• 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 stararmy@gmail.com 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

Should We Refine the Technology Approval Process?

*nods* Perhaps some overhaul is neccesary.

And as such perhaps:

Anything which does not seem to have any impact on the power-balance of the setting can be wiki-editted.

Anything that has a power balance impact - such as ships, armour etc. - has to go through the process that you outlined above.
 
Cora said:
Don't assume anything, you're making an ass out of yourself.
Click to expand...
Heh, I don't know whether to be insulted or honored.

Cora said:
Vesper votes no, since he's one of the few who can understand the scientific half speak Uso fires off to try and get his tech approved. And generally Zack either misapplies, missinterperets, or just uses the science wrong.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand, I trying to make an example. What I'm trying to say is polls make it very, very easy for someone to just vent hate and vote a big fat NO for no reason other than hating the submitter. You don't even need to read the submission or post a review on points why to vote NO. Polls can, and will, turn into popularity contests like Zakalwe already stated.


So, no more peer advice and critisism? I always thought those were the best things in terms of critisism when it comes posting a technology submission...what the players think of it, their concerns, etc. Keeping a technology submission between the creator and the GM removes that aspect. Honestly, if you want the pointless debates and annoying drama out of the submissions thread, a warning, followed by a temporary ban to the persistant drama-llamas is all you should need.

Also, in the previous thread on the Improvements Board, and I quote:

Unless you've already gone over your idea with Wes, Kotori, I don't think he wants to be assaulted with hefty tech submissions everytime he logs on. I do agree SOMETHING needs to happen on the tech submissions thread, and at the very least people ARE trying to fix it.
 
Wes and I exchanged some pointers and I came to the conclusion that we needed to do away with any new tech submissions for awhile.

As, no more player contributions until we straightened things out.

We do not live in a perfect world, however, and I am conscious that blatant refusal to accept new submissions would rub a lot of people the wrong way, so, getting to discuss it to a GM to see how things turn out and then have the GM approach the staff and propose the thing makes it so that we filter out a lot of bad stuff.

Personally, I'd rather block submissions entirely and do away with the board until some time - at least - has passed. Do you prefer limited submissions or no submissions in the meantime?
 
I still say good, respectful peer critisism is the best tool in shaping and reshaping a tech submission. It gives people a chance to think about them, think about how they can use them, etc. before they are in play, and perhaps even add to them to make them better. If you keep the tech submittal process between 2-3 people, none of this happens.
 
As far as the original plan--the one stated in the first post of this topic--goes, I think it's a bad idea. You'll likely end up with people who don't know what they're doing trying to edit the Wiki entries or voting on tech they don't understand. At the very least, people won't be accountable for their criticism anymore, enabling people to vote based on skewed logic or personal bias, as was already mentioned.

I suppose I'm reiterating what's been said already, but if I were to contribute in the tech forum, I wouldn't like people editing my submission with whatever they like (even if it can be reverted, I still wouldn't like the idea) or downvoting my submission because they don't like me or they don't understand how the tech works.

I'm not involved enough with the tech forum to have a good idea of the apparently destructive effect it has on balance, but I think it means a lot to certain people to be able to go in and get peer reviews and design their technology on site (Thomas, Zack, etc.) I don't think eliminating contributions is the answer: to scale new technology down, you're going to have to nerf old tech. There's got to be some way of doing it without destroying continuity. Can't you just say Aether doesn't work any more for some [insert lame but effective plot device reason here]?

The most important problem, I think, is "Total annihilation" weapons. The very fact that the damage scale was once/still is described in terms like "total annihilation" underlines the problem of balance. There's got to be some way of accelerating the toning down of older tech. Phasing out old tech with new, less effective tech is unrealistic. Right now it seems like we're in limbo: old tech is still there causing trouble and isn't being toned down quickly; the only thing the "scaling down" is accomplishing is giving people an excuse to bitch in the tech forum.
 
I dislike the poll system because it has no accountability. People can vote without having to say any reasoning for there decision (however well founded that reasoning may be). How can it be expected tech submissions will be improved if people do not give input?

To Jadg, that idea of toning the tech down was suggested by me in one of my early post (for which I was soundly thrashed). I may have been over zealous in my posting there, but the statement is still valid. The godtech needs to be toned down. Zesauim made just very tough vs. nigh indestructible, aether cannon no longer 'total annihilation', etc.

Personally the easiest way to do this i believe would be to just say it is so, and has always been so ICly. Period, and end of story. However I understand many people will be reluctant to do that, so maybe some IC reasoning for them not working as well needs to be created, much like how ST limited Warp speed. Perhaps continued use of Aether taps at high power levels damages space/subspace. Perhaps zesauim becomes unstable after a period from its creation.

