• 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

Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion

I hate to put a damper on this, but keep in mind that the tech doesn't really matter. Rather, the players and plots do. Even if one faction has better tech than another, even if they're at war and neither FM has consented to losing, what's happening is that they're in a deadlock. Neither faction is capable of defeating the other without OOC permission, and IC, that means that the technologically inferior nation is holding off the technologically superior one unless stated otherwise.

I'm starting to feel like you guys are making a mountain out of an anthill. Just think about what I said for a bit.
 
Simply put: we're not. As an older member, you should understand why. Primarily because this "deadlock" was also seen before in prior SARP years in other tech races. Remember the results of that? Countless FMs and members that people remember fondly (or not so much) who contributed but were simply discouraged because of misrepresentation of their tech or because of the arguments that stemmed the instant the wars couldn't be resolved without OOC permission. It put the decision of "who wins, who loses" on Wes and led to great resentment over the sorts of issues and decisions.

They forced people to be given a yes or no, which led to countless plots and players who for years pushed through the site to simply leave. Drama spewed up because of faction conflict that started from no doubt the same idea.

"Oh, it's just my plot!" or "Well, it doesn't make a difference if our factions have no possible way to battle and make fair trades!" are the wrong things to defend this stuff by.

Just as before when the statement was made, it was shot down and hasn't been reiterated until now. A repeated argument that was dismissed due to the validity and sensible statements made before.

Supporting the site with eternal deadlocks or situations that can't be resolved is bad. It's why there needs to be tech differentiation. Some factions shouldn't be able to beat others that are more staples of the community. Honestly, the idea of a new faction made within the last 2-3 years beating Nepleslia? That would be absurd, yet there's been posturing, chats incidents, and clear attempts to "1-up" the faction that suggest people are trying to do it.

Assuming, by some means, this is an anthill? It won't be for long. The only solution to stopping the site's history from repeating itself is to take action. @ArsenicJohn realized this and that's why I think we'd not seen this comment since I believe he stated it. Because this is a problem that is visible and could become much more if we don't keep on task and discuss the solutions further. For an NTSE member to come and derail it, it concerns me when the thread had been on point but yet again is put into the corner.

Whether or not the issue exists has pretty much been made clear. It does. Best case, it's an anthill that we still need to address. Worst? This is going to keep getting dismissed with the exact same statement every 6 or 7 pages and then we're going to lose tons of valuable members who already feel threatened, both new and old, by the potential to totally end up skewing the setting's balance to the point that logical PvP resolution becomes impossible.

As I was declared of using memes, I think this fits the way it looks when we keep having someone come back to chime in after it's become more or less well-established the problem exists.

 
In principle, it doesn't matter if a faction has a technological advantage--that isn't, or shouldn't be the deciding factor in conflicts. But if it doesn't matter, why do people put so much effort into it? And if people put so much effort into it, what value is there in questioning whether it 'really' matters? The solution is still to put a stop to it, not to leave it be. A conflict being petty doesn't make maintaining order less important, if anything it has closer to the opposite effect, because petty conflicts make people exasperated in a way meaningful ones don't.
 
~~This message contained content that was removed for violating the Star Army community guidelines~~

What really happened in the past was definitely not like how you describe. In fact, back in the day, tech really didn't have any part to play in which faction won - it was Wes' decision from the very beginning, as well as the players'. Because of this, players ARE power for a faction. Not the tech. I can't emphasize that enough. As for why people do it @Navian ? I assume it's fun, and people simply like having the bigger stick, the hotter hotrod, the bigger skyscraper, the more massive Death Star.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I've seen it has more to do with feeling threatened and relieving anxiety. 'Fun' would only come in from dominating or the anticipation thereof, which makes the victim feel threatened, which creates a vicious cycle. If it's not aimed at someone, and practically can't be, then it might be harmless fun. It's going to cause friction, otherwise, unless it's done in a way that everyone can accept. That's why we're looking for solutions.
 
Insults tell the man. Particularly when you confirmed this mentality existed in Zack and excused it, but still keep trying to find ways to dismiss the discussion. Insulting me? Icing on the cake to showcasing just this mindset of yours must be making this decision.

If players are the power, then why does a faction need to make their technology better? "Well, they have fun that way!"

So now we approve of people metagaming to enjoy the setting? Now we approve of people deliberately ruining the setting for those who enjoy ALL aspects of the site, tech and the like included?

All I hear is excuses for allowing people to harm the setting with elevated tech that has nothing going on. All you are providing is excuses, insults, and derailing the thread. And you're one of the NTSE we're expected to trust with ensuring the setting isn't harmed? Your speed isn't in question, as you have a fast turnover rate... but now I have to question your morality as an NTSE member. You seem to have presented bias against Zack, enough so that you justify his meta-gaming as "just Zack". At the same time, you insist the technology doesn't matter. So it only matters when it's him? But it doesn't matter enough to stop him?

