Arbitrated
The Smollest Smol
I'm going to need to use this one on discord sometime. I'm a moderator on a couple of discord servers and people never seem to shut up until I bless them with hammers...
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
Tech Wars 101: The Issue and Discussion
- Thread starter Legix
- Start date
-
- Tags
- discussion tech
Navian
Inactive Member
Expanding on my last post a bit... I think a big reason there's so much conflict over setting submissions, to the point where people are trying to make submissions that are blatantly intended to subvert the guidelines, is because we have no agreement, or in most cases even a statement of intent, as to what role the factions are meant to have in the setting. This means that when our visions differ, we'll see those who disagree with us as somehow doing something wrong and flying in the face of facts, even when the statement of what those facts are has never been made or agreed upon.
If all FMs were required to explain what their faction and its sub-factions are all about, and what their resources are, in one article, before having them generate tech submissions, it would make it easier to see what they were thinking without having to cross-reference dozens of forum posts and articles. It'd also be easier to see if their submission were consistent with the background, the goals of the faction, and the setting. It'd also streamline setting up in-character conflicts between factions, because we'd be able to see where they're wanted or expected and where they're meant to be avoided in order to preserve other content.
Lastly, it'd also mean that if there's inconsistencies in an FM's vision for the faction that make it incompatible with other elements of the setting or the RP history, it would be plain to see, which would make it easier to fix before arguments can arise. We seem to be relying too much on smokescreens and chaff to avoid conflict between FMs right now, instead of openly working out compromises that can be agreed upon. I don't think it's healthy to go on trying to pretend that things just aren't happening in the other corners of the site, so much. To some extent it's unavoidable, but it's not sustainable in the long run when it comes to tech submissions.
If all FMs were required to explain what their faction and its sub-factions are all about, and what their resources are, in one article, before having them generate tech submissions, it would make it easier to see what they were thinking without having to cross-reference dozens of forum posts and articles. It'd also be easier to see if their submission were consistent with the background, the goals of the faction, and the setting. It'd also streamline setting up in-character conflicts between factions, because we'd be able to see where they're wanted or expected and where they're meant to be avoided in order to preserve other content.
Lastly, it'd also mean that if there's inconsistencies in an FM's vision for the faction that make it incompatible with other elements of the setting or the RP history, it would be plain to see, which would make it easier to fix before arguments can arise. We seem to be relying too much on smokescreens and chaff to avoid conflict between FMs right now, instead of openly working out compromises that can be agreed upon. I don't think it's healthy to go on trying to pretend that things just aren't happening in the other corners of the site, so much. To some extent it's unavoidable, but it's not sustainable in the long run when it comes to tech submissions.
A
ArsenicJohn
If someone is continually a problem then they should be banned. If something gets through that is actually overpowered it's on the NTSE. It's literally what they are for. People are going to always try to slip things through. Personally, I think that the "tech war" isn't a problem. GMs are going to portray things the way they want to. I'm not against your suggestion to have two NTSE look at everything. We do need more people judging submissions. My last statement was in response to the suggestion that rules are basically useless because people find loopholes.
We need rules. We need judgment too.
We need balances as well as checks.
We need balances as well as checks.
Navian
Inactive Member
Rules can't stop people, they can only discourage them. On their own, they're worse than useless, because they turn into a framework to justify abuses instead of a way to prevent them. Banning people who abuse the rules isn't an ideal solution, because if we ban everyone who does that we'll be down a third of our players if not more.
Instead of making it harder to exploit loopholes by patching the rules, we can try to take away the motive to find ways to exploit the system or badger moderators in the first place, by getting people to clarify their intent. Once that's done, either they won't have to use underhanded means to achieve their objectives because everyone will be working toward the same goals, or they won't be able to, because other people will be able to point out any inconsistencies between what a submission is and will achieve and the role the faction it's submitted for has in the RP. This could make it a little more obvious when someone is trying to twist things around in order to get what they want.
The 'GMs will portray things the way they want to' is fine until we want interactions between plots or factions. At that point, everything that's been swept under the rug will come out in force, or perhaps more often, we'll simply not have interactions (or only shallow interactions) between characters from plots or factions because people will be too apprehensive or uncertain about what will happen to make the attempt.
