Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities of Faction Managers.

Hey Star Army,

Behind every active faction there's usually a person or small group of people who maintain its articles and basically manage its day-to-day business. This faction manager is the central point of contact for GMs who want to know if their plot ideas make sense in the context of that faction.

Lately due to a personal disagreement much of the site leadership has been involved in a dialogue about what rights a faction manager does or doesn't have, and we've concluded that it's not exactly clear at this point.

For reference, here are the currently listed responsibilities of a faction manager:

Responsibilities
Responsibilities of the Faction Manager include:

• Overseeing consistency and continuity within his designated faction
• Approving factional characters
• Final authority controlling NPCs of the faction
• Recruiting and approving factional plot Game Masters.
• Ensuring factional compliance with the Military Buildup Limitations
• Roleplaying the leadership and other NPCs of his faction as necessary
• Designating an assistant and/or backup FM who can run his faction should the FM become indisposed

Faction Managers do not necessarily have the ability to approve articles (that falls to staff of New Technologies and Setting Elements). However, all articles must be approved by the appropriate faction manager before the NTSE staff can approve them.
​

What's not clear is what the "powers" of a faction manager really are, and that's what we hope to clarify in this thread. @Kyle has helpfully made a proposal for FM rights. It's my feeling since some of these will affect everyone, we need transparency and input from all users before we move forward.

In particular, I'm concerned with a balance. I don't want to see FMs as lords up in the castle looking down on player peasants. Building a faction is hard work and those creations should be respected, but making a collection of wiki articles doesn't necessarily qualify someone as a leader or site staff member. Anytime we give site members power over other site members, that needs scrutiny and careful consideration. Regular players should be empowered too, but obviously not to the point they can wreck a whole faction on their own.

So I'm asking your opinions:

1. Should faction managers have the ability to keep their faction's tech or species from being used out of the faction? Even when it goes against the actual roleplay canon?
   
2. Should faction managers have the right to remove underperforming game masters from their faction? Or is that the staff/admin's job?
   
3. Should faction managers be able to make RP threads non-canon or retcon if they feel their faction wasn't played right? If so, how would we protect against abuse of this right?
4. Can FMs "faction ban" a player? If so, for what reasons?
   
5. Should GMs need to ask an FM before they use their faction's, or another faction's assets?
6. Is it a problem if an FM is also a GM?

NOTE: This is an important discussion that will affect the site's future, so any non-constructive posts or posters may be removed from the thread.

 

[Syaoran]

I have not negated anything Fred, you just assume I'm either all for or all against. Where from the start my answer to this question has been conditional so please read my full post if you're going to bother to reply. And unfortunately because this topic has been made public, it's not just a matter of stating opinions. Because we have to find and an answer to this that's "right" not popular opinion so it needs to be discussed and go back and forward till all the evidence is out so that we can find out what is best for SARP.

 

[Semjax]

Perhaps a better example is the Yamataians being used as NPCs in the NSS Sledge Mama plot. These were not originally approved to be there and I still don't have any control over how Yamatai's troops and equipment are currently being played. I still have no idea why Nepleslians and Yamataians are even fighting in that plot.

Actually, the Sledgemama crew and the Yamataian's aren't fighting at all, the only time we fought in Sledge was during a joint training simulation with them. After which our the ship was attacked by rogue Freespacers. I just want to clear that up, we have never been fighting against each other outside of that simulation.

Right now we're actually working together to survive.

 

[Syaoran]

I want to highlight what just happened with Semjax' post. This is kind of exactly what I'm talking about. While yes Yam is Wes' faction. He was a 3rd party to this situation, not really involved just his faction(which permission should've been asked yes) but because he wasn't involved he doesn't really know what's going on. And to find out he'd have to read hundreds of post or to rely on what people tell him, which easily could be lies or manipulated to suit their needs. This is why unless absolutely necessary for outside interference, the FM should have the decisions for their faction, because a 'biased 3rd party' wont know what's actually going on.

