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.

 

[Legix]

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.

This isn't to ignore the problems with the actual NTSE overreach that @Syaoran pointed out, but I do think this is a bigger problem; people do not know how to treat NTSE submissions these days. It's precisely why you have folks like @Jack Pine, Syaoran, and myself who have very few to no problems or sweeping arguments in our submissions; we know how to act and take criticism well.

There's been an alarming trend far more dangerous than NTSE overreach and it's that there's a growing wave of people who openly treat NTSE or anyone who sides with them as "my enemy" and decide that they have to utterly treat someone like hell. And if they speak to someone, they're a liar and you should only listen to me or whatever lie or excuse there is for refusing to hear criticism.

Basically there's a very hostile attitude from various members aimed at the NTSE that is far more concerning and has nothing to enforce against that behavior as a means to protect NTSE. That would remove members from the pool IN A BAD WAY as compared to a good way (higher standards). So whatever it takes to put rules in place to better noose the attitude problem that submitters have, that's where we need to look first. This isn't to shelve or dissuade the idea that we need a better lockdown on what an NTSE member is here to do and isn't here to do, but simply that it is NOT the main problem in the current NTSE.

The main problem right now is people's attitudes and general actions that currently cause problems and slowdown en-masse across the NTSE. This is precisely why the submissions I'm handling? They've been gone through quickly and painlessly. The only submission I've had so far that I've not been able to resolve is because of a dependency it has with another article. That's it. Why? Because there's been no drama tolerated nor brought to my submissions. But once that starts happening, it'll hurt me.

A key example of why this behavior is the cause is the only submission I ever had that took more than a few days was the Terrene; it was held up primarily due to people raging and lashing and trying to call for it to be rejected because of its name. It bogged things down and the NTSE mod even went off track to chase drama. Soon as that drama stopped and was put beneath a boot, how much you want to bet the submission was approved swiftly and forthrightly?

 

[Syaoran]

I be believe the page you are mentioning was brought up here but if we're talking nitty gritty specifics

• We need an outline of what constitutes 'gatekeeping'. We submitters and viewers need to be able to point at something and call it out as gate keeping with little to no question as to whether it is or not.
  • Why? Because threads like this happen.
• Something else that needs to be outlined is what things fall under NTSE mod's power.
  • Why? Because what they were even arguing about in that thread above, there is a debate about if that is or isn't in the NTSE power. And there have been other times over the years people have taken liberties with things outside of the question of "Does this submission fall within the submission rules?"
• We need a more direct explanation of how a mod is supposed to behave when reviewing something, and what happens if they don't behave like this. The submission rules do have something there, but it's language is a little vague and as written there are no repercussions for ignoring those guidelines.
  • I have plenty of times seen mods and non mods simply say "This part of it doesn't work, so go fix your submission." And don't offer any real help on improving it. I've also seen mods take opinions/suggestions and make them mandatory.
• Just in general we need some system of identifying when a mod is out of line, and being able to hold them accountable for that.
  • We have roleplay reviews where we go down a list of things to measure the quality of our Plots, we have a list for measuring the quality of our submissions too, but we don't have a any metric for measuring the quality of the performance of the people in charge of deciding the fairness of other people's ideas. Of course people will feel like the mods are their enemy with a set up like that.

Now as I stated before I don't think submitter rules need to be addressed right now, but people will probably harp on me if I don't act like everything needs to be done at once, so here is a list of things I think we need to clear up with submitters.

• First, the rules that are there simply need to be enforced.
  • In particular the rule about being able to temporarily lock out submitters who infringe on other rules(comes in handy later)
• There needs to be a rework of the submitter's ability to call in Wes to look over a submission.
  • I do agree this gets abused, and there should be punishment for misusing it.
• This sounds harsh, but Reviewers shoudl be able to reject submissions is the submitter is being particularly rude.
  • Setting submissions are a privledge, even if their submission is 'perfect' that doesn't mean they should be allowed to act awful. This is the case with some new and some old players. I've seen people get away with being exceptionally rude just because they're new and we don't want to lose new people.
• Of course it wouldn't hurt to clear up what constitutes good and bad behavior as well.

There will probably be more things once changes start being made and we start seeing what happens in response. I'm also sure some people have other rules in mind too. I'm sure a lot of people would call this 'common sense' stuff, but really, if good behavior were so common, this thread wouldn't even exist.

 

[Syaoran]

Sorry for double post but @Wes my previous post was in response to you, but I don't think it tags you if I edit in a @ mention.

 

[raz]

There are a lot of new hefty paragraphs here that I've yet to read through, but thanks for making "claiming" submissions not a thing anymore, Wes. Like, if a reviewer doesn't have time to sit and do that initial read-through and a checklist then they shouldn't be holding onto it. Claiming subs made it look like things were happening to the uninformed outsider, but were just a bit of false bureaucracy for actual members to waste time on.

 

[Doshii Jun]

It's good to see folks still refining the system. Great work, all.

 

[HarperMadi]

Having kind of skimmed after @FrostJaeger's comment, I have to agree. We actually have five distinct species of humans, and like three or four other species. Some biodiversity and cultural diversity to explore would be nice.