Instead of making it harder to exploit loopholes by patching the rules, we can try to take away the motive to find ways to exploit the system or badger moderators in the first place, by getting people to clarify their intent. Once that's done, either they won't have to use underhanded means to achieve their objectives because everyone will be working toward the same goals, or they won't be able to, because other people will be able to point out any inconsistencies between what a submission is and will achieve and the role the faction it's submitted for has in the RP. This could make it a little more obvious when someone is trying to twist things around in order to get what they want.
The 'GMs will portray things the way they want to' is fine until we want interactions between plots or factions. At that point, everything that's been swept under the rug will come out in force, or perhaps more often, we'll simply not have interactions (or only shallow interactions) between characters from plots or factions because people will be too apprehensive or uncertain about what will happen to make the attempt.
The GM/FM board exists so FMs can openly communicate and share their plans and ideas to make sure everything's kosher setting-wise. But, much like the NTSE here, people just whine and yell about comments and suggestions they dislike and charge ahead with their blatantly uncanonical representations (if they use the board in the first place). So I'm not sure that just talking it out will help any. It's an issue of personalities clashing and an inability to really do anything about it.
People just need to learn that "GM discretion" means the GM is allowed to tell their story. It's not license to trample on the setting, ignore FM suggestions as to how to make things fit, create really overpowered tech/bypass NTSE, or metagame.
Anyway, tl;dr, what I'm trying to say is that only the Eucharis is hard canon
Legix
Inactive Member
Dig-It is hard-canon, but only because of the boob.The GM/FM board exists so FMs can openly communicate and share their plans and ideas to make sure everything's kosher setting-wise. But, much like the NTSE here, people just whine and yell about comments and suggestions they dislike and charge ahead with their blatantly uncanonical representations (if they use the board in the first place). So I'm not sure that just talking it out will help any. It's an issue of personalities clashing and an inability to really do anything about it.
People just need to learn that "GM discretion" means the GM is allowed to tell their story. It's not license to trample on the setting, ignore FM suggestions as to how to make things fit, create really overpowered tech/bypass NTSE, or metagame.
Anyway, tl;dr, what I'm trying to say is that only the Eucharis is hard canon
But yeah, that's also an issue well highlighted by Razcatraz. There's some people who enforce their GM and FM rights to back-up canon-changing plots... which is an issue, but it's not entirely related here. Sometimes it can be, but that sort of issue could be solved if the people who want to break the setting wouldn't mind just RPing in Open RP as non-canon. After all: Nothing stops you from RPing, canon or not, if you really are just here for that.
Navian
Inactive Member
I don't have access to the planning board, so maybe I'm biased, but I don't think it serves the role of a single source article that can tell everyone what the role of a faction or subfaction in the RP is meant to be, or that gives suggestions on how it's generally meant to be used in the plots of other factions. I was just noticing that my whole argument, that tech submissions are about what helps the setting, not about what factions want, doesn't work at all if we can't agree on how the setting should be built in the first place.
If we can't agree on what roles the factions play, it's only natural for us to fight over it and try to sneak things past each other. This should underline how important it is to have a shared understanding of how things are meant to fit together.
If we can't agree on what roles the factions play, it's only natural for us to fight over it and try to sneak things past each other. This should underline how important it is to have a shared understanding of how things are meant to fit together.
Legix
Inactive Member
I can agree with that statement that submissions should help the setting.
However, this brings me back to something I wanted to address in your earlier statement about a sort of "theme sheet" for each faction. While at face value, it looks good, I think it would also lead to more deliberate clashes and arguments. It's really the only reason I'm not terribly for it, but the idea could work if we could ensure that these are flexible, sorta like a "theme guideline" or something. It's a bit hard to put it to a name, but the idea being that it's not the strictest "you earn X because you have Y + Z + A" or what have you.
If you give me time to sift through the archives, I can pull up lines that detailed people designing something with the intent to beat something deliberately. Not only that, but within this thread there are examples of the mentality that people should be forced to make new tech submissions "or else".
Whichever you want examples for, let me know and I'll go and pick out things such as Zack insisting USO is better armed/militarily capable than elements of Yamatai and Nepleslia or where Arieg insisted that his machine was "designed better and couldn't lose". I feel it's a bit odd, since this is something most people who've been here more than a week know that examples exist.
