction's, or another faction's assets?
6. Is it a problem if an FM is also a GM?

NOTE: This is an important discussion that will affect the site's future, so any non-constructive posts or posters may be removed from the thread.

 

[OsakanOne]

I think faithful representation and security of purity of vision is not something you can always expect of other games masters and faction managers. Compare 2001 to 2010 as proof: sometimes the substance of a thing is its styling and nowhere is this more true than the written narrative.

 

[Syaoran]

There's so much I could say about what I know about what's going on, but for now I wont. I will say however bringing this to public is rather disadvantageous to the FMs, considering the more power FMs have the less power players have, and FMs are by far outnumbered by players. Now as for those 6 questions first.

1. This is an absolute yes. The only reason it'd be 'against canon' in the first place is if someone did something that went against the FM's wishes in the first place. If the FM wants their faction to be isolated then let them do that. It's almost certain that no one will keep their faction isolated forever. But what's the point of designing foreign policy for your own faction if a player doesn't have to follow it? Players know what they're getting into when they join the faction and if they don't well they didn't do enough research.
2. Yes not just under performing ones either, ones that constantly do things against faction standards too. They shouldn't be able to remove their GM power, but they should be able to disallow them from GMing for the faction.
3. If only their faction is involved yes, without a doubt. If it involves other factions then a petition should be made, but unless there is something major that happened that would really effect the site if made noncnaon or retconned honestly it should be allowed to get rid of it.
   
4. Yes, and for several different reasons. But even if there are serious personal disputes it should be allowed, because honestly, the FM and Player are going to see each other -a lot- as long as the player is in the faction. Granted this should be no means be the first solution, it's a last resort.
5. Yes plain and simple. Even if this is a community, only one who fully knows the faction is the FM, how else will you know if what you're doing is actually something the faction would do? (Now this does not mean someone should have to ask to say use a group of pirates that just happen to be of a race from said faction(as long as the faction isn't isolationist).)
6. No it is not a problem, theoretically the FM should be the best GM for their faction. If they can't be allowed to GM for their faction then who can be expected to?

I'm -very- pro FMs having pretty strong rights. Yeah they shouldn't disrespect the player, but if we didn't have these FMs and their contributions to the site, SARP wouldn't be even half of what it is. Running a faction is no joke, and it only gets harder when they have to work their butts off coming up with ways to protect the integrity of the faction as well because the site doesn't respect them enough.

I will post on Kyle's stuff when I get back cause I have 12 minutes before I leave for a few hours.

 

[DocTomoe]

Lorath Matriarchy here. I've been at this a long time, so here goes.

1: I'm a firm believer in role play canon, but I'm also a firm believer in keeping a faction cohesive. After I got, erm, shafted by someone in the past which resulted in the reaming of 1/3rd of my faction, I think a FM should have absolute authority over what is handled, who comes, and who goes.

2: I've dealt with this before, and, the FM needs the authority for certain. Only a faction manager knows what is good for their faction, when a GM goes against that, they'll know, not someone else not even involved.

3: Its simple, allow a FM to do it, but a FM is also expected to interact with setting management and administration just like anyone else. Wes, you and I have a long history of communicating on topics like this, and we set a pretty functional model from what I recall.

4: YES, YES PLEASE. For reasons including and not limited to; the person being banned behaving like an asshole, intentional OOC sabotage of a faction, abusing other players within a faction, intentionally stirring up problems within the OOC contributing player-base of a faction, and so on. In my time, I've seen this kind of thing often enough, and I've seen entire trends of dysfunction settled as soon as one person is banned from a faction.

5: YES, GEEZE, THIS IS THE GOLD STANDARD WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS. WHY IS THIS A QUESTION?

6: Wes, you're an admin, a FM, a GM, all rolled up into one. It has not been a problem for the last decade, I don't see why it should be a problem now. Leave it alone.

Also, Kyle's FM rights are beautiful.

 

[Semjax]

So I'm asking your opinions:

1. Should faction managers have the ability to keep their faction's tech or species from being used out of the faction? Even when it goes against the actual roleplay canon?
   
2. Should faction managers have the right to remove underperforming game masters from their faction? Or is that the staff/admin's job?
   
3. Should faction managers be able to make RP threads non-canon or retcon if they feel their faction wasn't played right? If so, how would we protect against abuse of this right?
4. Can FMs "faction ban" a player? If so, for what reasons?
   
