What's new
Star Army

Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.

Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.

  • 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
  • 📅 October and November 2024 are YE 46.8 in the RP.

[Rules] Submission Rules Update

F

FrostJaeger

Banned Member
For Reviewers:
  • Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? No.
  • Contains Links to Unapproved Articles? No.
  • Contains New Art? No.
  • Previously Submitted? No.
  • Changelog: Link
  • Checklist Requested? Yes.
A minor update that adds the following to the Unwanted Articles section:
  • Factions or sub-factions that closely resemble or have an overall theme similar to pre-existing factions
 
Do we really have a problem with people adding factions that are too similar to other factions? I don’t think this is something that needs to be addressed in the submission rules. Adding unessisary rules just adds bloat, making the rules system worse overall.
 
In my opinion, Star Army does not need another Colonial Pact, @Zack, and it does need to be addressed in the Submission Rules - because if it isn’t, someone will come along, make a clone of Nepleslia or Yamatai, submit it to the NTSE, and accuse the moderator reviewing their submission of being biased once the latter points out that it’s basically just a clone of a pre-existing faction.

Also, how does adding a single line of text qualify as “bloat” or make the “rules system worse overall,” Zack?
 
Hmm... Looking at this, I think a little bit of a tweak might help. Perhaps it should be added somewhere in the change that people should be recommended to look at existing factions and see if their ideas fit in those? (Someone here couldn't probably word that better.)

To me, that would help to still encourage the creation of articles at least a bit.
 
Added a common-sense rule to the Review Policy section:
- Submission reviewers may not review their own submissions or their [[:faction|faction's]] submissions (if the reviewer is also a [[:faction#faction_managers|FM]] or Co-[[:faction#faction_managers|FM]]).
 
Is it supposed to be that new factions are not allowed as well sub-factions that closely resemble or have an overall theme similar to pre-existing factions? Or is it that new factions that closely resemble or have an overall theme similar to pre-existing factions as well as sub-factions that closely resemble or have an overall theme similar to pre-existing factions?
 
Apologies for the late response, and thanks for pointing that out, @Ametheliana - it’d be the latter, and I’ve updated the article accordingly.

Edit: Here’s what it now reads as following this update and an earlier one:
  • New factions (or new sub-factions) that closely resemble or have an overall theme similar to pre-existing factions or sub-factions.((Instead, talk to a Faction Manager about integrating your idea(s) into their faction.))
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure this rule is necessary and the line for enforcing what can and can't be considered too similar seems as blurry as the existing line of what factions should and shouldn't be approved.

Also, it doesn't seem to be a problem when, for example, Nashoba has approved my submissions or vice versa, but this rule would block that. So I'm not sure I'm feeling it.

I'll be listening to the feedback in this discussion.

Also, in the future please don't use a Setting Submission template to start a setting discussion.
 
Not to be rude, @Wes, but the reason I left the proposed rule regarding similar factions vague is because in my opinion it’s something that would be impossible to clearly define without a lengthly article of its own - thus it’s one of those things that would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I’ve removed the proposed rule regarding submission reviewers not being able to review their own faction’s submissions; lastly, I again am not trying to be rude - but what template should I use for rule-related submissions, then?
 
Just speaking up on the part about new factions not lookiing like old factions. The Submission rules do say that a submission must be "useful and relevent" to the setting. I think a NTSE mod can reject a submission rather easily by saying "This is not useful and relevent because it is much to simmilar to anotehr faction to warrant the creation of another faction, which would split OOC resources."
 
Yeah normally I'd be in favor of 'adding clarity' to this. But the problem is that this is the wrong target. What we're against is not "similar factions", it's factions that are not 'useful to the setting'. And they way this submission was worded. For instance, If someone wanted to make the Reds and have them become a full faction. They couldn't. But with teh setting submission rules wording, they are tasked with proving that adding the Reds as a full faction will benefit the setting. So that forces them to think more about their submission, and the setting doesn't miss out on it if they have a truly good idea and they never submitted it cause it looks similar on the surface.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top