Factions

It's been no secret that we've had a stressful week. The Gartagens have been inactive for some time now, and in the interim they were adopted by Kyle and we'd planned to merge them into the Neshaten faction for cleanup, the way that abandoned/dead factions are often handled. But on the eve of this happening, their creator, Ira, has returned after a lengthy custody battle over his daughter, only to find himself in a new custody battle over his faction, and I've tried to mediate this with mixed results. Faction manager rights and creator rights are at odds and it's been frustrating for everyone involved as we try to figure it out.

Now, this topic isn't about the Gartagen situation, so let's not talk about that in this thread (use the Gartagen GM/FM planning thread). This topic is on how we avoid this from happening again. We need some sort of clear policy on handling factions whose creators have left, the same way we have a straightforward procedure for adoption of abandoned characters. So I'd like to get member feedback before I start writing one.

Here's some thoughts I had:

1. To be clear, my definition of a dead faction is a playable faction which previously hosted RP plots, but has not hosted any RP in at least 30 days. If RP in the faction has ceased, I consider it a dead faction.
   
   
2. The primary responsibility of a faction manager is to keep their faction alive (meaning to promote RP in their faction). The best way to do this is running an RP for their faction.
   
   
3. When a dead playable faction gets a new faction manager, or when an NPC faction becomes playable, there should be some set amount of time they have to get the faction into RP (maybe six months). By this I mean there should be some legitimate RP thread for that faction where multiple people are RPing in it. Open RP is fine.
   
   
4. Faction managers should not be able to just sit on the faction. Sitting on it means you have the title of manager but no actual RP is happening. If the faction is assigned to someone for a long time and little to no RP happens, the faction should be turned into an NPC faction or handled/disposed according to the creator's wishes (see next item).
   
   
5. Playable Factions should have some sort of "will" on file with the staff. The will should say who owns the faction, what should happen if the owners disappear (merge it with an active faction, destroy it, give it to another player, etc), and what happens if the owners come back. Any FM adopting a faction should know clearly whether or not they will keep it if the owner comes back. Less surprises = less drama. In most cases the owner is the author (although in theory factions could be given from one member to another or commissioned from a ghost writer).
   
   Example: Imagine author Larry Niven shows up on SARP and roleplays his Kzinti species on Star Army occasionally when he's not writing novels. Sometimes he disappears for months to go write a book, but he doesn't want someone else to run his creations. Larry writes a faction will that says he's the owner of the Kzinti and that no one else can adopt them, and that he gets them back when he returns from hiatus.
   
   
6. In the absence of a will, the site staff will convene and make a decision to who gets the faction when its control is in dispute. Generally it should be given to whoever:
   • is active on the forums
     
   • is willing to run an RP for it.
   • put the most overall work into it
   
   
7. For site stability purposes, I don't think any one person should run more than one playable faction (as primary FM), although you can be non-primary FM (co-FM, assistant FM) to more than one faction.
   
   Example: Nashoba can FM the Hidden Sun Clan and co-FM Yamatai, but he can't be the main FM of both factions at the same time.
   
   
8. I think we should remove the 3 month restriction on creating or running factions. This causes immense frustration to eager new players who want to build stuff. If they want to build stuff, let them -- the staff will filter the good from the bad in the Setting Submissions forum.
   
   
9. Waiting periods: Waiting periods to become a GM/FM/staffer only apply to people who left the site for discipline issues (banning), flounced out, rage quit, or left the site without notice for arbitrary reasons (random poof). But they shouldn't be applied to members who left because of sudden major life events life being hospitalized or arrested, particularly if the member had no control over them.
   
   
10. "How to use this faction as NPCs" pages should be required for all factions, or at least for NPC ones.

 

[Fred]

I like the "Faction will" portion.
If a faction becomes abandonned, I think it's a terrific idea to give an "instruction manual" as on how to use them/have them sunset SARP.
For example, we don't know what to do with the Iroma, but if Exhack had left a will saying "the Iroma can be used as antagonists against anyone coming close/into their space out of isolationism, and can be portrayed as opponents as long as the faction does not suffer significant setbacks/territory losses" then at least we'd have something.

