What Do Star Army's Rules Need?

[Wes]

Due to feedback and learning from experience I am working on an updated set of site rules that is supposed to be more clear and easy to understand. I am always listening to what the community wants so I figure I'd ask you all what you'd like to see in the new rules. So if you could write the site's rules what is something you'd include?

 

[Arbitrated]

Two things that come to mind from our experiences, in SARP and elsewhere:

There should be a part of the rules that encourages people to block each other if they cannot maintain civil conduct with each other over the long term. A few people blocking each other and, therefore, not causing drama or fighting due to having blocked each other, is surprisingly effective at keeping the community's stress lower.

Additionally, I think we should reinstate to requirement for new members to have some form of roleplay within the site before they can start developing "independent" things on the wiki (full species, factions, technologies, etc.).

With the way that forums tend to be fairly flexible in terms of not-fully-approved-yet characters, technologies, and other content, we can still encourage new players to focus on roleplaying before they start making a lot of wiki pages and trying to force in stuff that might not fit SARP very well. Once the new players have been doing at least a LITTLE BIT of roleplaying (let's say 1 month), they start having much more relevant knowledge on the "feel" of SARP and can therefore make their contributions to the setting feel more appropriate and significant!

Without at least some "live context" for the roleplay itself in SARP, new member contributions sometimes end up being disruptive or disconnected from the setting.

EDIT: I think that the time limit for new players should still be short-ish, previously it was three months I believe. One month seems like a more reasonable amount of time for new players to learn about the setting, in my opinion.

 

[Charmaylarg Dufrain]

I think for the rules, and I know I'm getting old bringing it up but this *is* the topic for it kind of. Is that we need to look at the process to create and what it takes to create in this setting and the rules that hamper them. We keep adding on to that while never balancing it by cutting away the fat of a time-consuming process.
Am mobile posting so incoherent and poorly formatted post incoming!

Without going on a rant as I've typed up about 50 times there are a lot of old rules and systems that no longer should apply and we should look at cutting off the fat a bit to balance out all the new ones and processes so the submission rules and process:

Spoiler

Technology should advance and trickle down without ooc blocking or justification to why it cant be.
We shouldn't be needing to do mandatory half-hearted RP when that time should be used to do RP we really care about. Some people can and are fine, don't force others.
We shouldn't be situational in enforcing an outdated system for PvP that doesn't happen anymore and revise it and all the outdated parts.
Buildup limits and weapon scores shouldn't matter as much as they do anymore.
There shouldn't be rules for thee and not for me and should be equal across the board regardless of faction or submitter.
We should be making it easier for new people to create and submit and should re-visit the rules and process for doing so.
We should be reinforcing the rules about constructive comments on submissions instead of letting them get locked or derailed because of loud people.
We need to cut down the templates chaff and fluff, and re-work them so you arent telling the same information in three consecutive headers or pointless article filler.
We need to re-visit the entire submission process to streamline it for both the submitter and reviewer.

We should be encouraging setting-creators to create things in a faction without 10-pages of arguments derailing it and need to revise the rules to protect topics instead of them always getting locked.

We need to get rid of the cliques and the stonewalling from micro-sub-vice-managers controlling one tiny aspect of something and beating people over the head with it.
We need to set rules about ooc gatekeeping in regards to who owns what on a map even if its empty space or too close to the ugly massive color borders.
We need to make rules about not using OOC to gatekeep IC like factional niche or being the manager of an organization that isn't a corp or clan within a faction.
We need to revise rules towards encouraging sub-factions again and if people want to make new factions have them temporarily be a sub-faction of an existing faction.
We need to put down on the wiki all those things that are rules and used to gatekeep but arent actually on the wiki and codify them or shut up about them.
We need to re-visit what counts as *advanced technology* in the rules after all these years.
We need to re-visit every little setting rule like we did the speed standards and justify if they need to be enforced anymore and why instead of lording 10+ year old systems and rules.

Granted only some of those things are actual rules. But my point should be well know by now without someone coming in and telling me someone wanting to use the color blue or purple outside of yamatai is ruining the setting and we should trim down the rules to make it easier for people to create and submit while encouraging them and weeding out disruptive or toxic elements to submitting and creating for the setting. The entire purpose of SARP right not should be encouraging getting people writing as much as possible and making the process of writing and creating that much easier for new players and existing ones that it doesn't take up hardly any of their free time to do so especially right now in a time where people have very little free time post-covid.