5. Should GMs need to ask an FM before they use their faction's, or another faction's assets?
6. Is it a problem if an FM is also a GM?

Elysians and Neshaten Co-FM, as one of the people who started this I figure its only right to give my opinion as well:

1. Yeah, I think even if it goes against the actual roleplay canon that people should have to get permission from the FM, unless the creator intends for it to be used outside of a singular faction (Such as public selling and such)
2. While I haven't personally dealt with this like say, Doc, I do believe that underperforming game masters harm the applicability of future applicants to the species and faction. If someone sees a Faction suffering because of a GM, then someone will be less likely to join. There for it should be the faction leaders right to remove anyone who is harming the faction as a whole, or someone they feel is harming their vision at the very least.
3. I wholely believe that if a thread is harming against a faction that the FM should have a right to declare it non-canon or at the very least retcon the entire thread. Taking to point 2, if bad threads are seen it will hurt the applicability of the faction as a whole. Naturally, I think I like doc's way of keeping abuse from happening (Though why someone would abuse it is beyond me). It should be done between not only the FM, but also the Staff MAnagement and Administration. I do however feel like I should also mention that unless there is a strong defense, the FM's right should be observed. E.g: I don't think if an FM thought something was bad for his faction in a thread, that one of the Admins should have the right to immediately deny him without a reason other then 'Players rights'.
   
4. Yes. Very much yes. Recently, there have been situations where the players rights trample over the FM's right as a -person-, not just an FM. I believe if players are being dicks towards the FM or other playuers, or going out of their way to harm the faction or have people ganging up on the FM (As has happened in the past, not only with an FM, but a GM as well (Myself)) that the FM should have every right to ban the person from the faction. An FM should be able to cover their own factions life without being hindered by rules that protect someone from anything and everything that they do... Which leads to situations where they can harass people without worry of repercussion from anyone.
5. I believe this is a large hell yes, the idea that someone can use something you created for a specific purpose for whatever they please without actually asking the FM, let alone the creators, permission to do so is extremely scary. It makes me as both a player, GM, FM, and possible future creator of objects for the Neshaten and Elysian factions uneasy, and less likely to actually contribute the technology and to the species as a whole. (also see 1)
   
6. No, there is no issue with this. I don't even really understand why this question was asked.

And along with doc, I agree that Kyles stuff is awesome.

 

[Eistheid]

I am also in favor of FM rights. The FM has to not only create the content to make a faction function in the setting, but they also have to maintain it and continue to keep the faction alive so that it does not stagnate. That takes a lot of effort and the idea of denying an FM the ability to care for something that they have probably put weeks of effort into doesn't sit right in my mind.

1: As has been said canon should be maintained, if it does not make sense for technology or species to end up outside of a faction IC, then it should not happen. Unless a GM or player can sell the reasoning for the acquisition of a piece of technology, or a member of a species in a way that is acceptable to the FM it shouldn't happen. Exceptions to general rules regarding tech or species may occur as a result of a plot, however the FM should be involved in such a plot and well aware of the possibility having given their OK before any such instance should be written.

2: I was initially thinking that this might be a bit of a difficult issue however after considering my answer I have realized it is very simple. If the GM and FM are in communication as they should be there should not be any overt problems in the function of a GM. The only way this could be an issue is if a GM disregards the FM and goes on their way with a plot idea which I honestly don't think is good form. If an event is to have an impact on the setting, all parties involved should be notified, be they FMs, or other GMs that may be affected. So to put it simply, yes an FM should be allowed to remove a GM if they are having a negative impact on their faction.

3: When it comes to this question the issue of whether or not the plot was intentionally run outside of the norms of the faction. GMs should endeavour to make clear that they aren't going to run a ship to the usual standards of the faction, and the IC events should reflect this. A group that isn't working in a way typical of a faction should not be well received by others who are apart of that faction IC. In the event that the GM has not communicated the intent to play things differently and proceeds to write a section, or multiple sections of the faction in a way that does not mesh with established canon, then I would agree that the FM should be able to declare it non-canon on the grounds that it would never have been possible IC without repercussions that would have prematurely ended the course of the plot.

4: I have to agree with Doc, having seen some of older OOC threads, and heard stories of events both OOC and IC that it doesn't make sense for a player who is notably malicious toward a faction to be allowed to play within it. No one wants to have their hard work damaged, as such we shouldn't allow players to have the opportunity to cause damage to an FM's hard work.

