Setting Submissions Process

I've seen that when people get frustrated with the site, they're often frustrated because of the Setting Submissions process. I'm really interested in making this part of the site a more positive experience for creative SARPers who have graciously put their time and effort into expansion articles to Star Army's setting and lore.

So I've put together a plan to fix things:

Step 1: We're going to completely rewrite the rules for submission reviewers, with clear, thorough guides on how we expect them to conduct themselves. A key part of this will be positivity.

Step 2: Search for more active and positive moderators and aggressively streamline the overall process to make it faster with less frustrating wait times. Create forms for the submissions so articles and posts always have everything they need to succeed. You've already seen the start of this now that the forum asks for submission URLs and WIP URLs along with the post.

Step 3: Opening submission of new factions again - a date will be set soon. This is a very requested feature.

If you have specific suggestions I want to hear them.

EXAMPLE: Reviewers always should fix typos instead of posting about them in the thread.

 

[Ametheliana]

Syaoran outlined why they wouldn't want to be a moderator, already, Rizzo. Try to keep things tame in here and not attack one another's ideologies. Not saying we have, just saying not to start.

Also, without any flexibility special cases cannot be made for cases that require special dispensation.

This also shouldn't be something we do. We don't make anything "special" in the NTSE. Everything should be treated the same across the board. We need flexibility in RP, but not in the NTSE.

 

[Rizzo]

If that were truly the case Wes would have backed up the moderators decision regarding the C9 Pine class drone. It was a scam, a flagrant attempt to bypass the weapon limitations that was successful and the reason I no longer want to be a moderator.

To clarify, that was an example of us treating everything the same across the board and the result was Wes permitting Zack to break the guideline anyway.

 

[Legix]

I think he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and has the worst ideologies of them all, to enforce a rigid ruleset pisses everyone else off. Not only will we have a harder time getting moderators, it will always be the moderators that are being abused. I have a hard time believing that such few people remember the age-old reality that having too many laws make everyone a criminal. Also, without any flexibility special cases cannot be made for cases that require special dispensation. But I don't offer criticism without advising on a solution. Since @Syaoran thinks he is such a better moderator then the actual moderators by all means, go ahead and take my seat as a moderator! I would genuinely love to see you do better.

The problem I have here is that there very much so is a misunderstanding of what the NTSE was made to do; as someone who has complained about it so long working with it, attempting to get reform, and now being part of it? I see that Syaoran has good points. We should raise the standards on the NTSE. It shouldn't be a very populous job, just like there shouldn't be people submitting garbage or violently mistreating NTSE members. But both of those are the case and we've having problems.

SARP needs less NTSE that are doing it for ulterior motives and ones that are doing it because they want to help and know the setting; this is not me attempting to say that is the case with anyone specifically. We also need more rules in-place or at least guidelines that refute the treatment that some members leverage at them.

But we do not need to treat Syaoran as if he's wrong; from many parts of my experience and the issues I've held with the NTSE, these are fundamental things that have needed fixing.

This also shouldn't be something we do. We don't make anything "special" in the NTSE. Everything should be treated the same across the board. We need flexibility in RP, but not in the NTSE.

This is something that is fickle; I do think that things like DRv3 are guidelines specifically because we're supposed to be flexible and realistic; we shouldn't be letting something in if it "fudges the line" without serious discussion or even SM intervention. Just because something can JUST BARELY PASS THE BAR doesn't mean we should let that in; that's precisely why we've built up PAGES UPON PAGES of things that receive no love, no care, and are effectively dead for years until being replaced or (if lucky) facelifted by someone like myself.

Not every case of submission is the same and while having general guidelines and expectations is something the NTSE needs, treating everything as if it's exactly the same is fundamentally wrong. No situation can be without context; this is precisely why the NTSE aren't allowed to handle their own submissions for example.

If the NTSE were PURELY rules... then why wouldn't an FM be allowed to NTSE their own work? This is part of the problem with the idea that we can't have flexibility and can ONLY be RULES. These are guidelines and are intended to act as rules only at their extremes; effectively like us going "this is a good speed limit you should aim for, going past it means we're very likely to arrest you" as they would do in the real world.

In SARP, it's currently more like "well, you're going the speed limit with something that probably shouldn't... guess that's 100% fine and totally not going to crash 5 seconds from now!".

The analogy might be wrong, but I'm trying to convey that Syaoran wanting more standards is good; but they need to equally be flexible and ensure people can't do what some members do and harass NTSE because their submission hasn't been claimed in 3 days or they haven't replied in a day or they think they're being wrongfully prosecuted so they try to enforce NTSE-wide change across the entire site instead of just bring up a report against one person and talk it out in DMs like a sane member.

 

[Zack]

We should have a simple rules set that takes the guess work out of making NTSE submissions.

Bad rules should be fixed, complex rules should be simplified, and enough flexibility should be in place to encourage different types of submissions.