How can I trust someone who flip-flops whenever they're presented facts and then insults me? How can the site trust an NTSE member who completely seems to relapse after acknowledging the issue exists to saying "Oh, it's no big deal"? If being fast means the NTSE member doesn't care for the site, I'd much rather the NTSE be slower. And I say this having submitted things before and will be submitting things in the future. I assumed you had bias in submissions before, but now I find you to be highly questionable in your indecisive handling of this discussion, @CadetNewb. Respectfully?

Don't insult someone just because they call you out. Especially when you've changed your stance multiple times. It was fairly clear this needed to be discussed when the majority of opposition no longer repeated itself and even a few people decided to consider the solutions. You declare that the players deadlocked and forced Wes to choose, but players "have power"? Maybe if you spent as much time complaining about people's posting length as you did thinking about what you said five seconds prior, you wouldn't be tripping over your own statements.

If it's too much to read and gives you a headache that prevents you from thinking, then please read my posts a few lines at a time. Think about your answer. Because right now, anyone who has followed your statements and this thread has seen it progress back into a discussion and derailed by the group of people who insist on insulting other. On top of that, you're an NTSE member suggesting that we're supposed to trust these players who have proven their colors and mentality in this thread. Ones, for example, you write off as being detrimental or "bad news".

Which is it?
 
Going to keep this short, just because I feel like we need some actual solutions here.

People definitely GM differently, and frankly I can see the value of a 'rule of cool' plot (Ala the old Phoenix plots) alongside something more 'epic but grounded' (Ala most Yamatai things)... The difference between them in terms of balance, however, is that the first works better with a small, individualistic group, whilst the latter is more on the scale of grand empires with standardized equipment.

Trying to do the full space kingdom AND the rule of cool is where it falls apart, because every player is just trying to do their own thing with no consensus to the plot, and it just snowballs.

So, yeah. If we tackle this on a site-wide scale, I would suggest a system of making it clear which scale a plot is on before it begins, and sticking to it. It's either the empire or the rebels, not both.

If we are talking about 188604 in specific, voluntarily holding future submissions back, and really fleshing out the histories more would be a start. Like, doing it between several people. Maybe even holding weapons tests with randomized results, or pitting two competing player's designs against each other Macross Plus style, perhaps.
 
If everyone stepped back from their creations and thought about what made sense for them instead of what they'd need to rival and defeat other factions as if they were strategizing in-character, if no one ever attempted to use OOC psychological warfare to defeat IC opponents, we wouldn't have a problem. We can't rely on expecting everyone to restrain themselves voluntarily, though, nor would refusing to tolerate it at all do any good.

Instead, we need to divert that energy to avoid conflicts. If factions have niche protection, they can be the best they are at what they do, and it's easier to tell someone 'no' when they're trying to beat someone else inappropriately.
 
You seem to misunderstand Legix - I said that specifically because of how inaccurate your perception of past events is. Regarding Zack however, I had already explained it; in no way, shape or form do I excuse or condone his past or present ill behavior. Rather, I simply point out what it is and accept it, responding to it as needed. Which means, as an NTSE Mod, I comb through his submissions thoroughly when I do review them.

On a side note, I love the Macross Plus reference @Primitive Polygon . They don't make dogfights like they used to.
 
This is, frankly, probably the biggest NTSE problem. Some people have proven their bias and eventually will resort to insults and literally saying anything to win to shut down well-made points instead of simply listening to reason. Zack will have to call Wes in to overturn unjust rejections while clear metagaming will get approved because the reviewer wants to see that agenda advanced.

So it seems like the best solution truly would be more NTSE mods plus maybe having a second reviewer do a once-over before things get passed through.
 
So you don't show the same attention of detail to everyone? But you insist you are qualified?

You don't address how fast you flip-flop your stance (you are willing to step forward, but not if there's proof or it's someone who's well known for it, past or present) and atop that you don't recognize your decisions to judge people case-by-case rather than simply uphold a same standard to everyone confirms reason to not trust your ability or judgment. John mentioned that Navian was a good pick due to no known bias. Why are we keeping someone who stands by it and states it affects their NTSE judging/process? Just because you're fast and pass your friends more easily?

Edit: I didn't plan on the idea of changing the current members of the NTSE. But it seems like that may need to be part of the solutions.
 
Thank you Navian. If a submitter is infamous for trying to sneak things under the radar and gaming the system, only an idiot of a tech mod would refuse to give extra scrutiny. Also, you shouldn't be surprised with my choice of words Legix; you can't expect to say something foolish for such a length of time and not get a tomato tossed at you.
 
Navian said:
I think you're being unfair toward CadetNewb, Legix. Avoiding bias against Zack when performing NTSE moderator duties is like trying to mow the lawn without killing any plants.
Click to expand...
My issue isn't about avoiding bias. It shouldn't be held so slack that he's a "step up". Being harsh is precisely what's necessary. Unfair is fitting when one's personal bias blinds their ability to handle submissions both of ones they distrust or that they get along with.
What surprises me is that you can change your stance on a subject as many times as you have and still vouch that you're capable of being proper and capable of participating in the discussion. Furthermore, this doesn't address the issues presented with your bias nor that you view everyone differently. Even as someone who dislikes Zack, I would treat him with the same precise scrutiny I would anyone else if I were in your position. Because that's what it calls for. A fair viewing of all. Just because someone has a reputation doesn't mean you should amplify your intensity to the point your process changes and requires further standards. Especially when you're incapable of presenting a way of changing the member's reputation, despite your supposed closer inspection.