5: I would consider this common courtesy to be honest, it should be made clear why a GM (or theoretically a player) wants to use an asset. It does not make sense in my opinion for someone to use an aspect of a faction, be it a world, fleet, or organization without the permission of an FM. While I understand that this could be viewed as restrictive for the purposes of keeping a plot flowing, GMs should have the foresight to ask ahead of time when an idea occurs to them to ensure that they don't cause any problems when an FM learns of something that was done with part of their faction. Keeping communication open in such a way would also help prevent the actions of one GM from negatively impacting the plot of another, after all no one wants to have a setting element that they were excited to use bombed, for example.

6: I see no issue with an FM being a GM, and in fact I'm personally of the opinion that FMs should run a plot if able. It would be a resource to both players and GMs to have a plot running that they can reference to get an idea of how the faction is intended to be played. It would be the best way for FMs to draw in GMs as well, since players in a faction related plot are more likely to want to run plots of their own eventually, something I would assume is more likely to produce activity and results than simply hoping someone will approach with an offer to run a plot for a faction.

I can't find any issues among Kyle's proposed rights. The only point I would like to make in relation to them is that a player or GM should be allowed to attempt to explain or justify a choice they have made before any action is taken. While something might go against the global rules and intentions of a faction, it may make sense on an individual level. Players and GMs should have the opportunity to explain their reasoning when choosing to do something outside of the accepted norm.

 

[Fred]

Should faction managers have the ability to keep their faction's tech or species from being used out of the faction? Even when it goes against the actual roleplay canon?

I think, if an objection needs to be raised, that they ought to be able to consult the Admns and make their concerns known. I wouldn't give them automatic veto rights, though.

Should faction managers have the right to remove underperforming game masters from their faction? Or is that the staff/admin's job?

Again, I think an opinion raised ought to be taken seriously from an FM, but otherwise, sanctions are the domain of Admins/staffers.

Should faction managers be able to make RP threads non-canon or retcon if they feel their faction wasn't played right? If so, how would we protect against abuse of this right?

I think FMs should restrain their input to being constructively guiding. If something is bad enough to that something must be invalidated or retcon-ed, that's something to sort out with the Game Masters involved. If no resolution can be found, then going to staff/admins for mediation seems sensible enough.

Can FMs "faction ban" a player? If so, for what reasons?

Not per say. But I'd take their opinion seriously. Then, afterwards, any Game Master operating along with the Faction Manager can follow up on that if he finds the arguments for "not picking up the member" compelling enough. Bans are the province of Staff/Admins.

Should GMs need to ask an FM before they use their faction's, or another faction's assets?

I believe Faction Managers are available as guides and ressources for Game Master. I think they can raise concerns about misrepresentation. I think that when a consensus is reached in misrepresentation by multiple parties, then it's clear something is awry. Then the community can work to resolve those differences. Respect and staying constructive is part of the game.

Is it a problem if an FM is also a GM?

I don't think so.
_________________

What I want to avoid is stimying Game Master creativity in favor of FM control, and I'm particularily keen on that because a faction should not become a player character in a larger scale.

I believe the bulk of an FM's actual power is in his credibility and good track record portraying a setting element. Then, once nominated FM, the person becomes a resource for others to go to for advice, for promoting some shared vision and whatnot. There's is broader portrayal of a faction, but it should be administrative rather than possessive. Once a setting element is in the setting, all members and game masters should be able to harness them.

 

[Eistheid]

Since the like button doesn't properly convey my support I'm going to elaborate a little on it here.

Fred adds some perspective that I either didn't consider, or failed to articulate properly. I am of the opinion that while FMs should have the rights to safeguard their faction that they shouldn't have a draconian grip on what does or does not happen. To elaborate, as much as an FM should be able to restrict events that are not in line with the intent and spirit of their faction, it needs to be taken into mind that we as a community need conflict IC in order to have content to write about. The feeling that FMs are likely to shoot down proposed conflicts is something that is brought up on a somewhat regular basis in the community, with GMs sometimes feeling like they don't have the freedom to create scenarios that would be engaging for players due to over protective tendencies among FMs.