For the rest of the rules tho? TOS is all gibberish to me and player rights and protections arent bad tho could use some touching up to not be avoided or mishandled.

 

[demibear]

I think that the time limit for new players should still be short-ish, previously it was three months I believe. One month seems like a more reasonable amount of time for new players to learn about the setting, in my opinion.

That would highly depend on how interactive the new player is. If they are engaged in a plot, asking questions on how SARP functions, and is clearly showing they have a good grasp of where everything fits; 1 month definitely makes sense to me.

 

[Charmaylarg Dufrain]

I've always tried to encourage new players who want to come here and want to immediately make their things to RP in a plot first. Learn the setting, the rules, and get to know and network with other players. Instead you are just immediately sliding in, making your own stuff, never RPing with anyone else, and then dropping off when nobody shows interest and doesn't join you or you end up so out of touch you try to do something like, oh, I dunno, try to flex on a yamatai without the IC context of knowing better or trying to make humans-II but with one extra finger and wasting your time and effort when you get told NO because you didn't coordinate or nobody told you about a vague rule out in the depths of the wiki.

The time for that I cant decide on. One month is at most 4-posts in some plots and isn't a lot. One year is a lot of time for anyone and is too long.

Hence bringing back sub-factions and the like.

It doesn't mean you are absorbed into yamatai. But more you have FMs and GMs on hand related to you and your interests to mentor and look over your shoulder and at least a related source of possible players you are RPing with to garner interest with and network with instead of expecting the world to see what you are doing like a beacon in the dark and flock towards you.

 

[Rizzo]

I am VERY passionate about bringing PvP support to SARP. Specifically, there is one Player Right that I feel needs slight revision, Rule 7.
“I have the right to refuse any roleplay that makes me uncomfortable, especially sexual or strongly violent role-play, without negative consequences on my character or myself.”

Ducking out of ERP or sexually charged RP is totally understandable. This is however Star Army, not Salvation Army. If a player puts their PC in a situation where violence is obviously an inevitability or has a jousting of words with a dangerous PC that turns violent they should not be able to just leave!

I suggest a clarification that this cannot be used Willy-nilly. If you commit your PC to something it’s committed unless a real reason presents

 

[raz]

We should have a rule that saying “gatekeep” leads to an immediate 3-day suspension. No one gets gatekept here, which is creative discrimination based on identity, though bad ideas are routinely filtered.

More seriously, I think the site’s rules are generally fine. These threads pop up every few years because people forget Code of Conduct rule 1 and its subsections. “We expect and require respectful behavior.” Just DM that to people who aren’t doing their best as a reminder.

 

[Arbitrated]

In terms of the time limitation on new players, personally I think that even a bare minimum of four roleplay posts (as per Char's example) is still a far better start to understanding the setting and community than simply "jumping right on in". And if the player ends up spending time roleplaying in faster-paced areas like the Resurgence or Welcome to the Kikyo Sector, or even writes some JPs, they'll certainly fit in a lot better.

Chances are, if a player is really interested in actually roleplaying, the one month limitation shouldn't hold them back too much. A recent member of the community (goes by Sosina on the discord) has been doing pretty good here already!

Char brings up a good point about the existence of subfactions, or subfaction-like entities, for new content. Especially if the experienced FMs are willing and able to be mentors for new players looking to add to SARP as a setting, that idea is worth merit.

As a suggestion, perhaps there should be more encouragement on bolth an In Character and Out Of Character level to interact with "Independent" factions more. Maybe some sort of significant, international trade station that manages to keep in contact with multiple factions that hate each other. A bit of a tangent, but that one time in STO where Klingon captains could visit one of the federation planets for a summer event does come to mind!


...that turned into a bit of a ramble there. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Ametheliana]

Focusing in on harassment of individuals.

There was a period when I noticed somebody being harassed by Ethereal. I said to the staff "I've been harassed by Ethereal multiple times in the past, and felt targeted negatively by him at least three times so please don't let him do this to this other person". The staff responded by saying they wanted to stop him from harassing me, which I agreed would be smart on reflection. He was not allowed to come into my threads, which was pretty minimal but yee. When he came into one of my threads and replied, he was banned. It felt kind of grimy, but it was the minimum and he didn't meet it. He's unbanned now so it feels okay to mention.