Whereas say the Loraths become inactive, we could have info that "The Lorath become mostly reclusive and ideally they should maintain a small non-encroached territory, but have an officer exchange program which would allow the creation of lorath player characters in the Nepleslian Star Military". Having something like that allows us to keep using the species and all of its baggage for new PCs in Nepleslian plots. (I'd see this as one of the best ways to have an exit strategy for a species and still make it useful in SARP).

This said, I think an exit strategy like this should be required for a faction that's been around for more than a year. It's part of good writing to have contingencies. Even Yamatai should have one, we never know when Wes might suffer an accident and not be able to continue in his FM role.

* * *

I also think it'd be important to cover significant disagreements between FM and playerbase/GMs. This recently cropped up with Kampfer/Cadetnewb in Nepleslia with Gartagens/Ira/Kyle/playerbase/etc.

We need to better delineate the form of protest and interventions that can be made to impose or overule over the other. Or a much better policy on how to defend authority over something or appeal against authority. I don't want to delve in the previous two incidents I mentioned above, so, I'll use mine.

As a GM, I was opposed to the way my FM wanted to change the way my Miharu plot should end. I bent to a certain point, base criteria were not being met, and after several pleas reached breaking point. As a form of protest, I decided to stop GMing for SARP. Moving beyond whom was right and wrong, what ways can a GM have to contest an FM's ruling if there's a difference of opinion like that? What ways does the GM have to defend his own work versus the FM's responsabilities. What's the point where the GM is ousted, or the FM could be overuled or even ousted.
(I know it'll be a double standard for Wes, of course, but I feel there needs to be better ways of dealing with breaking points; regardless of any ethics I might hold above my FM's decisions, it's no secret that it's the members of the Miharu plot that suffered the most from the situation reaching breaking point).

 

[OsakanOne]

~~This attachment has been edited to remove content that violated the Star Army Community Guidelines -- Profanity -- Admin Wes~~

Joking aside, this instruction manual idea is a stroke of brilliance. It should explain what the general tone of a faction is if they become depreciated and what their goals or general attitude to many kinds of situations are - eg, wartime, trade, etc. Is there a way of boiling this down into like an ultra simple version of a trade, domestic and a foreign policy we can have on the wiki?

 

[Fred]

Joking aside,

Joking?

...no one is safe.

 

[Semjax]

The FM/GM situation has already been covered by the FM rights; and there is no reason to continue its discussion. The FM has final say on everything that happens with their faction, if your plot does something that is directly assaulting the faction's safety or factions canon they have a right to stop it. In the situation with Cadet that was exactly what happened, and Kampfer took the right steps. The FM rights are all we need to cover this. The only person who has higher say than the FM themselves is the Setting Manager, which is Wes, which is the balancing point of what is fair or not, admitedly I would like if Wes was more informed about situations then he was involving the Cadet/Kampfer situation, but despite that once he did learn the situation he was able to make an unbias'd and fair judgment.

As for the rest... I am legitimately surprised that Wes has suggested something on this scale without pissing me off with at least part of it, Congrats to you @Wes !

I actually like a lot of these, especially the Faction Wills, as it makes it more clear on what the owners would want in case they disappear for whatever reason. I also agree that we should limit the people who control multiple factions to a single faction, so that the quality of those factions as Head FM will not drop. As Co-FM of the Neshaten, the Elysians, and the Abwehran, I understand and want a lot of quality to be placed into these by each of the Head FM's, so I can wholely agree with this.

Important: I actually disagree however with the Waiting Period Rule, Even those who vanished for life reasons should be held to a waiting period (maybe not as long) so that they can get back into the RP groove, and prove that they won't just vanish for RL reasons again. That way they don't just jump back in control over everything without the newer people knowing who they are, or knowing the situation of the website, or start something up everyone looks forward to only to poof again within a few weeks.

I also disagree with removing the 3 month rule due to the fact that New Players in the past have jumped the gun and started plastering half-baked ideas, and unwanted things all over the Wiki and Forums that lead to outcries by actual people who take part. Because of several reasons; They were not involved with a lot of plots, didn't understand how the website lore worked, and so on. Before people go about creating random alien factions, we should make sure that they are capable of understanding the lore, and situations of the site as a whole. The 3 Month rule gives them time to do all this.