 

[Wes]

Sorry, I kept reading the posts about the marines fighting one of my Star Army TASHA spider tanks and that's what it looked like.

Anyway, let's keep this on topic: I am listening to the community's answers to the questions asked in the OP so I can use the feedback to draft a final version of Kyle's suggested FM rights.

 

[Aendri]

1. Should faction managers have the ability to keep their faction's tech or species from being used out of the faction? Even when it goes against the actual roleplay canon?
2. Should faction managers have the right to remove underperforming game masters from their faction? Or is that the staff/admin's job?
   
3. Should faction managers be able to make RP threads non-canon or retcon if they feel their faction wasn't played right? If so, how would we protect against abuse of this right?
4. Can FMs "faction ban" a player? If so, for what reasons?
   
5. Should GMs need to ask an FM before they use their faction's, or another faction's assets?
6. Is it a problem if an FM is also a GM?

1. Yes, 100%. I understand that GMs should be able to run things their way, but if a GM can't be bothered to work things out ahead of time with FMs, then they shouldn't be using those parts of the setting anyway. I think there should be definite limits put in place on something like this (say, if an FM doesn't respond to a request within a time limit, say two weeks, the request is approved), but approval should always be something you get beforehand, it shouldn't be something the FM has to go looking for.

2. Again, I'm all for this. If an FM and a GM have a disagreement big enough to make the FM feel like they need to remove the GM, then that relationship has already degraded to the point where further cooperation is unlikely. Forcing the FM to keep working with a GM they don't approve of is just going to drive FMs away. Just because they agreed on something in the past, doesn't mean they always will.

3. Again, going back to Doc's response, yes, but in a controlled fashion. This one I agree entirely that someone else should be involved, since if something has been going on, has occurred, and wasn't stopped at some point, there's a certain amount of tacit agreement that it's allowed at that point, so an FM shouldn't be able to just declare it non-canon or retcon it on a whim. I think this would be a good time to get a discussion between the GM, FM, and an admin going.

4. Yes. It's happened in the past, and for very good reasons, and this shouldn't be something an FM has to get someone's permission for. If an FM feels a player is detrimental to the faction in some way, or is just not "a good fit" for lack of a better way to say it, they should be allowed to remove that person from their faction. GMs are more than welcome to ask FMs for such bans to be lifted on a case by case or overall basis, but the FM really should have final say on something like this.

5. This is much like 1. to me. While I feel like this should be up to the FMs, there needs to be a reasonable time period for GMs as well. Probably a longer time period here than on 1, since this question feels more like it deals with the more important side of things for a faction, rather than individual characters or items so much.

6. No. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Jimmy]

1. Should faction managers have the ability to keep their faction's tech or species from being used out of the faction? Even when it goes against the actual roleplay canon?
   
2. Should faction managers have the right to remove underperforming game masters from their faction? Or is that the staff/admin's job?
   
3. Should faction managers be able to make RP threads non-canon or retcon if they feel their faction wasn't played right? If so, how would we protect against abuse of this right?
4. Can FMs "faction ban" a player? If so, for what reasons?
   
5. Should GMs need to ask an FM before they use their faction's, or another faction's assets?
6. Is it a problem if an FM is also a GM?

I'm sort of in a unique position in FM's simply because chelti were designed from the outset to require minimal conformity and be flexible to GM requirements so purity of vision is something that doesn't come up very often for me. But I'll put up my responses to these questions.

--------------------

1. We already have tech restricted by OOC mandate, particularly in the case of Aether tech. This seems to be the way SARP has always run, so coming at it from an IC angle is unusual to me on this forum. Also, chelti don't have much tech that anyone would want to steal anyway, only show the enemy what you don't mind them knowing you have.

2. I wish we had a better definition of underperforming. GM's and FM's are a team in my mind, if that relationship has fallen out so much that one feels the need to remove the other then something's seriously wrong. Not hard or fast rules for this one I can think of, I doubt FM's would want plots removed from their factions without very good reason.