Recently, someone got mad at me for talking to them and so we set up the same ruling. I think that person is a lot happier knowing I won't come into their submissions or anything, but I also live in fear that I will accidentally.

I don't expect this post to get many upvotes because I shared herstory of history here, but it's important to me that people understand the reasoning behind what's stressed me out in the past and how I abide by it, even, in the present. People are allowed to say "I don't like the attention you're giving me" and have the other person back off. We're not in real life where someone can just leave the room if they don't like another person. We have to share this space together and I think it's perfectly alright for the people that just don't get along to not have a thing to do with one another.

I think there should be something clear in the rules about a "do not interact" clause for when you've gone overboard caring about another person's work on the site and need to cool it. For some people, it should extend to discord and for others, just replying in threads is the bare minimum to be met.

 

[Deleted member 6144]

1. Clear guidelines for child, childlike or characters appearing to be childlike. This includes behavior, physical appearance, mannerisms, and who's allowed or should be allowed to play them in this adult setting.
2. Guidelines for discord on childish behavior, such as actions indicative or appearing to be indicative of someone potentially underage.
3. Guidelines on when role-playing in a non roleplay area should be permissible, IE: the Discord server. Ideally it shouldn't be utilized unless a roleplay channel is created. If enough people do wish to partake in or view this type of activity I would suggest the addition of an in character/roleplay section of the discord.

 

[raz]

1. Clear guidelines for child, childlike or characters appearing to be childlike. This includes behavior, physical appearance, mannerisms, and who's allowed or should be allowed to play them in this adult setting.
2. Guidelines for discord on childish behavior, such as actions indicative or appearing to be indicative of someone potentially underage.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I could have sworn rules already existed for this but they may have been confined to discussions because I cannot find such on the wiki. It makes RP uncomfortable when a supposedly adult character who talks like they're 7 shows up in RP naked.

On a broader side note, I can't believe how downvoted my first comment is. The first paragraph is a joke based on something similar an admin told me, and the second paragraph just reminds people to follow the rules that already exist. Chill out.

 

[Hollander]

New Member Content Creation Rules
Regarding the time limitations on new players submitting Wiki content, the wiki's Creating A Species page states:

“You should have some experience roleplaying in the community

The staff is only willing to accept submissions for major setting additions if you have been on SARP for at least 3 months, and shown you are consistently active as well as a competent roleplayer.”

Link here: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?..._some_experience_roleplaying_in_the_community

As someone who’s still within that 3 month time-frame myself, I personally believe that three months is a reasonable time frame to impose on a newbie before they should be allowed to submit ‘major setting additions’ such as a species. There are quite a few things that are happening in those three months. The newbie is (ideally) becoming more familiar with the site, the people, and the general feel of the setting. The site's staff and FM's are also becoming more familiar with that newbie. Is this new person competent, are they active?

With respect to those who believe differently, I feel that one month is not enough time to meet the stated goals of the waiting period. If I may get anecdotal, I've written with some of you fine folks quite a bit, but I'm definitely just barely getting to know you as writers, and you're still just beginning to understand me and my style. I'm in favor of keeping the 3 month restriction on major setting additions from newbies.

 

[Wes]

Posting this here to get opinion votes:

Star Army has a list of dozens of playable species listed on the Creating a Character Guide (CCG). When creating a character, members must choose one of the existing species from our setting or make a unique "Random Alien" character from an unspecified and unnamed alien species. Introducing a new species is done only through the Setting Submissions process.​

Please upvote or downvote this based on whether you think this text works for our community.

 

[Wes]

Posting this here to get opinion votes:

Members must also choose one of the existing playable factions from our setting or make an "Independent" character who isn't a member of any factions, meaning they are an outlaw spacer without citizenship to any nation. Introducing new factions is also done only through the Setting Submissions process.​

Please upvote or downvote this based on whether you think this text works for our community.

 

[Arbitrated]

“You should have some experience roleplaying in the community

The staff is only willing to accept submissions for major setting additions if you have been on SARP for at least 3 months, and shown you are consistently active as well as a competent roleplayer.”

Aha, it's still there! Recently (as in, several times over the past few years) however, this particular restriction has been handwaved/bypassed. It may do the community well to ensure this is more clearly stated (preferably in multiple places, given how large the wiki and community can be!) and/or enforced.