 

[Syaoran]

@Wes I agree with the need for there to be Faction wills, that is a good idea. But a lot of things on that list are not really.

The reason SARP has those time limits is not just to make sure people know the setting. But it also makes sure people are -willing- to participate in the setting. Honestly speaking it doesn't matter how amazing someone's faction is, but if they want to join SARP purely for the purpose of playing their faction, that's rude to all the content creators in SARP. I think those time limits should thus stay, to make sure that we're getting people who want to play SARP, and not their little own thing. (Regardless of how well it does or doesn't mesh)

@Fred the stuff about GM vs FM was kinda indirectly addressed with FM rights, at the moment I can't remember the wiki page name to bring up the list of things the FM can and can't do but there mostly is one, probably best to ask for clarification on the individual points from that. (I do think it'll be good to clearly outline it, just think that's a better starting point)

While I don't think it's the best idea to be main FM for multiple factions, I think it should be allowed as long as they have multiple sub FMs to help them. Because otherwise you get problems with passing the faction on to others. If I had a faction right now to pass on, of all the people I'd consider leaving it to if I left, the majority of them are already main FMs or working on soon becoming main FMs once their faction is done. Only 2 people aren't main FMs, and they very well could become one by time I end up leaving. If that happened I'd be forced to turn my faction over to someone I didn't trust to lead it simply because the person I wanted to give it to is already proving their qualification by leading a faction.

Also this is semantics but I think what you call 'dead' factions Wes should be called 'inactive'. When people hear 'dead' they think that nothing is happening with them at all. And while that's usually the case it could just be the GM vanished without warning, and with as little a timer as 30 days, getting called 'dead' with that is just kinda painful.

 

[Wes]

but if they want to join SARP purely for the purpose of playing their faction, that's rude to all the content creators in SARP.

How? It's not rude for them to make their own factions here. Why would you feel like someone is being rude by being creative? Was it rude that Nashoba made the Hidden Sun Clan, or rude that Jimmy made the Chelti? Was it rude for LittleWasp to start work on her bee dudes? No! That said, I think all factions should start with a plan on how they're going to be part of the setting - it is kind of rude if they make their own thing and then seclude themselves in a corner ignoring everyone.

Also this is semantics but I think what you call 'dead' factions Wes should be called 'inactive'. When people hear 'dead' they think that nothing is happening with them at all. And while that's usually the case it could just be the GM vanished without warning, and with as little a timer as 30 days, getting called 'dead' with that is just kinda painful.

Okay. I used that word because these are factions that were once alive (as in played in RP) but the life has ended. Inactive doesn't quite have the same connotation. Maybe I could call them dormant player factions?

 

[Syaoran]

@Wes you're taking what I said out of context, and I'd like it if you didn't do that. I did not say it's rude to make your own faction. I said it's rude to come into SARP with the only purpose being to make your own thing. Even the part you quoted has the word 'purely' in it. So please stop spazzing out and read things calmly. Now as for why it's rude to join only with the intent of making your own thing, because that doesn't respect the setting's current state. Even if your faction fits, does it actually benefit the rest of the setting? People spend many man hours working on SARP in different ways, and showing up to SARP with no intention of interacting with that is disrespectful.

 

[Samanthia]

When a new Faction with a new Species starts up should be separate from the mainstream of SARP, Till that New Faction is established to avoid the cluster f**** of interacting with other Faction. But Once established, by all means to get them to interact with other faction onsite. The way that HSC and Neshatens (excuse spelling with deep apologies) did in bring them into fold of a shared universe.

As for Factions becoming inactive due to the loss of FM's GM's and players. There should be a time for them to be moved into the realm-hood of NPC Status.

If the Creator of the Faction, suddenly disappears for what ever reason, whether active or inactive, should be passed down to a willing Sub-Faction Manager. If the case that FM of an inactive Faction without Sub-FM's, disappears without warning, be moved to NPC Status.