3. This is one of those situations that seem so avoidable with just a little bit of consultation and honest, positive communication. If a GM and FM really can't settle it themselves then maybe it should go to consensus.

4. Tentative yes on this one. We already have FM's approval for characters, and FM's are entrusted with ensuring the health of their factions playerbase. As for reasons? I guess we'd have to see it case-by-case. If a player and FM truly can't stand each other the player would probably have the sense to avoid that factions affairs anyway, if it's an existing player in the faction things become more complex.

5. This is already standard in SARP, at the very least it would common courtesy. FM's are usually the central reservoir of knowledge for their faction, the stuff that doesn't always fit into the wiki articles, they can be pivotal points of assistance to a GM. At the very least most FM's would like to be consulted when their stuff gets used.

6. No. Otherwise how would new player factions get the start they need to breed a new crop of faction GM's who are passionate about the content of that faction. Why is this even a question?

--------------------------

Phew, took a while to answer that, got some nice self-reflection done. Had to change a few answers for brevity and because I'd look like a hypocrite, but I'm not perfect. It looks like I've used a lot of assumptions, but there were so many "I imagines" and "I think that's" that it was stupid, so yeah.

I only have a partial knowledge about the circumstances that caused these questions to rise from the adminship, but to me the whole thing sounds like it arose from silliness and if this was two people right in front of me I'd be busy banging their craniums together until some sense came out.

 

[Lamb]

I have watched this thread for a bit, and now I'll respond to it. Originally, I'd intended to respond to some of the other posters who presented their own ideas and points, but I sense a mingling of past resentment and a hint of hypocrisy is some of those posts and couldn't promise not to point that out in an unproductive way. Instead, I think I'll just make my own opinions clear and hopefully that will stand as an adequate contribution to the discussion.

So I'm asking your opinions:

1. Should faction managers have the ability to keep their faction's tech or species from being used out of the faction? Even when it goes against the actual roleplay canon?
   
2. Should faction managers have the right to remove underperforming game masters from their faction? Or is that the staff/admin's job?
   
3. Should faction managers be able to make RP threads non-canon or retcon if they feel their faction wasn't played right? If so, how would we protect against abuse of this right?
4. Can FMs "faction ban" a player? If so, for what reasons?
   
5. Should GMs need to ask an FM before they use their faction's, or another faction's assets?
6. Is it a problem if an FM is also a GM?

1. Absolutely not. No matter how well-regulated an item or technology is, someone can get it and have it. No government is immune to crime, and no level of technology is safe from a smuggler's eye and a theif's hand. If it's valuable then people will find a way to get it. Perhaps the item will be rare, hard to come by-- but the item will be available outside of its faction.

2. That really depends on your definition of 'underpreforming'. An inactive plot that's loyal to the setting material is the staff's problem. An active plot that abuses the Faction's setting fluff is the FM's problem.

3. This is touchy. I think FMs should be able to at least raise a fuss about it and be heard out. I, for one, would hate it if something I did was rated as 'not fit for canon'. On the other hand, I'd be just as offended if somebody went and made something that just wouldn't happen. I know I've even gotten offended about abused setting elements from other factions. One time, a Yamataian player had their Neko claim she'd put cookies in her mouth fresh from the oven and couldn't taste anything for two days. Immediately, despite having no great stake in Yamatai, I felt fire rising in my chest. Why? A Neko would heal a simple burn much faster than that, if their regenerative abilities are to be observed. We should definitely consider what FM powers there are, and work to allow FMs to step in and keep things like this from happening. On the other hand, 'canon' is coveted when you're writing collaborative fiction. Canon should be what you aim for. You want to be setting-accurate and worthy of being part of the site's history. For the FM to be able to whimsically approach and say: "This isn't canon because I don't like it." Is tantamount to telling the players they should've have bothered writing anything in the first place.