But it’s nearly impossible to get changes put in place and adheared to in the current environment. I think the first problem is too many cooks trying to make changes to how the rules work. Maybe a special rules team would make sense for creating updated rules?

 

[Syaoran]

@Rizzo, hate to break it to you Rizzo, but rather than deciding myself to be NTSE on multiple occasions people have actually -requested- to me that I apply, and I've turned it down. So at least on that principle there are people other than myself that think I'd do a pretty good job.

If you think that giving the NTSE rules is being too strict, then I wonder how you hold down a job. With power comes responsibility and accountability. Or do you think a police officer from New York can arrest someone in Paris just because he knows they're breaking the rules in Paris?

And special cases? Oh man the things I want to say to that. How about you think about the definition of your own words? They're called Special Cases because they're things that have to be handled in a way not normal to the rules. Which means you have to have rules in the first place.

The amount of restrain I have to exercise in order to not say something offensive with you makes me htink I might have a career as a monk. But let's not take talk about ideals from someone who threw a tantrum and left an RP because the GM said they couldn't cut through a reinforced brig with a vibroknife.

Yeah I said that, I'm getting very tired of you pretending like you're some flawless member of the site. And even more tired of you acting like you have the only right opinion, when there was a time people literally were happy you weren't around for a while.

 

[Zack]

(Also, side note: An FM should be allowed to approve their own stuff. A good rules set / templates / etc would mean that you couldn’t fill them in wrong. A good rules set should be as bulletproof as possible)

 

[Syaoran]

(Also, side note: An FM should be allowed to approve their own stuff. A good rules set / templates / etc would mean that you couldn’t fill them in wrong. A good rules set should be as bulletproof as possible)

And FM shoudl be allowed to give their own FM approval, but no one should be allwoed to give the final say on if their stuff is allowed into teh setting, just as a point of principle. Even if most our FMs can do it right, it's best to not give them that power so that problems don't crop up in the future.

 

[Legix]

(Also, side note: An FM should be allowed to approve their own stuff. A good rules set / templates / etc would mean that you couldn’t fill them in wrong. A good rules set should be as bulletproof as possible)

Disagree.

No FM should handle their own work; I refute this heavily as an FM myself. I saw other FMs carry out abuse of power and know we do not ever need to open that can of worms again. Particularly with some of the folks involved in the NTSE now.

 

[Rizzo]

You can point to old examples all you want, you're still the one at the end of the day that thinks that just throwing rules at a problem will fix it. If you really did have a better way of doing things you'd be the change you want to see rather than just whining from the sidelines @Syaoran. Being a moderator is hard work, maybe I'd respect your opinion more if you actually played the field rather than just judging mods from the bleachers.

 

[Zack]

The rules should be setup in such a way that FMs wouldn’t be able to abuse their positions in the first place. Look at how character creation is handled now.

Characters can’t really be overpowered anymore and GMs are really just checking to see if they fit the lore/plot.

 

[Ametheliana]

This is becoming a little convoluted with jabs and remarks. Be nicer to one another in this thread.

 

[Syaoran]

You can point to old examples all you want, you're still the one at the end of the day that thinks that just throwing rules at a problem will fix it. If you really did have a better way of doing things you'd be the change you want to see rather than just whining from the sidelines @Syaoran. Being a moderator is hard work, maybe I'don't respect your opinion more if you actually played the field rather than just judging mods from the bleachers.

Have you been paying attention? I've been trying to change it for years. This is by no means the first time I've been trying to change it. And when behavior is the problem, the only way to fix it is rules and enforcement. Unless you plan on culling the NTSE? Or do you expect all you have to do is say it and it'll magically change?

You don't respect me cause I don't play the field? Not only is that simply ignorant, it's an excuse. A right answer is a right answer no matter who it is coming from. If my posiotin effects your judgement of whether or not I've provided an adequate solution then there is no quesiotn about it, your values are -wrong-.

Also just to humor you, I've set down and listen to the complaints of at least 3 mods, and helped them through it. I've Created and ran 3 RP communities myself, moderated 5 others, and was a moderator assistant to another. I think I know how hard it is to be a mod. Don't talk about people's qualifications and what they have and haven't done when you don't know them. I literally have 14 years of moderation experience under my belt dude. Maybe I haven't directly been in the NTSE, but I've had my fingers in it enough, and have enough experience and wisdom to know what it's like. So do I play the field enough for you yet?

And you have Legix, a mod, right there who is a mod telling you straight up that what I said will fix problems, even if not all of them. What more do you need?

 

[Legix]

The rules should be setup in such a way that FMs wouldn’t be able to abuse their positions in the first place. Look at how character creation is handled now.

Characters can’t really be overpowered anymore and GMs are really just checking to see if they fit the lore/plot.

The problem with that idea is that we'd have to have a setting streamlined for new additions; we don't. This has nothing to do with rules, but that making something requires an understanding of what's already within the setting (to avoid clogging it with too many of the same thing) and if it fits a setting. This is similar on one account to how characters are handled, but the scope of understanding lore is more vital in equipment because unlike characters that have plenty of routes to be basically nobodies? Equipment has to have a basis as to why it exists, how it was made, and so on. This information can be omitted in characters or marginally reduced.