1) If the Creator of the Faction has left instruction as everyone calls it Faction Will; then those wishes have priority whether or not the Creator of the Faction returns or not

example: Creator / FM "Bob" of Bobble Heads Faction gives instruction for his disappearance stating that 'Bob Jr" sub FM is to get full control of the Bobble Heads Species. "Bob" disappears for a year or more and suddenly is back, wanting to take the reigns again as FM, but fails to place in a clause for his return. Then 'Bob Jr' keeps the Factions Control. Sorry "Bob". Unless 'Bob Jr' is willing to give up his/her spot as the Top FM

Now if "Bob" had added the clause for his eventual return to resume control over the Bobble Head Faction, then 'Bob Jr' would have to turn over the reigns of being the Senior FM of the Bobble Head Faction to "Bob" the Creator of the Bobble Head Faction


2) If there is no Creator FM Will (or instruction) for the faction. Creator disappears for what ever reason, Then a time limit will be placed on the Faction. In the interm, become an NPC faction to be used by other FM's as plot devices. But not to exterminate them nor lose their core territory. If another FM wants the responsibility of running or maintaining abandoned Faction then more power to them. When the Creator of the Faction return to take the Faction back under his/her control. Then the Creator of Faction needs to come to terms with the Current Controlling FM of that Faction.

 

[Tylium]

I do think there should be a limit to how long the will remains active in case of FM-ship (Is that a word?) transfers to a new person.

Imagine being a CO-FM for a faction or regular player for that matter, you get handed the faction due to agreeing to be put in the will at an earlier date.

Now there are two situations that can happen in the absence of the old FM:

• Factions is used by the player and kept up to date but no large changes happen.
• Faction is updated and changed over the course of time as the new FM really enjoys his new role and puts a lot of time and effort into it.

Now if the system works as the draft specifies, the old FM gets back, gets handed the keys for the kingdom and the new FM has nothing to say about the matter.
Situation 1 will not cause a lot of drama. But situation 2 will feel like a stab in the back for the new FM as he will feel that his hard work has been taken from him.

Factions are in my opinion not a commodity that can be easily handed to people, nor can they be easily handed back. The will is a good first step, but there need to be a lot of clauses that will void the right of reclaiming the faction.

 

[Eistheid]

Starting from the beginning;

I agree with the suggestion further down in this thread that the wording should be changed from "dead" to "dormant" since as has been pointed out that terming a faction as "dead" gives the impression that nothing can be done with it anymore. Much in the same way that one would expect a dead species to be extinct and thus not possible to play.

The suggestion of keeping a faction alive is one that I generally agree with, however I understand that some of our members have full schedules due to school, work, or a combination there of which limits their capacity to GM a thread. To this end I feel that so long as they continue to preform administrative tasks, and their faction remains functional (they have at least one actively GM'd thread for their faction) that it should not necessarily be a requirement to GM for their faction, though this is only with special consideration to extenuating circumstances.

The inclusion of a will to all factions that have passed a year of use is a good one, additionally I think that the use of the "how to use this faction" template should be mandatory for all factions after a certain point to ease representation in threads, since it will save an FM work if they can point to the document for a general idea of their faction and only have to clarify plot specific points.

This is because even limited encounters with other factions, or civilian entities helps the setting feel alive. At trade or political hubs we should frequently see many varied vessels and have an idea of how they would interact even on peaceful terms.

The transition in the absence of a will seems fair, though the subject of not running multiple factions is a little more complicated.

For example we might not have enough veterans/GMs to run a faction if it goes inactive, however a newer member might show interest in running it. To this end I think it would be a good idea to have a clause that allows an FM to hold on to another faction "in trust" so that they can mentor a newer member of the site to make sure that they can properly take up the responsibility of running a faction so that any GMs or players who may have to work with them don't get crippled by having an FM who has no idea what they're doing.

Finally this brings me to the point of restrictions. I am of the opinion that under no circumstance should the restriction be waived. As much as it causes immense frustration to new players, it also spares them from bigger hurt should they decide to pick fights with a faction or species. Among these very same frustrated players I have seen instances where they complain about the presence of setting elements that have existed as a mainstay for half a decade or more, demonstrating that they have not taken the time to learn the setting and come to terms with how things are run.