Members must also choose one of the existing playable factions from our setting or make an "Independent" character who isn't a member of any factions, meaning they are an outlaw spacer without citizenship to any nation. Introducing new factions is also done only through the Setting Submissions process.

While I agree with the general statement given, some minor parts of my brain insist on nitpicking the term "outlaw" being used. Many people might see that as "if you're not in a faction you are a criminal", which definitely isn't the intent. Perhaps instead of calling them an outlaw without affiliation to any nation, it could be something like...

"[...] character who isn't a member of any factions, meaning that they are more dependent on themselves and the people immediately around them for success instead of any major nation's influence" or something like that?

 

[Wes]

Alright, I'll adjust the wording. In SARP, independents aren't necessarily outlaws in the sense of criminals but they're outside the law, meaning they have none of the protections that being part of a faction provides. So while there's a lack of laws or taxes out in unclaimed space and on unexplored worlds, there's also no legal protections or rights given to them, which makes them perfect prey for pirating.

 

[raz]

I rather liked the "outlaw" mention. It brings flavor, and to be real most Independent characters are in fact actual outlaws. It's a little boring and sterile without the word.

 

[Ametheliana]

Recently (as in, several times over the past few years) however, this particular restriction has been handwaved/bypassed. It may do the community well to ensure this is more clearly stated (preferably in multiple places, given how large the wiki and community can be!) and/or enforced.

I agree, exceptions to the rules really rub me the wrong way. Even if they seem innocuous, it makes it hard to justify why we follow the rules at all if they get bent. (edit: Besides for obvious basic respect rules! the justification for those is inherent!)

 

[Rizzo]

I

Focusing in on harassment of individuals.

There was a period when I noticed somebody being harassed by Ethereal. I said to the staff "I've been harassed by Ethereal multiple times in the past, and felt targeted negatively by him at least three times so please don't let him do this to this other person". The staff responded by saying they wanted to stop him from harassing me, which I agreed would be smart on reflection. He was not allowed to come into my threads, which was pretty minimal but yee. When he came into one of my threads and replied, he was banned. It felt kind of grimy, but it was the minimum and he didn't meet it. He's unbanned now so it feels okay to mention.

Recently, someone got mad at me for talking to them and so we set up the same ruling. I think that person is a lot happier knowing I won't come into their submissions or anything, but I also live in fear that I will accidentally.

I don't expect this post to get many upvotes because I shared herstory of history here, but it's important to me that people understand the reasoning behind what's stressed me out in the past and how I abide by it, even, in the present. People are allowed to say "I don't like the attention you're giving me" and have the other person back off. We're not in real life where someone can just leave the room if they don't like another person. We have to share this space together and I think it's perfectly alright for the people that just don't get along to not have a thing to do with one another.

I think there should be something clear in the rules about a "do not interact" clause for when you've gone overboard caring about another person's work on the site and need to cool it. For some people, it should extend to discord and for others, just replying in threads is the bare minimum to be met.

want to agree wholeheartedly, but with one exception based on Player Right 8:
“I have the right to comment on any setting article being submitted for approval, since changes to the setting may affect my characters or plots. My comments should be considerate and use appropriate language. I should take care not to mislead new players into thinking I am a moderator if I am not.”

I love our NTSE forum, and even our most pain in the asset commenters are still affected by the changes made there. It is important that all voices(and there are some very grating voices) are heard.

I’m all for healthy distance between people on bad terms, though!

 

[Ametheliana]

I was thinking about this the other day when Wes floated this to me one on one and thought that if the person feels they need to comment on the submission, they can set up a DM with the reviewer and staff. That way the voices can be heard and if their concerns hold water, the reviewer can require that changes be made. Otherwise, the NTSE would become a loophole for harassers to neg.

The two examples I gave, in both the people were especially not allowed to go into submissions.

I don't believe anything constructive comes between two people that have gotten to that level of avoidance. I've seen it multiple times where people that do hate one another don't listen to the criticisms or either go too hard with them. It would probably benefit the harasser more to just tell their concerns to NTSE staff and have them filter it to the submitter, anyway, as it's more likely to be received well from the reviewer.

Remember we're dealing with problematic people in someone's online life. The harassed is more likely to never submit anything after bad experiences than be a contributing member of setting submissions. We should be uplifting members and supporting them to create, not making them fear the process of such.