It's also, again, not to cast that they've done something wrong by the rules but rather that they're making these submissions in bad taste and there's call to get the rules/NTSE modified to prevent this. All the same, I'm sure others will be providing proof if I haven't shortly.
Navian
Inactive Member
I don't have any examples that aren't USO tech. The Pack Power Armour thread was a good example. I never did get an explanation for why a backpack needed to be able to resist getting shot by a rocket-propelled grenade, instead all of the justifications were based on rules or on other submissions.
Despite Alex's assurances to the contrary, the U-1 is an example, too. USO didn't get the U-1 because it made sense for the faction IC or OOC, it got it because Alex wanted a transforming mecha. While the mech itself was prototyped, the tech used to make it was not, it appeared because it was wanted. The worst trouble with this is that the U-1 is now used as an example of USO tech, in order to open the gates to more extremely advanced and expensive technology, based on the idea 'this worked, so why won't this work, too?'
As far as I've seen, USO is a weak faction with the lowest tech-level in the setting, it relies on mercenaries and imports for nearly everything. Its R&D team is smaller than a cricket team. And yet justifications have been made for it producing new tech at a rate that's faster than a World War 2 superpower... and apparently for similar motives. To me, it all seems extremely incongruous. An article explaining what USO is, since it apparently isn't just a conquered steam age world anymore, would make it much less of a breeding ground for conflict.
This problem isn't exclusive to USO, but it looks nearly so, because it's so much of a problem for it that it drowns out any others--I haven't had time to look at any of the submissions of anything else that could be an example. (Or at least, I didn't have time back before I decided to give up on monitoring the NTSE entirely.)
Despite Alex's assurances to the contrary, the U-1 is an example, too. USO didn't get the U-1 because it made sense for the faction IC or OOC, it got it because Alex wanted a transforming mecha. While the mech itself was prototyped, the tech used to make it was not, it appeared because it was wanted. The worst trouble with this is that the U-1 is now used as an example of USO tech, in order to open the gates to more extremely advanced and expensive technology, based on the idea 'this worked, so why won't this work, too?'
As far as I've seen, USO is a weak faction with the lowest tech-level in the setting, it relies on mercenaries and imports for nearly everything. Its R&D team is smaller than a cricket team. And yet justifications have been made for it producing new tech at a rate that's faster than a World War 2 superpower... and apparently for similar motives. To me, it all seems extremely incongruous. An article explaining what USO is, since it apparently isn't just a conquered steam age world anymore, would make it much less of a breeding ground for conflict.
This problem isn't exclusive to USO, but it looks nearly so, because it's so much of a problem for it that it drowns out any others--I haven't had time to look at any of the submissions of anything else that could be an example. (Or at least, I didn't have time back before I decided to give up on monitoring the NTSE entirely.)
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
If that's the case, any good NTSE mod worth their salt should be able to see through this and reject the submission. With the Pack PA, I rejected it for that very reason, only for someone else to approve it. With the U-1 for an example, a mod using their own judgement would determine that it is an exception and not a rule for the faction, and reject larger, more sweeping submissions based off of it as an example even though it fits all the rules. In other words, the system should be working fine assuming NTSE Mods use both the rules, as well as their own sound judgement. If this is just USO, it's simply Zack being Zack - nothing new to be honest.
However, if this is a more widespread issue, we have a problem.
However, if this is a more widespread issue, we have a problem.
Navian
Inactive Member
Legix mentioned a sort of wide-sweeping sense of people feeling a need to submit competitive (and potentially rules-abusive) technology at a rapid rate to avoid losing out. I don't have anything else that might be an example of that to provide, so it goes back to whatever he can offer.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
I try to remain as objective as possible despite SARP being a pretty personal and intimate thing for many people when I moderate. Though Legix may have a wide-sweeping sense of this, what we need is something more tangible to work with. I hate to say it, but feelings and reality are two different things, and in this case especially, I and other mods will need hard evidence to get anything done.
Rizzo
Well-Known Member
@CadetNewb, I respectfully disagree. I feel that a loose-fitting guideline and a submission mod with a good sense of the setting can accomplish more. No rigid rule set will ever account for everything and if the rules are too strict before we know it all the tech will be look exactly the same.
Moreover, I believe wes should not be involved in the process. Wes assigns this trust to the NTSE. That is where the decision should be made.