It will cause less drama in the long run if we encourage these members to gain experience and learn the setting around them before they create something that they are as emotionally invested in as a faction. After all everyone wants their creations to succeed, and it avoids potential strife and cries of "favouritism" if they go through the steps of learning our setting before forging their own part of it.

When I joined the site I had many ideas of what I wanted to do, and things that I desired to create, however I understood the value of taking the time to learn the setting, and get to know what exists already in the setting before I began creating things. To this end I have largely worked on projects that were requested by more experienced members, and have for the moment not delved into any projects purely designed for my own personal interest. So when I speak in favour of waiting, I do so because I have personally benefited from taking my time and participating in the setting before trying to add anything new. I also speak as someone who has suffered complications IC and OOC due to a lack of experience with the setting, making mistakes that were avoidable that ended up seriously hurting my enjoyment of the site.

Moving on...

In the case of returning members, I also am of the opinion that there should be a wait period before they can resume control of large elements of the setting such as factions, since in their absence any number of events may have occurred and the political and territorial situations may have greatly changed. To this end it is better to give them a chance to acclimatize and settle into the site once again so that when they do finally take up the mantle and have to look after player and GMs they can do so with the knowledge that can only come with time.

I suppose my stance is to suggest patience and a willingness to ensure that a member is settled within the community and has re-established connections with the member base before delving into the responsibility and workload that is running a faction. This should hopefully ensure that we as a community can rely on that individual to meet the needs of their responsibilities and won't leave players or GMs frustrated when their support structure is decapitated.

 

[Semjax]

I do think there should be a limit to how long the will remains active in case of FM-ship (Is that a word?) transfers to a new person.

Imagine being a CO-FM for a faction or regular player for that matter, you get handed the faction due to agreeing to be put in the will at an earlier date.

Now there are two situations that can happen in the absence of the old FM:

• Factions is used by the player and kept up to date but no large changes happen.
• Faction is updated and changed over the course of time as the new FM really enjoys his new role and puts a lot of time and effort into it.

Now if the system works as the draft specifies, the old FM gets back, gets handed the keys for the kingdom and the new FM has nothing to say about the matter.
Situation 1 will not cause a lot of drama. But situation 2 will feel like a stab in the back for the new FM as he will feel that his hard work has been taken from him.

Factions are in my opinion not a commodity that can be easily handed to people, nor can they be easily handed back. The will is a good first step, but there need to be a lot of clauses that will void the right of reclaiming the faction.

Well how we have it at the moment, the #1 Co-FM gets handed the Faction anyway, just by being the Co-FM, I think this would be for people who don't have Co-FM's right @Wes?

 

[Fred]

As a GM, I know that what I draw from my long running plans is the payoff of giving memories, presenting memorable moments - satisfying moments - that people will remember for years to come. A lot of that takes a long time to gestate, a long time of looking forward to these moments, of being able to skillfully present them and see it grab people.

The FM rights article is little comfort for a GM when a Faction Manager steps in to decide how a plot should be run, regardless of the effort already put into the plot by the GM, regardless of how the GM might be more in tune with his playerbase, regardless of the payoffs the GM of that plot might have wanted to nail - only to end up being cheated by being imposed what he should want to have.

The FM is extremely advantaged by these rulings, unfairly so in my opinion. Despite the effort the GMs can go through, this marks them as little more than said faction female-person-that-sell-sexual-favors-for-a-living-plural. In this kind of situation, the metaphor I'll use is that FM is effectively innocent until proven guilty, and the GM guilty until proven innocent. Which means that if a GM stands up for himself, there's going to be a breaking point because the GM has no other defense, no other recourse, little rights despite effort invested - there comes a point where if the GM is presented with something he sees as abuse, he'll do something about it... even if it means leaving.

This is too uneven. Something needs to be done to make these debacles more compromise-friendly, more amenable to a GM whom might be up in arms about something. Because if the FM's commodity - the GM - becomes out of the equation, then the playerbase underneath is what hurts. This causes damage - it happened before, it happened recently, and it will happen again the moment a FM abuses his power, or a GM stands up for his creative freedom in running his plot (and I actually refer to GMs that already set for themselves a high benchmark, and not for a GM to just pull of wierd excrement-related-word).