4. Absolutely not.

5. Last I checked, faction assets were meant to be GM tools. Since when should a GM have to send a letter to the Shadowrun people to ask for permission to use something in their sourcebooks? Granted, you couldn't say that the Yamataian Empress herself came out to congratulate your Nepleslian characters on a job well-done after they've cleaned the head really well. But I don't think we will have GMs doing that any time soon.

6. Problem? Problem!? Frankly, it should be a requirement. I know that running and building a faction is time-consuming, but my opinion is that a faction manager should be running a plot with his faction. His plot should be standard, not some fancy boutique plot for people who want to consider things like torture and women's rights in the setting. He should run a simple, episodic plot that contains all the most notable elements of his faction and serves as the quintessential illustration of how his faction behaves in the setting. The idea that an FM being a GM is some sort of problem is almost offensive.

 

[Amaryllis]

6. Problem? Problem!? Frankly, it should be a requirement.

I agree with what Lamb about point 6. I'll never GM anything, but I bet that would sure help because it discourages people from making things that won't get used, encourages them to use whatever is already there, encourages them to work within the established canon and to participate in the plots of experienced players/writers before creating their own microcosm that may be made to avoid having to acknowledge everything and everyone else and it makes sure factions have a strong foundation and the issue of needing players is acknowledged.

Like it's kind of silly when someone laments a lack of interest in their faction when they can't/won't GM a plot to create initial interest. Even if a faction creator just co-GMed a plot that'd be good. If an emergency happens or whatever issues arise and a FM can't GM a plot then he should at least have sufficient notes/time to instruct someone else to keep his running. Like you need to flesh out your faction and to have things for it to do to make it successful. You don't want someone saying they'll be your GM/co-GM and you can't give them a good outline of what to do with a plot. You don't want a FM saying "Hey you can run a plot for me by seat of your pants and I'll just seemingly randomly come in perhaps when it's way too late to tell you to change what doesn't jive for me." You want a FM to have plot ideas for a single introductory plot and ideas for his entire faction narrative. Like simply put ideas for what your faction wants to do and intends to do. You don't want people going "Why isn't anyone reaching out to me? ;_;" Strangely a lot of drama seems to come from people complaining that no one talks to each other and when they do they aren't genuinely forthcoming and they use intermediaries or they imply stuff. Like geez, talk to each other. I only hear about a tiny bit of drama so I wouldn't be surprised if stuff is way worse than I've seen.

People should be encouraged to be proactive and also to self-evaluate as if you can't come up with a plot and genuine player interest for a plot maybe there is something wrong or just not optimal with your faction idea or how you present it.

 

[Syaoran]

So I found this while looking around and it points out some things. Granted it was never approved, but some points even even before this discussion. Some of the FMs even agreed to this before hand, not sure what ended up happening to it in the long run. But I'd like to point out rules 1 5 and 8. Which essentially would allow FMs to restrict their tech, disallow people from GMing for the faction, and make plots non canon if deemed for their faction being used or depicted improperly.

And while yes this never did get approved(not sure why wasn't part of that) but really this topic started in 2012 and even then they felt FMs should have control of their faction. I really think it's about time FMs got the rights they deserved, and not be pushed aside for GM rights. GMs are important, they make the stories, but if there were no factions there'd be hardly any material for GMs to make stories with, shouldn't those people making the setting and material for the GMs be rewarded with peace of mind that their creation wont be destroyed just because they took a week vacation?

Edit: I would also like to point on here (an approved page) that FMs have the responsibility of approving Gms for their faction and for maintaining canonicity of it. In other words @Wes you already gave the FMs those 2 rights, should they really be taken back?

 

[Wes]

Good find. I'm going to leave this open for the weekend in case there is anyone else who still needs to reply, and because I'll be out for the con and next week I'll sort through the comments one more time and write up the official version. It looks like most of the stuff Kyle's version has wide support and will be included, though perhaps with some caveats based on other feedback.