 

[Zack]

The rule requiring the list if you're going to take on a submission / limiting to one reviewer seems to have stopped a lot of the problems that were going on in the NTSE.


I think I may be a bit unclear about what we're allowed to review though. Can we review other people's submissions that are for our own faction / corporations in our faction? That seems to be allowed but I want to ask first.

 

[FrostJaeger]

It, as far as I know, has never been allowed @Zack.

 

[Alex Hart]

My current concern is with people ignoring NTSE mods if they don’t like what they’re hearing, or actively disrespecting them.

This seems to me to be the root cause for the more ‘agressive’ Behavior in the NTSE. Submitters disrespecting NTSE moderators and ignoring their feedback and requests appears to me to have pushed some people, myself included, to attempt to be more controlling.

I won’t argue right or wrong of any actions, but it seems to me that if we eliminate the root cause of the problem, we can eliminate or at least begin to tackle the current problems in the NTSE.

The logical first step in my opinion, is determining the boundaries that both submitters and moderators need to stay within.

These would ideally determine what the NTSE is and is not supposed to regulate, as well as what behavior is unacceptable for both parties.

 

[Syaoran]

My current concern is with people ignoring NTSE mods if they don’t like what they’re hearing, or actively disrespecting them.

This seems to me to be the root cause for the more ‘agressive’ Behavior in the NTSE. Submitters disrespecting NTSE moderators and ignoring their feedback and requests appears to me to have pushed some people, myself included, to attempt to be more controlling.

I won’t argue right or wrong of any actions, but it seems to me that if we eliminate the root cause of the problem, we can eliminate or at least begin to tackle the current problems in the NTSE.

The logical first step in my opinion, is determining the boundaries that both submitters and moderators need to stay within.

These would ideally determine what the NTSE is and is not supposed to regulate, as well as what behavior is unacceptable for both parties.

This pretty much sums up the core of the behavioral problem in the NTSE.

 

[Kyle]

Agreed, and if that happens, contact staff and let us handle it.

There is no reason for the submitter to be rude to the person doing the review, or even, to ignore their advice; the reviewer is not being paid to do this work they are volunteers and thus do not need to deal with that kind of abuse. Remember: do not cause a confrontation in the thread, contact the staff and let us handle it, that's why we are here.

Bare in mind that for me, if I see a submitter disrespecting the NTSE mods, it's an automatic rejection from me from now on - so please follow the rules and keep things respectful. If I see an NTSE mod not doing their job (or worse, being disrespectful in the submission process or in the review process) then they may end up losing their privileges, since that is not how they should act.

 

[Kyle]

I have gone and removed several replies that didn't contribute anything to this thread, but rather, was just an argument that didn't need to happen. This thread talks about the problems in regards to the NTSE, it is not a place to attack the staff, the mods, or even to trash the very community you are a member of. Those things will not be tolerated, and such posts will be removed as they are not constructive to the thread.

I will unlock this thread in the morn (provided I'm not beaten to the punch!) at which point, discussions may continue. Please understand that this discussion should be a civil one, and at no point should anything that I mentioned above be going on.

Discussions may continue now

 

[Zack]

Submissions are still going a month without being responded to, and the NTSE is continuing to move further away from Wes’s stated goal of being cleared out.

Is there any plan to fix this in mind? Or can we switch to letting GMs/FMs approve the stuff being used in their own plot so long as it follows the setting rules? We already do this with character approval and we know it works really well.

 

[FrostJaeger]

Such a change would only invite widespread bias and favoritism, would effectively remove the need for the NTSE altogether (which I highly doubt is going to be occurring any time soon), and isn’t necessary to begin with, @Zack - not when GMs can already “approve” their own plot devices and whatnot.

 

[Zack]

We have widespread bias now, and the NTSE is doing more harm to the site than good. The NTSE also only looks to be getting slower and less capable of doing its job of approving submissions in the future. There is a pretty clear pattern of reviewers reviewing one or two things when they first get appointed and then consistently reviewing less items over time.

It is also pretty clear that the NTSE is moving further away from earlier goals, not closer to them.

As it is, the NTSE is a huge drag on SARP, and needs either restructuring or removal.

 

[Soban]

I think that the change that resulted in the slowdown was the removal of claiming submissions to review.

 

[Zack]

That seems unlikely. Reviews already weren’t being done in a timely manner before that rule was put in place.

 

[FrostJaeger]

To start, what “bias” and “harm” are you referring to, @Zack? You’re making allegations without providing any evidence that supports them.

Secondly, Zack, we’re not robots. We have lives outside of Star Army, and sometimes they get in the way of reviewing submissions. Is it fair to the submitter? No - but there’s not much we can do it about, either.

Thirdly, Zack, what “goals” are you referring to, and where are they listed? I’m genuinely curious - no rudeness intended - to see what they are.

Lastly, Zack, what reviews weren’t done in a timely manner (besides the Build Your Own Ship submission, which I reviewed earlier today)? If you’re referring to your own submissions not being reviewed, well, in my opinion that’s a natural consequence of constantly harping on submission reviewers.