We can't and shouldn't do that with equipment, setting elements, and more. Otherwise, we end up with the stub-articles over-time that are all trash and degrade the site's value whenever you click one going "Oh, a new cool planet!" and find out it's trash.

I don't know how this idea escapes the grasp of some folks, but no FM should handle their own work nor should the NTSE be so simplified in use that it's as simple as "check here to approve". Because it's NOT that simple.

 

[Ametheliana]

Are there any more comments about the request for rule additions for reviewers?

 

[Legix]

I'd like to keep the discussion up for submitters, but no; apart from suggesting we not make the NTSE a rigid pile of rules with anything too encroaching on the schedule of NTSE mods and on their ability to utilize context when handling submissions, I got nothing. And I want to emphasize again that we need to make this a discussion about the poor mannerisms and acts of people entering the NTSE lately; clearly the site needs a refresher or a harder punishment for mistreatment of NTSE versus going through proper channels when people have a problem.

 

[Wes]

@Wes Can we get a 'waiting FM approval' prefix for the NTSE?

Done.

 

[Rizzo]

Have you been paying attention? I've been trying to change it for years. This is by no means the first time I've been trying to change it. And when behavior is the problem, the only way to fix it is rules and enforcement. Unless you plan on culling the NTSE? Or do you expect all you have to do is say it and it'll magically change?

You don't respect me cause I don't play the field? Not only is that simply ignorant, it's an excuse. A right answer is a right answer no matter who it is coming from. If my posiotin effects your judgement of whether or not I've provided an adequate solution then there is no quesiotn about it, your values are -wrong-.

Also just to humor you, I've set down and listen to the complaints of at least 3 mods, and helped them through it. I've Created and ran 3 RP communities myself, moderated 5 others, and was a moderator assistant to another. I think I know how hard it is to be a mod. Don't talk about people's qualifications and what they have and haven't done when you don't know them. I literally have 14 years of moderation experience under my belt dude. Maybe I haven't directly been in the NTSE, but I've had my fingers in it enough, and have enough experience and wisdom to know what it's like. So do I play the field enough for you yet?

And you have Legix, a mod, right there who is a mod telling you straight up that what I said will fix problems, even if not all of them. What more do you need?

Excellent! You're more than qualified! And since you would be such a perfect candidate for the job I'm sure you'd have no issue taking me up on my offer to replace me. Good show, old sport!

I'd like to keep the discussion up for submitters, but no; apart from suggesting we not make the NTSE a rigid pile of rules with anything too encroaching on the schedule of NTSE mods and on their ability to utilize context when handling submissions, I got nothing. And I want to emphasize again that we need to make this a discussion about the poor mannerisms and acts of people entering the NTSE lately; clearly the site needs a refresher or a harder punishment for mistreatment of NTSE versus going through proper channels when people have a problem.

See, this is a good point, but unfortunately we have begun setting a precedent of letting abusive players get their way. This would be a very good additional ruleset, or for better results a guideline. Something I have done to both FrostJager and Zack that seems to have a good effect, I gave them one post to prove that I was being biased after they made that accusation. When they could not backup their accusation they were given a point with the promise that the second offense would be worth 2. This appeared to work very well at keeping these baseless accusations from cluttering a review. I think we should make it an actual rule. A second rule that I think would work very well, appealing to Wes should be treated like appealing to Caesar. If it was stupid and not worth his time there should be a penalty. It drives me nuts when certain people just appeal to Wes because they're so much better than everyone else that they can't go through the same system the entire Community goes through.

 

[Syaoran]

Oh hey we don't need rules, so here are some rules to add. Good one @Rizzo.

About submitter rules. This is an area that needs improvement, but the current problem is that general rude behavior is covered by the general site rules. So what's left is things like claiming bias against the NTSE mod and refusing to listen to them. But there's a big problem with this. If we make more extensive submitter rules, we need to be able to judge when the submitter is in the right or wrong. But if there are no rules for the reviewer than we don't actually know when the reviewer is breaking the rules.

"Appealing to Ceaser" only works if there are actual rules so you know whether or not your case has any ground. If there are no grounds to judge when say a mod is bieng a gatekeeper or getting out of bounds. Even if it's deemed after a Wes summon that it wasn't out of line, you can't punish them, cause they have no way to measure it was out of line in the first place.

In short, Submitter rules are good, but in order to be able to enforce them, we need Mod rules to establish a base line for the submitter to know when they should and shouldn't be listening to the NTSE mod.

 

[Wes]

I already have a large wiki page full of rules for mods concerning submission reviews. I need specifics (and whys) if you want to add more to them.

 

[Alex Hart]

I think the why, in this case (I'm referring to Sayoran's suggestion), is because we've had an epidemic of submitters not listening to NTSE mods, being rude to them, and often ignoring them.