 

[Kyle]

I was actually trying to find that when I was initially writing up that Guide, the one you found was written by Ira and myself, although mainly Ira.

 

[Aendri]

Also, if you didn't notice, Wes, I did go through and re-edit Kyle's page for readability, spelling, and grammar, so the parts you like should be good to be copied word for word from his page when you're ready.

 

[Fred]

I'm concerned that race creators/faction managers end up being too coddled by this.

It seems hard for people to accept the idea that once something is introduced in the setting that people will start playing with it if it meets their fancy. That the creation is no longer quite as under control. This can be incredibly good as much as it can be harmful... but it's more often the former than the latter. Thinking out of the box is often good as it adds dimension to something. Not everything can be planned, sometimes it's just a spark of spontaneity.

But these sparks, I've seen them squashed by overprotective FMs before. Wes, do you remember the incident where Hanako banged the Lorath Queen and how it started a civil war? We basically had invested Lorath participants try and portray what the science caste would do in the level of internal police, but DocTomoe inflexibly bucked and things went very very wrong, starting a civil war and resulting in a part of the lorath faction be ripped out and then moved to be exterminated. The two people involved in the initiative (Vesper and what's-his-name) ended up going from being huge supporters of the faction to displaced and ultimately they left our community.

If peer-review had been involved, we'd have been able to rein this in, and have both sides work toward somesort of compromise. Instead, all power was left to the FM, and we got a trainwreck.

I'm very leery of granting FMs enough power to have this sort of thing happen again. People spout ideals, firmly believe that only the creator has prime investment in a created faction, but past experience teaches otherwise. I don't want to lose people over this anymore. That's why I think FM-actions should see more peer review before being enforced.

"Yay, I provided people a sandbox. Come play in my sandbox. But no, you cannot dig holes and make tunnels. I only want you to make castles. No stop making tunnels - I don't want tunnels even if it would make for more fun with toy trains. STOP MAKING TUNNELS OR EAT MY FOOT!" *stomp stomp stomp* "Mwuahaha, I'll collapse all your tunnels just because I can! No castles and tunnels in my ideal vision for my sandbox; only castles!" *more mwuahaha'ing*

 

[Kyle]

Thankfully Syaoran already discovered that FM's have the right to ensure proper canon within the factions they are running, which means we can make sure that our factions and their assets are not being used improperly. The page shows the responsibilities of the FM's but also helps to protect their faction from anyone trying to do things that do not fit the lore of said faction, otherwise there would be no point in setting up things like a culture or species pages and the like.

Also Fred, I do hear you about power; but I also think that GM's shouldn't be allowed to do anything they want unchecked and without question, for example, no GM should be taking a segment of another factions population and suddenly deciding for themselves that they attack their plotship. This is espically true for the Neshaten proper, given they are more pacifists and less warmongering. On the other hand, the terrorist group I created for the Neshies is the exact opposite, and I wouldn't have a problem if a GM was to use that group without my permission - so long as they are used responsibly. (by that, I mean, they are not suddenly turned pacifist and run and hide from danger)

 

[Aendri]

My big issue with what you're saying, Fred, isn't even with GMs themselves, but with how these rules apply to everyone else too. I'm not going to name any names, but there have been players who made characters from Elysia that were way, WAY off of how 99% of the population of Elysia would act. I'd be the first to argue that PCs are most definitely the 1% of the factions, but especially for smaller factions, one or two players portraying the races or technology incorrectly, especially in larger plots that might not be directly tied to the faction manager or GM's control, can give a large portion of the site a bad or just plain incorrect idea of how whatever element they're using. That kind of thing doesn't hurt the big factions much, where they have plenty of people who are probably doing it right, but for a smaller faction, that can cascade pretty heavily, with painful results for FMs who don't get much exposure to start with.