 

[Semjax]

As a GM, I know that what I draw from my long running plans is the payoff of giving memories, presenting memorable moments - satisfying moments - that people will remember for years to come. A lot of that takes a long time to gestate, a long time of looking forward to these moments, of being able to skillfully present them and see it grab people.

The FM rights article is little comfort for a GM when a Faction Manager steps in to decide how a plot should be run, regardless of the effort already put into the plot by the GM, regardless of how the GM might be more in tune with his playerbase, regardless of the payoffs the GM of that plot might have wanted to nail - only to end up being cheated by being imposed what he should want to have.

The FM is extremely advantaged by these rulings, unfairly so in my opinion. Despite the effort the GMs can go through, this marks them as little more than said faction female-person-that-sell-sexual-favors-for-a-living-plural. In this kind of situation, the metaphor I'll use is that FM is effectively innocent until proven guilty, and the GM guilty until proven innocent. Which means that if a GM stands up for himself, there's going to be a breaking point because the GM has no other defense, no other recourse, little rights despite effort invested - there comes a point where if the GM is presented with something he sees as abuse, he'll do something about it... even if it means leaving.

This is too uneven. Something needs to be done to make these debacles more compromise-friendly, more amenable to a GM whom might be up in arms about something. Because if the FM's commodity - the GM - becomes out of the equation, then the playerbase underneath is what hurts. This causes damage - it happened before, it happened recently, and it will happen again the moment a FM abuses his power, or a GM stands up for his creative freedom in running his plot (and I actually refer to GMs that already set for themselves a high benchmark, and not for a GM to just pull of wierd excrement-related-word).

We had this discussion already in the thread for the FM Rights listings; its been decided upon, and this is not the thread to bring it up in. Ever since the FM right's have been put in the FM's have all been a lot more at ease, and as such things have been a lot better for everyone.

You claim that if an FM loses their GM's then its all for not, but if not for these rights some FM's would've left because there are GM's who use the lack of power the FM's have against the GM's to do horrific things. So if an FM gets to uncomfortable, they could simply shut off their faction and leave, then where is the GM?

The FM Rights is very fair, but as I said this is not the place to discuss it, nor the time to discuss it. the FM Rights were discussed and agreed upon by staff and a majority of players. If you wish to go against it, you should make another topic, do not bring it into here.

 

[ArsenicJohn]

Being a new player myself, I actually agree that the 3-month restrictions should stay. The setting is too complex for a new player to understand. 3 months of active RP before submitting a Faction makes sense. It's not something someone should rush into. They can even use that three months to develop their faction while they play. Also, I wonder if it might help if a guide to creating a well-developed Faction could be created, sort of like the character creation guide. Maybe like a list of things to consider before creating a new Faction. Just some ideas.

 

[Fred]

Semjax, I view my concern as relevant. I am not going to bury it on your say so, especially considering the topic of this thread and why this thread is up.

Wes asked for ideas and concerns regarding recent debacles - here's what I brought up:

I also think it'd be important to cover significant disagreements between FM and playerbase/GMs. This recently cropped up with Kampfer/Cadetnewb in Nepleslia with Gartagens/Ira/Kyle/playerbase/etc.

However much you want to sweep that under the rug, that's a real problem.
Even if Wes doesn't emphasize with my position - I don't expect him to - I do expect him to have a problem in losing arguably good GMs (arguments like these wouldn't crop up if the GMs didn't care and were not dedicated in our two most recent examples) in such conflict, regardless of circumstances. It essentially a failure in conflict management that makes everyone lose.
Since Wes actually liked the post when I brought it up, maybe he finds it relevant? That's enough for me.

 

[Semjax]

@Fred Do not misunderstand; my point isn't to sweep it from under the rug, its to keep this topic from being derailed from the actual point of this topic, I said for you to make it a separate topic since that is clearly about a -separate- subject than what this topic is about, This topic is how to handle Factions themselves, this has nothing to do with the GM's themselves, but rather how to handle the creation of factions as well as the survival of factions on an FM's level. Your concern directly goes towards GM vs FM's a situation that is not covered under these points.