Clarification: Wes should NOT be appealed to simply because a submitter is not getting his way.
Moreover, I believe wes should not be involved in the process. Wes assigns this trust to the NTSE. That is where the decision should be made.
Clarification: Wes should NOT be appealed to simply because a submitter is not getting his way.
Legix
Inactive Member
@CadetNewb - Since you wanted me to, I went and dug through chat archives. Zack had a few (but it seems people are under the confirmation he's involved in this somewhat now), but I finally found one to indicate another person I've mentioned briefly.
https://stararmy.com/roleplay-forum..._start=1490072400&date_end=1490158800&page=13
My fighting with Zack aside, you can see Arieg make a remark (again, the most recent one since he has made a habit to dwindle the amount he talks in general chat to my knowledge. Beyond poking fun and insulting people, anyway) that suggests he's of similar competitive atmosphere to surpass someone.
I don't want to make this a witch hunt. This is about reformation within the NTSE to combat the mentality of forcing people to make NTSE submissions just to keep factions relevant technologically. Zack has stated multiple times in this thread to that sound, as have some other people who ran in to insult people and call them crybabies or "haters".
I really don't like to trawl through the chat archives, as it's not as damning as the sheer amount of proof that can't be shown from past instances or private discussions. However, this isn't a thread I made lightly or out of bias. It's because there's a genuine issue, @CadetNewb. People have seen these parties argue the "X did it, so Y can". It's obnoxious to force us into the archives to trawl for this when the reputations of these members along with their fairly insulting input (rather than proper responses where they didn't try to spite or insult others) is proof of the mentality that is an issue and cause for this discussion to need to happen.
I also wish that you had respected my wishes to not turn this into a thread where I call them out, as they've already forced me to address them multiple times now despite it being made clear we're not trying to punish people for having done it. We want to prevent it from further happening.
And a brief comment?
Rules aren't enough if people are able to push them to their furthest stretch but not break them. If you keep pushing something, you need to get hit back. And that hasn't happened in the past (enough) nor has it happened to discourage this mentality that has led so many people to come forward. This isn't an issue I'm making up and then "suddenly there were others who saw it". This is something that has been bugging multiple members for months as it has got worse and more obvious.
The Cadet TLDR: Arieg's most recent case is here. If I have to keep digging through archives to prove something that's as solid as "Zack being Zack" if you ask around, then I will. But this is absurd that the sheer amount of people here isn't proof enough.
https://stararmy.com/roleplay-forum..._start=1490072400&date_end=1490158800&page=13
My fighting with Zack aside, you can see Arieg make a remark (again, the most recent one since he has made a habit to dwindle the amount he talks in general chat to my knowledge. Beyond poking fun and insulting people, anyway) that suggests he's of similar competitive atmosphere to surpass someone.
- Star Army: @Arieg finds all this funny since hes going to have the best designed tech on the site.
- Zack: Alex, we have two of the top builders of stuff in the setting. The tech level avalible is incredibly good, its the same tech that built Lor and Nepleslia.
- Star Army: @Arieg reads up.
I don't want to make this a witch hunt. This is about reformation within the NTSE to combat the mentality of forcing people to make NTSE submissions just to keep factions relevant technologically. Zack has stated multiple times in this thread to that sound, as have some other people who ran in to insult people and call them crybabies or "haters".
I really don't like to trawl through the chat archives, as it's not as damning as the sheer amount of proof that can't be shown from past instances or private discussions. However, this isn't a thread I made lightly or out of bias. It's because there's a genuine issue, @CadetNewb. People have seen these parties argue the "X did it, so Y can". It's obnoxious to force us into the archives to trawl for this when the reputations of these members along with their fairly insulting input (rather than proper responses where they didn't try to spite or insult others) is proof of the mentality that is an issue and cause for this discussion to need to happen.
I also wish that you had respected my wishes to not turn this into a thread where I call them out, as they've already forced me to address them multiple times now despite it being made clear we're not trying to punish people for having done it. We want to prevent it from further happening.
And a brief comment?
This needs to stop happening. People don't get the right to act this way, just because they're them. No one is entitled or allowed to push the systems "just because" and that is very alarming to hear an NTSE member actually seem to defend the act of doing so.