Like I said more than once in my response, I think the controls should remain with the FMs. I'm all in favor of counterbalancing that though, and I don't think that direct control should ever be the first step. I think a big part of the process should be fixing up the character approval process (in large part because many GMs might not be familiar enough with the races to make good judgements on the characters they're currently expected to approve), but the technology usage is more heavily up to the GMs individually, which is a large part of why I think GMs should need to talk to the FMs before using the faction unique stuff. This requires FMs to be more active and respond quickly to allow for that spontaneity which you value, Fred, but I don't think that's a bad thing either. A faction should always have one or more of its FMs able to quickly respond to something.

Yes, there should be checks in place to make sure FMs don't abuse the authority and power that they're being given if this gets approved, but I think they do NEED that power in many cases, even if it's not exercised often.

 

[Semjax]

A GM should not be allowed to do whatever they want unchecked. Just like the FM shouldn't do anything they want unchecked, Its a power balance. But there is no FM here who's going to go through the trouble of creating a faction and then go 'Hur, you can't do anything with it.' What Fred shows is a thought that perhaps overprotective FM's will come forth, and ruin the GM's creativity, while a valid fear...

You don't seem to understand, or choose to not understand (I'm not claiming which) that we FM's work hard to create these factions -so- you can play and create these stories. But even still, these are our babies, our hard work, and no FM here wants to see their faction damaged, or harmed by an unruly GM who refuses to agree with an FM's 'counseling'; Or a player who wants to go around badmouthing both the FM and the Faction as a whole, damaging its reputation and chances of applications from new people... None of us want to see this. The requirements for a -good- faction are so time consuming during creation that we could arguably say that each faction is our baby.

These rules wouldn't really be in question if people -respected- the FM's in the first place, but those are few and far between. Not naming any names, but it has been shown by many people that players quote the players rights to overthrow any meaning to the FM title, and its been shown that GM's go against the FM's wishes, and what can the FM's do but sit back and watch their hard work either be damned, wasted, or nearly destroyed (A somewhat extreme look... but I digress).

Like I said, nobody creates an entire faction to never be played... All you need to do is communicate with your FM, which if this normally happened already we wouldn't even be having this talk.

 

[Fred]

I just get the impression that this whole process is very one-sided. Faction Managers (and co-managers) raising what ought to be their rights and powers, and since the initiative stems from them, it's highly favorable to them. Game Masters, though? In good american slang, "we're your bitches". Regardless of the time invested by the GM (which will often far outweigh the investment the faction manager/race creator). You guys are seriously denigrating GMs. If I'm promoting something in the setting, it doesn't mean I want to be glued by the hip with the person whom created it, and I don't always want to ask for permission. Too much damn red tape.

If I asked for permission to the extent suggested, I wouldn't be nearly as successful. Here's an example: the Umbral wouldn't exist. They'd still be mostly undefined "Dark Mishhuvurthyar" that Wes never really bothered to get into past their unveiling on the Nozomi plot. As is, I developped and mulled over an idea on my end, I eventually presented it in my plot.

Wes then was exposed to the idea, and seemed to have largely embraced it. It's on the wiki now, and he even took the pain to have his own plot's characters evaluate the findings. Even if the information had been out, as FM for the Mishhu, he still could've swayed it in different direction. "Melisson is lying", could've been one. "We're confusing Melisson's Umbral tribe with something else of similar origin" could be another. Wes was either pleasantly surprised, had no better idea and decided to roll with it, or stuck to it out of respect for my creativity.

But that's the thing: I was allowed to be creative. I like that approach. When I agreed to GM again in Yamatai past Miharu's ending, I said something like "okay, I'll come back and GM to portray something in your faction again, Wes," and he answered me "It's our faction, Fred". I butt heads with Wes on certain things, but at that moment, I thought he was really, really cool. Maybe I earned this through seniority on SARP, credibility or whichever... but it's nice to be able, as a storyteller, to carve out things in the universe and then let the FM afterwards decide how much he wants to embrace it or not; or if he has issues with it, come and dish it out so we can come to an understanding.