Whatever the plan and explanation IC, something needs to be done with the old godtech. However powerful some of the newer items may have been, none of them really hold a candle to the older stuff.
 
Rarg...I don't even post in the tech forums, but I've noticed it's been like a battlefield lately. I probably have no say in it but perhaps refinement would be a good idea. I mean, if it would calm everyone down and all.
 
Toshiro said:
And you're sure fanning the flames, Cora.

I recommend splitting this thread. It is quickly derailing.
Click to expand...

Hey, I don't fan, he does all the fanning himself.
 
Okay, I have a proposition for a reform on the tech board.

1. The C&I board may only have minor tech (Hand-held weapons, drugs, trinkets, etc.) posted in a rough draft form.

2. Larger techs (Power Armors, Ships, NERDesque items, New Races/ Planets) must be proof-read and given an OK by a GM, preferably one who works with the player and gets along with them.

3. Once a Go-ahead has been received, the tech may be submitted to the C&I board, with a confirmation message posted by the GM who gave it the cursory OK. Submissions of this nature without this confirmation should be ignored, and exempting mitigating circumstances for the GM needing to post, be deleted.

4. Once confirmation has been posted, the item may be subjected to review by Forum mods, preferably more than one, for 2 days. During this review period, the thread will be locked to non-GM players.

5. GM's may post critiques of the tech and constructive criticism, or approve it. The player may then choose to edit his tech, or wait and try and convince the GM's after the 2-day review period has ended and then post in an Intelligent and thoughtful manner his disagreement with the GM's.

6. Following the end of the review period, the topic will then be left open for another two days (barring unavailability of the submitter), leaving time for other players to comment on the tech, and for the submitter and mod to debate on the submission.

7. If the players drop their civility in the course of the discussion, the posts must be instantly deleted and the offending party issued a warning. Repeated offenses may lead to instant deletions of any posts in any threads on the C&I forum, regardless of validity. If the submitter violates this rule, their submission will be deleted.

8. After two days, if the tech is still lacking approval, it will be deleted, and the idea will be viable for re-submission in 4 weeks time.


I know I don't have the political capital to implement this, the brain power to know it will work, or the experience to even judge on it's value, but it's at the very least an idea for some sort of reform, which is what this thread was made for.
 
That sounds like too much red tape.

To me, the entire process can be fixed by applying rigid standards for submissions.

Not only must you explain in a plausible manner why the technology does what it does, but you must also justify in-character why it was developed. This prevents the redundancy factor of devices like the NERD and people coming up with new superweapons.
 
Could your explore the justification procedure a little more Derran?

Presumably the IC justification for a super-weapon would be, "I wish to destroy things better. This does. Yay."
 
I actually like the no redundency thing. As such it PREVENTS things like the NERD from being made.

But...


This one give far too much power.
 
I wouldn't say so. It does ensure calm, rational debate - emotions left at the door and all that.

For those that do get emotional - there are punishments. If you think about it there is only a small minority of people that become uncivil over their technology.
 

I actually liked that part the most. It ensures that all the needless insults that happen in that thread recieve punishment, which they should if they continue such behavior even after being warned. Although, not everybody posts submission in the improvements board. It may be a less-severe punishment to some, so perhaps a form of punishment that affects everyone equally would be a better solution.

I kind of like what Omega is suggesting. It's kind of strict, not exactly new-player-friendly, but apparantly we are not going for ease of use at this point anyway. I don't agree with that, but if something must be done, something like this would be nice.

...although 2 days is really quick, and people who critique submissions have lives outside of SARP. That's one thing that could possibly be changed.
 
Alternatively, there's the mystery box method:

Players submit items via a contact forum, which emails the submission to a selected group of tech evaluators. The tech is voted yes/no by them in a hidden forum. If approved, it will be posted to the wiki. If not approved, the player will be PMed with an explanation. Alternatively, the tech evaluators would also have the option of making modifications to the 3. PERFORMANCE AND STATISTICS and 4. ROLEPLAY STATS AND COST sections (or equivalents) and typofixes to all sections.

In this system, standards for approval and the wanted submissions would be posted prominently and extremely clear - entries without correct formatting or that went against the future goals for the setting (referring to toning down stuff here) would be rejected.

The tech evaluators group would be partially anonymous - that is, its forum would be hidden and members would not be listed. This way, there can be no bad feelings against any particular member for submission rejection. Contributors could also chose (by leaving the name field on the form blank) to remain anonymous as well (preventing bad feelings against a particular submitter).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…