Which is why I said make it another topic, otherwise you will derail this topic which is more important right at this juncture because of all the things going on involving three separate factions the Abwheran, the Gartagens, and the Iroma. Your concern can be seen as relevant all you like; but its not relevant to -this- situation. Figuring out how to handle the Factions at the moment is far more important then a small amount, and yes it is a -very- small amount (In fact the only GM's I have ever heard complain about the FM Rights, is you and Jimmy, and I was the one who started the whole FM-Rights campaign along side Kyle and Aendri), of GM's being fired/Dropped/Leaving over situations where the FM is forced to make a judgment call.

No matter how relevant your complaint is, its not relevant to this topic.

(Also Wes liked my post as well; so he views my response to your response just as valid since you want to claim because he liked your post he liked all of it)

 

[Fred]

This topic is on how we avoid this from happening again.

Nope, I won't. Wes made points. It doesn't mean they are the only ones that are welcome, and making this many posts about what I can and cannot post here is derailing this thread. This has gotten ridiculous and you are wasting your time, my time, and anyone getting bogged down reading this misguided attempt to police me. Move on.

 

[Sham]

I rarely reply to threads, but when I do, it's because I have nothing better to do.

1. A fair definition. Always good to start with a 'fact' and work off it.

2. Another fair point, but split into two parts. An FM's duty is to ensure that their faction doesn't die. Agreed. However, running a plot as an FM is not ALWAYS possible. Perhaps the FM is a bad GM.

3. Completely fair. Becoming the FM of a faction (By inheritance through Co-FMship or adopting 'dead' factions to reinvigorate them), should result in something. Sitting on a title means squat. Being the FM of something means something should happen with them, 6 months is more than fair.

4. See #3.

5. Good idea. Prevents conflicts like ones happening now.

6. However, with this point, if there is no will, the faction should be handed to the Co-FM. The Co-FM is in their position for reason. The FM trusts them. If there is none, then the staff does what the staff does, but by no means should put the faction in a situation where they could not become their own nation again. (Like, merging them into another faction. This prevents the faction from realistically becoming its own nation.) Why? If the creator comes back or players want to hoist the banner up again, it should be possible.

7. I don't think anyone is in violation of this proposed rule, but I don't think it should be a rule. It seems like it would be a rare occurrence. Also, it wouldn't be optimal to give control of a faction to a less qualified person because qualified people are already taken up. (Of course, the qualified people could always pass it up)

8. No. With some more no. And some no. 3 month restriction is supposed to force new people to learn and respect what is here. We as a community (Even if I'm newer) have put a lot of time, effort, and love into SARP. New people should respect just how much has been put into this site's lore. Removing the restriction only encourages newer players to disregard what is here. If they can't take 3 months to respect the community and be willing to learn something, they aren't good for us anyway.

9. Reasonable, but this seems directed at a certain recent event. Yes, it is unfortunate when life happens, but after being gone for a long period of time, it isn't acceptable to roll back in and expect it all back. It is expected that things would have changed somewhat. Also, after recovering from life happening, the community must be 100% sure that life isn't coming back for the same person. A short waiting period of a couple months isn't too harsh.

10. Reasonable. Saves people some time from bugging FMs on how things go down. (Still, consulting an FM is never a bad idea, especially on specifics or lesser known things)

Post Note - For Fred and Semjax. Semjax, in your efforts to keep it on track, it is somewhat off. However, this does not mean Fred is scot-free. FM rights vs. GM rights is a separate topic. (Literally, it has a separate topic.) It has been discussed. Every GM that comes to an FM wanting to run a plot signs an agreement that the FM has absolute control over how their faction is used and portrayed. If a GM wants to tell a story in a faction, they accept that they are to abide by that FM's rules. (And any other faction's FM's that get involved.) That's all I'll say on that.

Post Post Note - Thanks for reading.

 

[Semjax]

@Sham you are correct; I apologize for derailing while attempting to not get it derailed. Back on topic then!