 

[Zack]

If you don’t have 10-15 minutes to sit down and do a review maybe you shouldn’t be a reviewer and instead just focus on RP?

Wes said earlier in this thread that he wanted to try and clear out the NTSE over a weekend and that didn’t happen, nor does it look like the NTSE is going to be clear ever with the current policies and reviewers in place.

The NTSE is pretty widely viewed as a terrible experience for players, and you can see that driving enrollment of Ex-SARP players onto other sites. You can see the declining activity rates for nearly every faction backing that up while other sites are having their activity issues resolved by the influx of new players.

It seems so apparent that the NTSE is broke that it seems rediculous anyone is willing to say that it is working as intended.

 

[Legix]

If people have been waiting a month, they shouldn't complain here; they should contact the NTSE who was handling their project. Or if they've been active and held up for a month, they should contact staff with concerns if the submission isn't progressing.

They shouldn't be complaining about month-long wait times if they're not even trying that much. If you want something approved, then communicate; don't bash and accuse and sling misinformation. It's getting old hearing about the "month-long wait" when I see an entire section of Nepleslia-related articles you claimed with some of them held-up as a result pre-claiming removal for what seems to be mostly format issues on the pages.

In short: @Zack - since this is clearly about you trying to get your two articles approved, then talk to @Ametheliana so she can post the checklist. If she doesn't, message me.

Now please stop complaining; I didn't see Ethereal complain when he got held up for formatting and I don't see anyone else complaining. This line of accusatory bias and all this crap isn't befitting of an FM, much less a veteran member. Submissions are not supposed to be hurried; that's how you end up with stubs that get buried or vanish a year later with something replacing them the next. SARP doesn't need to SPEED UP TO THE MAXIMUM AND APPROVE EVERYTHING IN TWO DAYS OHMAGOSH; it needs to approve things fast while maintaining and improving the overall quality of submissions.

No one is going to care nor should be as so utterly insistent about missiles that will end up replaced a year from now and never spoken about again.

If you don’t have 10-15 minutes to sit down and do a review maybe you shouldn’t be a reviewer and instead just focus on RP?

Wes said earlier in this thread that he wanted to try and clear out the NTSE over a weekend and that didn’t happen, nor does it look like the NTSE is going to be clear ever with the current policies and reviewers in place.

The NTSE is pretty widely viewed as a terrible experience for players, and you can see that driving enrollment of Ex-SARP players onto other sites. You can see the declining activity rates for nearly every faction backing that up while other sites are having their activity issues resolved by the influx of new players.

It seems so apparent that the NTSE is broke that it seems rediculous anyone is willing to say that it is working as intended.

> Abuses position in NTSE
> Abuses leadership role as an FM by misleading countless new members about the NTSE and effectively abandoning them to improperly approach it
> Insists that if people don't do the reviews in 10-15 minutes that they're unfit to be a reviewer.

Wes wants things cleared out, but how can anyone get anything done when you've non-stopped whined and caused trouble in the NTSE? When you were ACTUALLY NOT COMPLAINING for that sweet period of your very short NTSE stint, things were getting done both by you and others.

Nepleslia has had ZERO issues with the NTSE as a faction; my corporation (Ken-TEC) has had zero issues. Maybe you should try to learn from other members of SARP instead of constantly moan and groan in this thread and derailing what it's for; improving. It's not for your whining, complaining, and absurd idea that reviews should be done in 10-15 minute readovers and just walked through the gate.

@Kyle and @Wes - I'm intending to hit a stint of the NTSE later this week; as of right now, they are the only two submissions in the entire NTSE that have been there for over a month without feedback/ongoing discussion or a special case preventing them from continuing currently (effectively putting them on hold). In the meantime, I'd like to make a request that Zack be forbidden from posting in this thread as his input is clearly based upon his own intention to harass NTSE members to review his work through this complaining, versus simply speak to them directly. I am almost certain he has not spoken to Ame about either of his submissions otherwise she'd have handed it off to others if she were unable to handle it. Most likely, she forgot about the submissions and Zack - knowing what it could represent - has allowed them to sit and only vaguely complained instead of simply communicate with the NTSE.

I will say it again; communication within the NTSE is key. If you refuse to communicate in any other method than whining and choose to not be civil and direct the NTSE to something you feel has been overlooked, then do not be surprised if the NTSE does not work for you. It works just like any support/customer-based thing; the NTSE are attendants or clerks who can't help you unless they know the problem and what you'd like done.

We need to start enforcing the simple act of communicating with new submitters, otherwise the NTSE will never be resolved of issues and troublemakers and all sorts of messes. When the NTSE talks, the submitters talk, and it's all civil? You have instances like with my submissions or my factions or everyone on the majority who has zero issue with it. When you refuse, you have the countless members that have tried to INSTANTLY GO IN and make the NEXT BIG THING, only to fall flat because their ideas don't work and they ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to talk about anything because they've been instilled with this idea that you should just complain until you get what you want.