Star Army

Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.

Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.

  • 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
  • 📅 October and November 2024 are YE 46.8 in the RP.

Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion

I'm not worried about that attitude at all.

There are a lot of out of date articles and tons of people who just don't want to put in the minimum effort to maintain the factions they play in.

USO has a ton of great articles, and a ton of active RP. I'm pretty happy with where it's at.
 
The best solution would be to get more people involved in the ntse, for sure. Problem is that we lost a couple of people due to the attitudes of other people who constantly whined until the problem went to Wes. How is a NTSE board supposed to get anything done if these big issues aren't trusted to the mods, not by Wes but by others in the forum? I'd love to volunteer, but right now, NTSE is a thankless job that only causes stress for the staff. Who's going to volunteer for the responsibility of actually putting in work and giving constructive criticism to the people writing articles instead of posting dumb memes?

Edit: I would be love to be proven wrong about people's willingness to sign up as mods, btw. :D
 
Last edited:
@Reynolds, you may wish to be careful about using that example. The NRA is actually in favor of stricter gun laws, the issue lies with people who want extremes with 'everyone/no one should be able to own guns' mentalities. As such, it's become kind of a hot button political controversy.
 
No offense, @Doshii Jun, but that's a solution that punishes the entire site because of a few people whining and complaining about how a few other people are doing stuff on the wiki. Like, what about those of us who are making new NPC factions and need to get stuff approved? Sure, put a hold on the problematic submissions, but a blanket ban does nothing but endanger an attitude where the status quo is king above RPing, you know the whole reason we're on the site

I see what you mean, but I think the result is different.

If you (a general "you" here) can't submit stuff to the NTSE, you'll have to focus on story. You have to focus on making do with what you have already.

What you have is what you will have. Make it work in the story.

That doesn't preclude people from using Open RP to their advantage. I'd encourage that.

But yes, new factions or soon-to-be submitted ones would have to work outside the wiki. In Open RP. As they should. Let them go for six months on their own, or even as add-ons to a plot, instead of angling themselves through wikiwork.

That's just my view.
 
Edit: I would be love to be proven wrong about people's willingness to sign up as mods, btw. :D
I'll review things if appointed to do so, but nobody should "sign up" for authority.

That said, Ame's doing a pretty good job keeping the tech board on track and I don't really think we need more reviewers just yet. It was nice for that month when we had three, I guess.

PS: No NTSE is the worst idea ever. It'd just encourage the metagamers to intensify their metagaming since there'd be no check on their conduct.
 
The problem with that is we've been told numerous times that we need to run things through the wiki before we RP them. For example:
The second is people seeing how far they can stretch 'but we already RPed this so it's canon now'

So, where is this supposed line? What constitutes canon RP that is okay and what isn't? If we Open RP something and then try to get it approved, what are we supposed to do when we're told 'Nope, too OP'? I know its kind of off topic, but in my mind this is where most of these complaints are coming from, which I think is overblown, but whatever, I'm biased.
 
You're supposed to work with technology and setting elements already available on the wiki and then introduce new concepts as they're approved. Rizzo really summed it up well above.
If we Open RP something and then try to get it approved, what are we supposed to do when we're told 'Nope, too OP'?
Then it stays a non-canon RP. If that somehow devalues the writing then play it safe and don't make stuff up (this goes for major setting elements, too, not just tech) without putting it through NTSE first.
 
@Reynolds

I'm pro well reasoned rules that can be clearly stated. I <3 solid, simple rules systems and I think the end goal is that approvals should be a straight forward, nearly automated process. Best case scenario you could just automate approval.

I am against going by gut instinct. Everyone has a different idea about what is acceptable and if we don't have rules to define what is and is not allowed then we are not going to have a healthy RP.
 
If we have rules, people will find a way to exploit them. The more rules there are, the more loopholes there are. Having a leader who uses their judgement is much more effective so long as they can stay reasonably unbiased. I've never played an RPG where the rules could remove the need for arbitration, especially when adding new technology to the setting.

The 'you're just jealous' argument seems to underline the problem, you can't defeat that with rules.

The one place where rules are useful is setting up people's expectations, so that when someone makes a ruling they don't like, they have less justification to complain. If they can point to the rules to give themselves justification, instead, the rules have backfired.
 
Last edited:
@Reynolds

I'm pro well reasoned rules that can be clearly stated. I <3 solid, simple rules systems and I think the end goal is that approvals should be a straight forward, nearly automated process. Best case scenario you could just automate approval.

I am against going by gut instinct. Everyone has a different idea about what is acceptable and if we don't have rules to define what is and is not allowed then we are not going to have a healthy RP.
The rules being the only basis is precisely how people abuse the loopholes already. It's very clearly an issue that we don't consider the purpose and OOC gains someone has from their tech. Which, quite honestly, has been a focus: people OOCly making moves to ensure their tech is superior, rather than having reasonable IC RP to suggest it actually is/earned/worked to these points.

I'd hope that we didn't just approve things just because they fit the rules. That's how you invite cans of worms, and is partially why some technologies were banned. Because people could get things approved, they would until it grew ridiculous and nonsensical. With this tech war, however, it's simply further attempts to escalate the already too-high tech average. Even if your group is weaker than Yamatai, for example, you being stronger than every other faction increases the "average" field of technology. It puts the standards of what is/isn't "modern" in a new position.

We need to care about what we pass, not just pass things because the rules say they can fly. Otherwise, we have issues where PvP won't be taken into account, which will make it nigh impossible for such things to be carried out without stepping on someone's toes. PvP is discouraged already, but if we made it to where even a joint-FM attempt to have a PvE war becomes unreasonable? That's the road we're on right now if we don't tighten it up beyond just rules. It's also why we recommended the idea of making the NTSE require two people. If it got brought into deadlock, which would showcase a tech as being something that was questionable in the setting's standards, then it could be brought into a more open discussion.

