-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
Purple Usergroup?
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
There is a forum usergroup for Yamataian GMs with a purple color. If it's set to be the default group, the name color is purple. Kokuten started it! He set his usergroup to default to Nepleslian GMs with the dark green color. 
Gamerofthegame
Inactive Member
Wait, name stuff is related to usergroups? How do you set your default group, then?
Sigma
Inactive Member
And that makes a difference? Co-GMs get a different color from regular GMs? Or just Yamataian ones? Why not just return things to status quo ante argumentum?
Your comment was unnecessary, not contributory, and can be taken as slightly insulting. If you have paid any attention to SARP, you will note that most arguments that occur are actually rather trivial. That observation does not prevent or stop them from occurring.Ira said:
Sigma
Inactive Member
From my experience, there are two types of co-GMs. 1) They are already GMs who are helping the primary plot GM out on a regular basis or 2) They are players unofficially picked to pick up the slack for the primary plot GM whenever said GM is unable to fulfill all of his/her duties.
If the Co-GM is a regular part of the plot, they should just have the blue tag because they are, in their own right, a Game Master. However, if they're just a pinch-hitter for the plot GM, they should remain as they are.
If the Co-GM is a regular part of the plot, they should just have the blue tag because they are, in their own right, a Game Master. However, if they're just a pinch-hitter for the plot GM, they should remain as they are.
Sigma
Inactive Member
The principle of the matter. Nothing more or less important than standing up for the principle of the matter.
Because if colors don't matter, then I am fully within rights to change the colors of the 4th Fleet members in the user group. There is no rule requiring that all regular members have the same color. Only the unofficial agreement not to.
As I said, either everyone returns to status quo ante argumentum (wherein all GMs have the one color and regular users none) or prepare to see colored users.
Because if colors don't matter, then I am fully within rights to change the colors of the 4th Fleet members in the user group. There is no rule requiring that all regular members have the same color. Only the unofficial agreement not to.
As I said, either everyone returns to status quo ante argumentum (wherein all GMs have the one color and regular users none) or prepare to see colored users.
Sigma
Inactive Member
I don't think it would resolve anything.
Most plots are the vision of one GM, who might then be supported one or more co-GMs. That is to say a tiered hierarchy, such as TFL. It's Gallant's plot but run by Kim and Kokuten at the moment.
But there are a minority of plots where there are two co-equal GMs (NSS Venus with Shotty and myself). In which case, it is perfectly acceptable to call either one of them a co-GM.
The concept is problematic only in that it has two (or more) definitions, depending upon the GM and circumstances.
Putting co-GMs and primary plot GMs on the same level in terms of forum access and authority is one part of a solution. That way, we can increase the pool of potential GMs. The major difference between a GM and a "co-GM" is really the circumstances of the plot and the definition which those people work under. Despite this circumstantial factor, I don't think anyone would argue that Co-GMs deserve less access, authority, etc than the Plot GMs.
Most plots are the vision of one GM, who might then be supported one or more co-GMs. That is to say a tiered hierarchy, such as TFL. It's Gallant's plot but run by Kim and Kokuten at the moment.
But there are a minority of plots where there are two co-equal GMs (NSS Venus with Shotty and myself). In which case, it is perfectly acceptable to call either one of them a co-GM.
The concept is problematic only in that it has two (or more) definitions, depending upon the GM and circumstances.
Putting co-GMs and primary plot GMs on the same level in terms of forum access and authority is one part of a solution. That way, we can increase the pool of potential GMs. The major difference between a GM and a "co-GM" is really the circumstances of the plot and the definition which those people work under. Despite this circumstantial factor, I don't think anyone would argue that Co-GMs deserve less access, authority, etc than the Plot GMs.