You admit to problems, you said a moment ago that you don't support it. Yet, despite your stance and a general consensus being reached he's still carrying out the behavior, you have done nothing to stop it nor to discourage it. You've effectively done nothing to ensure the vile mentality that harms a setting (and it has, I'm sorry, the fact that this discussion is taking place and the fact that Zack has a reputation for this is honestly a lot of proof to tech having been a problem over SARP's history) has been slowed despite being in the position of handling this. The NTSE is tasked with protecting the setting as much as the players who have had rights to comment in threads. If he bypassed you to go to Wes, then clearly the rules need a change. But if he has been getting things through, whether or not another NTSE member approved it, that fit this image of pushing the meta?

Then you are at fault. @Navian, it might be unfair but life isn't fair. The process of judging things, however, needs to be. Bias or not, a judge can't be impartial. The NTSE are judges who are expected to uphold the value of the setting and protect it and this hasn't been done. All the examples point to is a compromised NTSE member who insists that everyone is foolish while changing his stances or trying to worm his way to ensure he comes out on top of the argument. And that is enough to make me willing to come off unfair. There's a significant issue where this older member who has clearly defined that bias changes his ability to work is still being permitted the say-so in matters that change the consistent setting.

When a jury is formed, anyone who is found to be incapable of being impartial is removed. Why are we allowing someone who has stated they can't be to justify his position and remain there?
 
CadetNewb said:
only an idiot of a tech mod would refuse to give extra scrutiny
Click to expand...
You've rubber stamped some pretty metagamey stuff recently and have no room to talk.

Every submission should be looked at with the same high standards.
 
Quite frankly, I stop the metagaming myself. That is, I don't rely on extra rules and regulations to do my job for me. As a tech mod, I simply look over articles carefully and deal with them then and there. Though, it seems you're implying that I should spend as much time on all submissions as I do on Zack's? If you are, I'll be very honest; that's stupid, since I tend to scour them, and then scour them again even after they're approved. It's simply impractical to do it to everyone's. If you already have a high standard, going any higher becomes impractical.

It's called 'diminishing returns'.

Now, if any of you have concerns about previous articles I have reviewed or am in the process of reviewing, simply do what we've done for years on SARP and post in the thread. If the concerns aren't addressed, just talk to another tech mod about it, and so on.
 
Dude, you let most articles sit for weeks and only take your friends' articles in order to rubber stamp them anymore. You don't really have standards.
 
raz said:
Dude, you let most articles sit for weeks and only take your friends' articles in order to rubber stamp them anymore. You don't really have standards.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the average word count on a starship article with brand new sub-systems?
 
To answer the question at the end of Legix's last post: Because it's a stressful job, and we need to spread the burden around. As entertaining as it is to get upset about this mod or that mod in the NTSE and blame them for the problems, no matter who does the job, there will be problems so long as there's only one or two people doing it. And it's hard enough coming up with two viable candidates.

Besides which, as CadetNewb pointed out, anyone who is good at the job will learn about submitters to better understand what they're trying to do and how to stop it if need be. It's good to use the same process on everyone to start with, but it's inefficient at best to continue applying it to everyone regardless of what they do. More likely, it'll just make it easy for them to exploit vulnerabilities. The role takes someone who's vigilant and adaptable, not just impartial.

The fact that Zack's submissions take so much attention that it's relatively easy for others to slip things through--even when they're not trying as hard to do so as Zack does--doesn't mean that our reviewers aren't impartial enough, it means that the reviewers we have don't have the resources to scrutinize everyone because Zack's monopolizing their attention. That means we need more reviewers, or the problem is going to repeat itself.
 
Or we just need our reviewers to slow down. It seems like Cadet insists he's doing a good job, but I'm sorry... it doesn't seem that way. I've been in similar positions as Cadet for other sites and I've never once been caught flip-flopping my stance, defending my biased reviewing of members (even ones I disliked), or tried to ride the excuse that my job was hard.

The job is for volunteers whether or not they have to get approved. If it's stressful to the point that the ones we have (though I feel like no one has questioned Ame beyond a special bunch) are incapable of doing their job then they need to stop doing it. Volunteering doesn't mean you should do the job poorly. You don't see people volunteer at a soup kitchen and just be allowed to spill the damn soup all over the floor.

Arieg said:
Have you seen the average word count on a starship article with brand new sub-systems?
Click to expand...

Just a brief edit: If people can't fucking bother to read it because it's too long, then why are they on a site where their RP will eventually pass that amount? Why are sub-systems so fucking obnoxiously long that people have issues reading them?

This is just silly.
 
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…