To put it plainly, it is much more entertaining for a group of players to have to work hard to prevent an enemy from seizing control of a planet or to prevent the destruction of a space station, than it is to be limited to routine responses against small typical foes such as pirates. Players and GMs thrive on high stakes events, they are the sort of thing that gets talked about and builds a sense of awe in a community. I would assume that most players like the idea of an epic tale that they get to write and be apart of, shaping the progression of history within the setting rather than experiencing routine military action. As a community we are here to write engaging and enjoyable stories, we need to have the freedom to do that.

For this to work however I must stress that I am firmly of the belief that there needs to be open communication between FMs and GMs. Taking the time to make sure that GMs and FMs are on the same page would eliminate the need for the FM to exercise an active application of their rights. A GM needs there to be conflict or consequences IC in order to run an engaging plot. At the same time an FM needs to know what the outcome of the GMs plot could potentially be so that they don't suffer the stress of worrying that something horrible is going to happen to their faction. Be open with each other, and communicate.

 

[Semjax]

There is a difference, however, between doing something to cause conflict and doing something that directly harms the Faction. From what I've heard there have been several instances that a GM has done something that an FM never agreed to, but were forced to go with. An example that comes to mind is what happened to the Lor with the moon drop. That was something a GM did that the FM was forced to go with because... reasons.

I believe wholeheartedly that the FM should have the right to stop a GM from doing something like that. Story or not, the FM should have more control then that.

 

[Fred]

Erk. I really wish this could have stayed a thread where people just air their views, and that's it. Otherwise, we'll venture into ground rife with people validating their opinions by putting that of others down.

Semjax, the perpetrator of the moondrop is me. The head manager of the Lorath was not very sporting at the time, which engendered difficulties that needn't have happened. Also, 50 Sakura gunships were busy shooting down the offending moon, which should have nicely kept Lor mostly unscathed - except that the Lorath FM decided to martyr themselves and made the planet be devastated even though they whined about it being the fault of other people afterwards.

The Lorath are one of two horror stories in memory for species created, but they're a ten year old one. One whom largely would've been avoided had they not be treated as some giant player character. It was largely a rough first contact because the people managing both factions went between rough and drastic actions with little concern for the actual OoC objectives of the first contact (getting the Lorath to be a more widespread player character race which would be a possible crew member choice on Star Army of Yamatai vessels).

In the meantime, Melisson laughs at you all for being easy to manipulate.

 

[OsakanOne]

What's wrong with wanting consequences? There's a big shortage of them in the sarp: lots of children not wanting to break their toys or look any less good than they already do.

 

[Wes]

From what I've heard there have been several instances that a GM has done something that an FM never agreed to, but were forced to go with.

On the flip side, there was a point where GM Fred was really angry because, while in his story he had planned for the Miharu's return to be a joyful celebration, and instead of the FM, me, butted in and immediately started the Battle of Yamatai based on the in-character circumstances it created. In that case, the faction manager overruled the GM's plans.

Perhaps a better example is the Yamataians being used as NPCs in the NSS Sledge Mama plot. These were not originally approved to be there and I still don't have any control over how Yamatai's troops and equipment are currently being played. I still have no idea why Nepleslians and Yamataians are even fighting in that plot.

 

[OsakanOne]

Friendly fire or no gum/smokes probably. A lot about yamatai is some body else's ideal not theirs.

 

[Semjax]

What's wrong with wanting consequences? There's a big shortage of them in the sarp: lots of children not wanting to break their toys or look any less good than they already do.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be consequences, I am saying there should be a point when the FM can say 'No, uh, this isn't happening'.

Erk. I really wish this could have stayed a thread where people just air their views, and that's it. Otherwise, we'll venture into ground rife with people validating their opinions by putting that of others down.

Personally, I'm in agreement with you, I do think there needs to be a distinct place a GM can go before the FM says no. I just think that when the GM goes to a place the FM absolutely doesn't want, they shouldn't be able to just say: 'I don't like this' and have no absolute control over the situations. I'm not putting you down, I'm trying to draw a line of when a GM can do things, and when an FM has the right to stop it.

