• 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
  • 📅 July 2024 is YE 46.5 in the RP.

Approved Submission Setting: Sesestra Alpha Star System

Status
Not open for further replies.
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
Uh, why is all the planet text in side boxes? This doesn't meet the Star Army wiki's style guidelines.
 
And where would this particular guideline be? I've shown you this template and layout before and you've never said a word.
 
These are the submission rules. Notice they include the style guide.

Move the planet text into the main part of the page and save the boxes for short stuff like their stats (gravity, etc).
Arieg said:
Also I'd rather @Doshii Jun or @CadetNewb handle this one.
Click to expand...
I really don't care who you want to review your submission. I'm doing it anyway because I'm doing it already. You don't get to do that thing where dad says no and the kid runs to mom and asks her instead.
 
Each planet needs to be under its own header, the description of said planet likewise needs to be under that header as well. The rest of the information can go into the tables. However, as it stands, this article is very disorganized, cluttered, and I'll even go so far as to say ugly as well. Please redo it, and then we can come back and go through the review process again.
 
From a GM perspective, I find that extremely cluttered and hard to read. Just to back what Wes and Kyle are saying.
 
Just as I wanted to take a break from the NTSE, something pulls me back in. I feel like I'm here forever. Guys, slow down for a moment. This has already gone somewhere the thread shouldn't have.

Wes said:
I really don't care who you want to review your submission. I'm doing it anyway because I'm doing it already. You don't get to do that thing where dad says no and the kid runs to mom and asks her instead.
Click to expand...

As a tech mod, I find this kind of comment offensive because it's unprofessional and makes the rest of us look bad. Double that if a new player sees this. Heaven forbid a new player sees this and Nopes out on us. If someone is uncomfortable with the person doing the review for whatever reason - be it fear of bias, unfair treatment or vendetta - they're entitled to get someone else. Even if it isn't in the rules; it's not just common courtesy, but professionalism.

Another problem is that I'm being told that both @Wes and @Kyle were shown this article prior to its submission, with both saying nothing was wrong. Now that it's being submitted and such a major flaw is being point out only now of all places - I won't say how this looks to me, but it doesn't look good. Given that this has happened even though it should not have, I'm being asked to withdraw this submission on his behalf since Open RP does not require these yet. However, I will leave this article unlocked and open for discussion should anyone wish for it.

REJECTED at the submitter's request.
 
I can't speak for Wes, but I will speak for myself. I've looked through all fifteen of my logs that I have with Arieg. Not ONE contains the link being mentioned in this thread.

The links I DO have on record includ these two:
1. https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=system:sesestra_system
2. https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=system:sesestra_beta <--- while my thoughts were requested on this one, I wasn't able to give them since Arieg had signed off a short while afterwards; had I been asked about my thoughts again I would've mentioned that it needed to be fixed up, less cluttered, more organized.

Now, I would appreiciate it if I wasn't blamed for something that was never shown to me.
 
If the article doesn't meet the standard, which includes looking like a normal Star Army article, then it can't be approved here. I don't think the content is bad, it just needs formatting fixes. If Arieg's going to pull his submission because he's not willing to make formatting fixes, it comes off as lazy and pointlessly stubborn. I want the submission to get approved, but it's got to look right first. If I ever said it looked okay as has been claimed, I must have been looking at the text content alone. The fact is the article currently looks ridiculous as a massive cluster of overloaded sidebars and no content in the body.

And Cadetnewb, what part of me handling this submission did you not understand? I'm ignoring your rejection. You can comment on the submission but please don't interfere with my review process again.
 
Uhhhh Wes, it was Arieg who requested it be rejected and that's why Cadet rejected it as requested, and Arieg does have a right to take down his own submissions.
 
@Wes, I'm pretty sure Aeirg went to cadet and talked to him. And Aeirg asked for the article to be pulled. Even if you force it to stay open, if you're making the submitter afraid of you or aggravated at you and you wont let anyone else do it, he's just going to remove the submission entirely. Then the site loses out as a whole, think about what's best for the site Wes.
 
First off, I'm sorry if what I was told was incorrect Kyle. I should have double checked with you and Wes first rather than trying to just wrap this up quickly.

As for this submission being un-rejected, well, I'm beaten to the punch. They summed it up quite well. This has gone to a very strange place, and any hopes I had of bringing this potential powder keg to a quick close before taking a break from the NTSE seem gone. The only consolidation I have from this entire incident is this, which I share with anyone that feels like they were insulted or offended by whatever I said or did, because that wasn't my intention at all:

ai.imgur.com_lSSAZWT.png
 
Don't worry, I'm more frustrated with Arieg than with with you Cadet, you were just trying to do the right thing.

Anyway, I was not in the mood for Arieg's games so I went and fixed the formatting myself and the article is now approved.

This review is for: Sesestra Alpha https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=system:sesestra_alpha

The submitted article is/has…
[X] A very high level of overall quality
[X] A general topic sentence under the title header
[X] Artwork (Required for new species; Strongly recommended for vehicles and hand weapons)
[X] Needed and/or useful to the setting
[X] In the proper format/template
[X] Proofread for spelling and grammar
[X] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
[X] Wikified (terms that could be a link should be a link)
[X] No red and/or broken links
[X] Reasonably scientifically plausible
[X] Reasonably neutral point of view

The submitted article is/does not…
[X] Overpowered (or cutting tech for a faction with little or no roleplay)
[X] Obtusely redundant
[X] Contain copy pasta descriptions of systems or interior compartments
[X] Unauthorized by faction managers or player-controlled corporation
[X] Contain references to IC events that have not occurred (SM must authorize retcons)
[X] Use second-person language (“you” or “your”) unless it is an instructional guide aimed at players.
[X] Use bombastic language (“virtually immune,” “nearly indestructible,” “insanely powerful,” “horrible effects”)
[X] Use an unbalanced header/text ratio (many headers but sections are one-liners)
[X] Use major unapproved sub-articles that should be submitted separately
[X] Lacking Detail
[X] Images hosted on sites other than stararmy.com (Photobucket, Imageshack, etc are not allowed)

The article has…
[NA] Speeds in compliance with the Starship Speed Standard, if applicable
[NA] Damage Capacity and Damage Ratings in compliance with the DR Guidelines
[NA] The in-character year of creation/manufacture. (Should be current year. Future years not allowed).
[NA] The Standard Product Nomenclature System, if applicable.

APPROVED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top