Would it slow things down? Yes. But having a rapidly moving NTSE won't benefit us if it's only passing crap. And unfortunately, a high-quality article that forces members to have to make or reinvent technology (not face-lifting articles to the current standard of quality, but the standard of technology) isn't healthy for the site nor does it continue trying to promote that the average player-base can participate in building the setting. As you add layers of complexity and "unbeatable" weapon layout designs, it just makes it fucking stupid because then EVERYONE has to do that as well. You force the stats on people by maximizing your creation in something that's optional.

The weapon guidelines and rules aren't so you can see how far you're allowed to go. They're to try and keep you from going all the way to pushing them. To encourage you to NOT try and hit these "max" numbers. Admittedly, it does make arming things somewhat hard... but honestly, if arming things was hard but it kept people from constantly pushing the max amounts of slots, the max speed their class/size can achieve, the MAX MAX MAX then you know what?

Good. DRv3 was meant to try and pull us away from the extreme. Except now a few people insist that they're within the rules but continue pushing against the wall. It's why things slipped through. Not because of a "bad NTSE". It's because people are deliberately attempting to maximize the sheer capabilities of things, rather than focusing on the story, on the baseline functionality. Ira made a mention to how the Garts were designed with functionality versus maximized capabilities. As a result, they've had to create very little over the years and still have some interesting pieces of tech and the like around. This should be the mentality moving forward, alongside the DRv3 rules. These groups that DRv3 was meant to reign in? They're going to be producing things in the future that aren't nearly as ridiculous that REQUIRED these rules to be as flexible as they are.

DRv3, to my knowledge, was meant to prevent this absurd tech climb and bring things back to reasonable. Yet now there are still constant issues. Atop the fact that it's forcing people to produce something to respond to it, otherwise they ICly falter and lose out because they simply don't have enough slots like these abominations.
 
The NTSE not only has been moving fast, it has also been helping fix up articles that were way below the quality standard that made it through the previous NTSE.

From those that use the NTSE the quality of the NTSE has gone way up.
 
The NTSE not only has been moving fast, it has also been helping fix up articles that were way below the quality standard that made it through the previous NTSE.

From those that use the NTSE the quality of the NTSE has gone way up.
Can you stop acting like no one uses the NTSE? The people who are against this mentality you have have submitted articles for the majority or plan to submit more. Just because we don't submit 10 articles a day doesn't give you some special "know all" card.

From those who don't flood the NTSE with tech that they don't need or that the majority of the site will likely not want to use, the NTSE quality isn't the issue as much as they're not equipped with the right tools or mindset to handle the issues that we've brought up. What's most alarming is that you keep posting here, running from one reason to the next or repeating the same thing. You purposefully ignore the points presented while pouring gasoline on the subject. You've proven multiple times JUST in this thread that we're right and this terrible mentality exists.

Zack, I get that you hate to be wrong... but you are. Every day, you continue stepping on toes and you keep coming here just to try and derail it. You avoid the subject by trying to move it to us "attacking" you or that it's the NTSE's fault exclusively. The issue, again, is that there is a very bad mentality of a set group who constantly use it. Honestly, I imagine you like to use it because you're being allowed to make things that don't make much IC logic and are backed with OOC scheming and intent.
This argument is going in circles and is beginning to repeat itself. @Zack and @Legix you both have good points. Now let's agree to disagree and get on to bigger things while we wait for others to share.

P.S. the bigger man does not need the final word
My only issue is the fact that Zack isn't making points. He continues just blindly insisting things are fine and that this is simply people who don't like him/others involved in the act of this. To be quite honest, I'd love it if he presented valid points instead of dance and try to redirect it as "oh no, see this thing over here is fine so this issue isn't real". It's not about the last word: it's about people coming to this thread and typing shit like this:
So what, we're now going to judge submissions based on our feelings?
Yeah, cause people totally won't whine about it later and post a thread about how tech is getting overpowered.

Not once have they presented a valid point. They ask the questions like "hurrdurr if I phrase it this way, it makes it a credible defense". It's not about judging these by "feelings". I can OOCly look at someone, for example, who has said in chat time and time again "I'm making it to beat such-and-such faction/ship/person's submission :^)" and see that approving it isn't going to be healthy. Yet, despite this, a set group of individuals come here barking about "whining" and "memes" but fucking keep doing nothing short of whining that we're presenting our side factually and trying to find a solution while whining that we're discussing something.

If they weren't doing this, then maybe it wouldn't be going in circles. Wes has made it clear that he wants it to still be here... but it's shaping up exactly like I thought it would because the people who stand to no longer be able to pass everything under the sun won't back down or provide valid points because it has to be personal. They can't be at fault.

If it's seen that this is just me wanting the last word? I don't personally care. This has been us talking and the people responsible for it trying to turn up the radio to try and blot it out. People with bad intent oft to avoid discussion, where they can be viewed as they are rather than who they try to portray.
 
We have to judge articles based on our feelings. It's important to be objective about it, but there's too many factors to account for to avoid intuition being the only reasonable way to decide how appropriate something is for the setting. Logic can't hurt for determining whether something even makes sense in the first place, but whether something makes sense isn't all-important, it's more about what works.

We haven't been using logic or feelings to decide on a lot of submissions, instead we've been listening to persuasive arguments either based on the rules, or based on what someone else has allowed in the past (even though this is against the rules). Both of these are something we should be avoiding, since it misses the point. The submission process isn't about factions getting what they want, it's about building the setting to be more useful for all RP.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top