Rules aren't enough if people are able to push them to their furthest stretch but not break them. If you keep pushing something, you need to get hit back. And that hasn't happened in the past (enough) nor has it happened to discourage this mentality that has led so many people to come forward. This isn't an issue I'm making up and then "suddenly there were others who saw it". This is something that has been bugging multiple members for months as it has got worse and more obvious.
The Cadet TLDR: Arieg's most recent case is here. If I have to keep digging through archives to prove something that's as solid as "Zack being Zack" if you ask around, then I will. But this is absurd that the sheer amount of people here isn't proof enough.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying @Rizzo . Loose or strict, the guidelines are not as important as the mod calling the shots. Because of that, I don't think the current ones need any change. However, I completely and utterly agree with you regarding trust in the NTSE mods - Wes shouldn't have to step in, and especially if a submitter is not getting their way. It defeats the purpose of having an NTSE mod to begin with.
Now, regarding the chat logs, I feel that people can take pride in their creations' strength - right or wrongly - so long as nothing actually wrong is actually done. I say actually twice for emphasis. Some people are simply competitive by nature @Legix , and there is no stopping that. As for my comments about Zack being Zack however? I don't like saying this, but I must do so to be absolutely clear. He's broken rules in the past and been banned multiple times as a result, and because of that, ANY competent mod will go through his submissions with a fine toothed comb. This is simply what he's well known for to older players on the site.
Being competitive, boasting and such in the chat room is one thing, but actual rule breaking, OP submissions and such are another. If you bring such things to the NTSE's attention, we will have it dealt with, and swiftly. Just post in the article's submission thread in the approved area with a tag or something, and we'll look at it again.
Now, regarding the chat logs, I feel that people can take pride in their creations' strength - right or wrongly - so long as nothing actually wrong is actually done. I say actually twice for emphasis. Some people are simply competitive by nature @Legix , and there is no stopping that. As for my comments about Zack being Zack however? I don't like saying this, but I must do so to be absolutely clear. He's broken rules in the past and been banned multiple times as a result, and because of that, ANY competent mod will go through his submissions with a fine toothed comb. This is simply what he's well known for to older players on the site.
Being competitive, boasting and such in the chat room is one thing, but actual rule breaking, OP submissions and such are another. If you bring such things to the NTSE's attention, we will have it dealt with, and swiftly. Just post in the article's submission thread in the approved area with a tag or something, and we'll look at it again.
Legix
Inactive Member
Actual rule breaking where they've defended their submissions in chat with the OP's indicated "excuses"? It's happened, Cadet. Again, it's simply a matter of prowling through the archives until we find it. In the grand scope of things, it's been happening over the last few months so it would be absolutely backbreaking to pull up what other people can attest to having happened.
It's, again, not just about "OP" submissions. It's when people are pushing the rules to their limit by ALWAYS using their max slots, ALWAYS making the hardest to counter submissions. They're within the rules but that attitude and act is outright childish to look at and go "nope, can't stop that!".
Just because they can doesn't mean they should nor should they be allowed to have everything under the sun that they're just making to ensure they can beat someone. Not that they need it for their RP, nor that the situation calls for it. This is the key fact that keeps getting overlooked and is the biggest reason that this is being brought up. I've said multiple times that going back and targeting these prior submissions is pointless. They've already been planted into the setting and are beyond reigning in without shit tons of drama. It's better that we focus on what's to come, so we can prevent MORE of this from happening.
The Submissions rules, as I cited, indicate their behavior and continuous addition of new, absurdly advanced but "rule-fitting" tech is meant to not happen. They've used excuses before to defend their submissions. Despite countless people citing issues, the NTSE has passed things before because it passed the rules even if it didn't make sense. And I'm talking about, in this case, the newest system Arieg made where for some absurd reason the Blacks and Zen left their native space to make a "stronghold" far outside of space that they've dominated and control entire operations in.
In short, the IC logic and OOC logic of these submissions haven't made sense but things get passed because they don't break rules. And that has to fucking stop for the future, before we simply flood the setting. If you disagree and you want to encourage this, then continue protecting them with "well, they aren't breaking rules". I'll be glad to request the NTSE be reorganized because it's clear that the best interest of the setting isn't in your mind. You're only trying to pass things so people can have them or so you don't get yelled at, rather than passing them because they benefit the entire setting.
