I've stated it before when the push was attempted: this will not be a good step in the right direction.Regarding the topic at hand, issues in the Setting Submissions forum (a.k.a. NTSE), I was recently reading a thread on RPG-D in which the vast majority of respondents to a topic about public reviews of characters and submissions agreed that allowing non-staffers to comment on threads was a recipe for extreme drama. This appears to be at least somewhat true in our case, although it's notable only a handful of the same people repeatedly show up in my reports panel. I've been thinking that maybe the player right about being able to comment on new stuff being proposed to the setting may not be helping us as intended, and that maybe new setting submissions should be reviewed by staff alone or even privately. I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
I have personally given my approval of the Asteria page, to include the latest version where there's a couple hundred Iroma mentioned on it, and also the parts about there being some leftover Lorath in Asteria. The page is what's canon. Since all of these species have already been on Asura III or in its immediate area, historically, I don't think Asteria is making any overzealous claims or stealing anything, as Raz suggested. In fact, it's excellent that now people who want to play Lorath or Iroma have an additional option for factions.
- - -
Regarding the topic at hand, issues in the Setting Submissions forum (a.k.a. NTSE), I was recently reading a thread on RPG-D in which the vast majority of respondents to a topic about public reviews of characters and submissions agreed that allowing non-staffers to comment on threads was a recipe for extreme drama. This appears to be at least somewhat true in our case, although it's notable only a handful of the same people repeatedly show up in my reports panel. I've been thinking that maybe the player right about being able to comment on new stuff being proposed to the setting may not be helping us as intended, and that maybe new setting submissions should be reviewed by staff alone or even privately. I'd like to know your thoughts on this.
That's a good idea, having simply more solid rules. Why strip rights when we can make what their rights are more clear? The debate's about people abusing loopholes in the system. So why not remove the loopholes?If I was a Mod or NTSE, I would not know how to punish someone who is misbehaving according to site rules. I mean I have my own ideas about what to do, but I don't know what the site's policy is, and I'd be worried about overstepping my bounds and getting in trouble, so I'd just tell the people to stop, but wouldn't do anything.
Arsenic...that is a loophole in the rules <.< like that literally is what a loophole is.Meta, this debate is not about loopholes at all. It was about people feeling uncomfortable using the NTSE because they feel that people are abusing the right to comment on submissions to block things from people they don't like.
@Gallant Well, I'll see how it goes. Personally, the only reason why I feel okay with going wild with D&D canon is the fact once I create the setting, it is no longer part of an overarching canon. I think the rules might be a little different here, but if Wes is okay with it I'm fine with it. He's the one who writes the setting and give the intellectual rights to, not me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?