 

[Syaoran]

I think there's something vital that's not really being considered here. Just because say an FM has the right to veto the existence of plot does not mean that power will ever be used persay. We need to consider the kind of people we have as FMs. If you're worried about FMs abusing their power then really what should be changed is the person in FM if they're the kind to abuse power. And yes, GM's are very strongly important to SARP equally in fact to the FMs. But, GMs aren't the ones that have to do the cross faction negotiations, or working out the boundary lines, or even paying for the damages the factions cost. That's the FMs. So unless GMs want to take up that burden, the FMs should have the ability to overrule them if things get bad. Would anyone want to have to clean up the mess of others but have zero ability to stop them form making the mess if they can for see it? Yeah in the real world sometimes you have to do it. But no one wants to, and here we are with a chance to make the rules something people would want, so why exactly would we go for something that will make things difficult for one side?

And the FM having the power to overrule things that only involve their faction wouldn't really hurt anyone, because if a GM and FM have clashing ideas for the faction in the first place, why would the GM be a GM there anyway? Th FMs do a pretty good job of making the behavior of their factions pretty clear, and honestly it's their intellectual property, they should have the right to protect it.

 

[Fred]

Black-and-white positions are shortsighted, inflexible, and bear little ties with how things have actually gone on. Make the rules too stringent and they'll get broken anyways.

Relevant rules must be applied. Circumstances are not as idealized as some others might wish them to be. Most of the mishaps brought about by these situation are typically unique and should be treated case-by-case.

Hence my earlier statement that the FM's power ought to be nominating problem issues that ought to be resolved by consensus; if he's come to an irreconciable difference of opinion with a Game Master. It's happened. It will happen again.

 

[Syaoran]

While the FM should have course talk it out with the GM before doing anything and try to get a compromise in order. But what if it's a purely faction related issue? Who do they go to? The Admins? What if the admins know hardly anything about what's going on or the faction? Then no matter what the result one side can always say "They didn't even know what was going on and I was right." And that just causes issues down the road. There needs to be someone who can have a final say in a situation who is well informed about faction related maters. Why would the Admins be more qualified to decide if something was damaging a faction than the faction manager?

 

[Fred]

The admin (and the staff) are more likely to be neutral third parties whom can look at the stance of Faction Manager and Game Master. Hopefully a compromise can be reached. If not, they can weigh in favor of what would the most gainfully benefit the community.

Faction Managers have proven to be capable of being overzealously protective of a faction to the point of inflexibility, especially if they are its creator. But from the point that others become involved, it is no longer their interpretation alone. Game Masters by themselves can be the instigators that allow the setting (and the factions therein) to evolve and grow - either by good things or bad things happening to said faction.

It's not just the faction that needs to be protected. The Game Master investing in the faction (and under him the people he/she catters to) needs to be protected as well. Regardless of if the faction manager is also the faction's creator or not. Again, a faction shouldn't be a person outlet into playing a player character equivalent in a grander scale.

Hence, yes, I think a third-party needs to be involved if there's an irreconciliable difference of opinion.

 

[Syaoran]

Game Masters can not make the setting grow on their own, they need players. Should players be able to decide they don't like the story a Game Master is telling and change it? No, they have their bounds as players they need to stay within. No one is saying the GMs don't need protection. But protection and, writing however one feels even if it conflicts with the faction you signed up for are two separate things. A GM should be allowed to appeal a retconning yeah. But what it comes down to is who controls the faction? It's not the GMs. The GMs are volunteers to help the FM expand their tool, they are not owners or bosses of the faction.

No one is saying a faction should be a 'giant scale player' but if a GM can do whatever they want and only have to answer to the Admins, why did the FM create a -faction- in the first place? Why not just a race and maybe a planet? Why did they go through the effort of creating a social structure, technology, law codes? Just for someone with a good plot idea to overrule them? I respect the work of the GMs and we desperately need it. And of course an FM shouldn't be able to throw out retcons willy nilly, but they should have strong say in this stuff.

TL;DR - They're called Faction Managers for a reason. If they don't have the authority to -manage- things then why are they even there?

(Also again I do not believe FMs should be able to retcon things that involve multiple factions or something massively significant to the setting, only things that exclusively involve their faction and are not events that have already made large impact on the setting, otherwise it goes to the settingManager)

 

[Fred]

Syaoran, your argument is all over the place. You make a statement then mitigate it in the next paragraph. You disagree, then agree, then phrase differently things I've said before.

Suffice to say, I'm not compelled to have the last word with you. I don't have nearly that much time ...and, frankly, I wanted to avoid arguing like that, because I've an opinion, I've reasons to have that opinion, and I'm not interested in seeing others put it down. Now that I've made my opinion known, Wes can do what he wants with it.