I'd hate to lose that just because some FMs feel overprotective and cannot allow creative freedoms with the things they've contributed to the setting that they want used, and hey, GMs are taking the pain to use them but so much red tape! Then the natural answer is "just ask us first", but geez, maybe I want to make up my own mind. maybe I want some autonomy to build my stories. Maybe I feel more cooperative asking a FM for reference/guidance/if I think something I want to do might have a greater impact and want to give him a heads up while not being obligated answer for it unless I end up doing something wrong as indicated by peer review.

 

[Semjax]

Look, the end result Fred, is that the FM's are people to, we have a right to rights just like every GM and Player, and if you can't accept that then I don't know what to say.

I've tried to be patient and I've tried to be fair, but your seemingly biased attitude against the FM's (Even calling it one sided, when the GM's and Players having absolute control was -supremely- one sided against the FM's in the first place) is blatantly unfair.

If you can't do even the smallest thing like talk to your FM, then... I don't know. I know what I want to say, but it will get us nowhere. The FM's deserve rights just like every GM and every Player, and that's all this comes down to. The rights we have placed up for review are more then fair taking the rights of the other two into account. I do hope that once these rules are placed into effect, that you will actually step back and see that its not as bad as you make it out to be.

 

[Aendri]

There's a big difference between losing your creative freedom and having to ask for permission up front and actually working with FMs, Fred. Yes, creative freedom is great. Which is why Semjax is currently basically running the only Elysian plot with only minimal involvement from me. I don't have a whole ton of time to hover over his back, so I'm trusting him to handle things in a way I'd approve of, because I talked to him about what my goals were, and he talks to me about his goals. I'm not saying you need 100% disclosure at all times, but having an FM involved at least in a general way isn't a bad thing, or it shouldn't be. If you don't trust an FM to work with you, or they don't trust you to work with them, then you shouldn't be working together in the first place.

You know how I would want your example above handled, were I the FM in question, even under the new, suggested rules? You come to me, say, "Hey, I want to play with and expand this setting element. I'm not sure where it's going to end up, but they're interesting to me." And my reply would, 99% of the time, be "Sure, go for it, let me know what you think of."

If that's not how it's working between a GM and an FM, then they don't trust each other enough. It's that simple. What I just described took all of 5 seconds longer than what you described, and yet, the FM is involved, and knows something is going on, and can pop in from time to time to ask what's going on. That's the majority of what we're asking for, Fred, is basically forewarning and the ability to undo something that goes completely wrong. That's all it comes down to. And if that's not a right you can respect, then there is a flat out disagreement that won't be resolved one way or another.

 

[Eistheid]

Uhmm... I'm honestly at a loss as to why you're so polarized in this discussion. Is there something I'm missing that makes acknowledging the needs of the other impossible? Because at this point this seems rather petty.

GMs need autonomy in order to function and keep a faction interesting and alive. At the same time FMs need to be able to influence how their faction is represented. Both need to happen if a faction is to function properly.

What @Fred seems to be asking for more or less comes down to wanting to say, "Can I use your faction and get creative every now and again." Instead of having to ask for permission to use every little setting piece, which would get tedious fast.

I'm at a loss as to how this point is getting missed. I get that FMs should have oversight, but that should largely only be necessary within the first couple of threads run by a GM, after which point the GM should get more freedom due to y'know not burning down the house. As much as it is a good idea to have some oversight on what does or does not happen, it is needless to hobble GMs who have proven reliable.

On the flip side to address @Semjax and to a lesser extent @Aendri; Fred isn't advocating not communicating with the FM, they're expressing concern that this might be taken too literally and that there should be efforts made to ensure that this doesn't end up abused one way or the other.

Neither of you is wrong, you're just taking the other side's stance as being way too polarized which to be honest neither of you are. So can we stop nitpicking semantics and agree that FMs need some oversight but that GMs shouldn't have to ask for every little decision?