Faction Rights

[Moogle]

I can't really comment on that middle question, but I'll still answer on everything else.

1. GMs, no matter what faction they pilot, will always have to deal with factions that aren't their own at some point or another. Limiting the creative process will not do much to remedy the alleged disconnect between GMs and FMs. I say alleged because I haven't experienced this myself, clearly.

2. Active, yes. GMs - see response above

4. And one offs add to the spice of the rich canon of the SARPVerse without needing the rigid structure and organization it takes to be an FM. Of course, both PCs would have to follow certain aspects of civilization (permitting backstory, etc. This part is kinda silly to mention, really). I say let out-of-plotship RP stay.

 

[Kyle]

I'm hit and miss on it as well, if GM-Ship can be made a requirement TOO create a faction, then I'll agree with it. But I tihnk that background factions, such as enemy ones or those that add flavor to the setting, shouldn't have this requirement. However, if you want to create a player faction, then yes it should be.

 

[Sigma]

add flavor to the setting

And how, exactly, is this defined?

 

[ShotJon]

If only GMs could be FMs, then you will limit people who want to make their faction and then run a plot in it. So I do not think we can do that. This would pretty much made what Ira and Kyle are doing now impossible. Because to make their own factions for which they have plot idea, they would first had to become GMs of another factions and that would just end up badly and stiffened creativity.

Which leads me again to what I said before. We do not need to limit who can be FM and GM, we need to started talking to each other and have FM and GM communicating with each other.

 

[Kyle]

Got a point there Shot-shot, I hadn't thought of that.

 

[Wes]

add flavor to the setting

And how, exactly, is this defined?

Basically, we want submissions that bring Star Army more variety, sci-fi feel, and uniqueness. Something that complements, but doesn't duplicate, what we already have. Stuff to make Star Army, as a whole, stand out in a good way and contributes to players feeling like they're RPing in an epic universe that is vast, deep, and fascinating.

 

[Sigma]

That is a very vague answer and one that is open to subjective interpretation. It also doesn't draw any distinct line between what is "background" and what is not.

So far the concept outlined is that there are two levels of "Factions" as opposed to races. Background factions and (for lack of a better term) Foreground Factions. I don't see what there is that definitively differentiates the two. Is it Player vs. Non-Player status? Can new Background Factions form within existing ones?

Do all race/species submissions have to be factions? This is a wholly subjective and completely ill-defined policy.

 

[Soresu]

Think I'm just going to retract whatever faction I was working on if this keeps up. It seems we're more or less digging 'too deep' and making it rather unattractive to even MAKE factions anymore.

 

[Wes]

Sigma: The difference between background factions and foreground ones is that the foreground ones have plots and players.

Soresu: Your post was not very specific but I'm assuming (correct me if I'm mistaken) you mean that people making background factions don't have any "rights" other than the faction guide saying the creators should be consulted before their creations are used. Star Army is still a character-based RP rather than an RP where everyone runs their own faction. I'm open the the idea of some limited protections for creators of background factions; however, I hope you will agree with me that it would change the nature of our RP site if we allowed players to use background factions as their avatars; making background factions to be played by non-GMs and exclusively controlled by one person does exactly that.

To make an analogy:

Player Factions are to PCs as Background Factions are to NPCs.

The former pair are there for for players to be a part of and experience from inside, while the latter are tools for Game Masters. So it needs to be the game masters who are empowered. At the same time, I really don't want creators to feel shafted. I think the best solution would be to work with a GM and have a general plan for how the faction is going to be handled in the actual roleplay.

Can new Background Factions form within existing ones?

Yes. With played factions, get the FM's permission.

Do all race/species submissions have to be factions?

No, species can be created as part of an existing faction.

 

[raz]

Background factions can be:

A starter for a player faction that hasn't opened plots yet.

That's weird that these, which intend to become played factions, aren't afforded the full rights of played factions.

 

[Soresu]

Soresu: Your post was not very specific but I'm assuming (correct me if I'm mistaken) you mean that people making background factions don't have any "rights" other than the faction guide saying the creators should be consulted before their creations are used. Star Army is still a character-based RP rather than an RP where everyone runs their own faction. I'm open the the idea of some limited protections for creators of background factions; however, I hope you will agree with me that it would change the nature of our RP site if we allowed players to use background factions as their avatars; making background factions to be played by non-GMs and exclusively controlled by one person does exactly that.

Who uses Background Factions as avatars? I fail to see the need for that statement. However I do agree they shouldn't be avatars. But, this doesn't make them any less important than say, Yamatai or Nepleslia. If a person puts their own time and effort into one we'd be doing them a disservice to simply regulate such things to third-world status to be tread upon; pounded into the dirt, and whatever they wrote holding little bearing on how things are handled.

What if one would've eventually been made into a PC faction? But their specific faction canon had been blasted apart by various GMs? This would create inconsistencies that the FM of said 'minor' faction would have to personally clean up that a GM may well not acquiesce to if they're brought into conflict. I believe it doesn't hurt to consult the creator of said factions on how to go about things, just to keep it in character. Nor does it hurt to ask if they can be used. A little common courtesy that we share between all of the big PC factions goes a long way. Besides, if a person tried to use it as an avatar, who does that hurt? Them. Their faction is pretty much toast then and silently dies in obscurity unless they throw a tantrum.

 

[ShotJon]

And I would like to once again point out that the communication and the lack of thereof is the thing we need to resolve. Not who has what kind of rights.

 

[Soresu]

And I would like to once again point out that the communication and the lack of thereof is the thing we need to resolve. Not who has what kind of rights.

I think we have multiple pages of 'Communication' being involved, Jon. No need to keep toting it. :?

 

[Ira]

Yes I came back in here to hit the dead horse with a stick.

I just want to point out that the whole purpose of this was to basically ensure that the creations of other members on this site are for lack of a better term, not the play things of a select few to just be tossed around and beaten on.

I like to think we can be professional here in our approach to RP in general. But a creation of by any member of the site needs to be respected. Elitism is not the way we should be and is a mind set that needs to be gone.

Now the solution has been made by Wes on the subject as a whole and I agree with his solution. But "Background factions" are necessary and are in many cases needed and should be encouraged. I hate gentleman's agreements, but we should endeavor to show some respect and humility to our peers.