• 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

Wes might be able to help at a higher level as the setting manager, by finding out about FM's long-term goals and objectives and steering them in a direction where they might fit together better. There's a lot of advantages to having a setting where all the content is player-created, but there's disadvantages, too.

Other speculative fiction settings benefit from specific races, organizations, or civilizations being set aside for things like a slobs vs. snobs or harmony vs. enlightenment conflict, for comic relief, as a resource whenever a plot calls for an information broker or a tough mercenary, et cetera. When every group is player-created, it becomes difficult for PC factions to fall into these story roles unless the people behind them either work at it, or are willing to let someone else decide for them. Establishing the roles more clearly helps us apply genre rules and avoid the problems that arise when both parties think they're the heroes of the story OOC.
 
CadetNewb said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, all staff members are part of the review team and submitters are entitled to an appeal (it's in the submission rules) if something is rejected, so I don't really see the problem with Wes stepping in if he's asked to. Should definitely be the last resort, 'cause he's a busy dude, but we shouldn't be saying that Wes shouldn't be involved in NTSE.
 
Here's an idea, appealing to @Wes can be like appealing to Caesar. If a real problem is found its corrected. If it's found that the NTSE is right @Rizzo inherits the submission to alter and pass off as his own.

Okay, maybe not.
But, seriously, there should be a penalty for unnecessarily trying to override the NTSE. Regardless, I still feel that he should let those responsible for a duty be the authority of it. No disrespect to Wes, I just don't like the idea of people disrespecting the NTSE mods. I'm sure @Doshii Jun would still be moderating had he not been made to step aside so much.
 
META_mahn said:
I mean he did make SARP.
Click to expand...
I thought much like you did when I joined, but I've come to realize that such line of reasoning leaves resentment and hostility that broods like a cancer.
It's the difference between treating site members as a community rather than a commodity.
 
@Legix , it's the NTSE Mod's job to look past those excuses and beyond the rules in order to really give the submission a proper review. If you think there's something wrong, or something is being overlooked, you bring it up like FrostJaeger is doing in the Indigo submission thread. He's posting in bricks which is a headache for me in that one, but I'm currently deliberating what options are on the table because he's brought up good points to consider. Though drama is a concern, bringing up previous, recently submitted articles which are under suspicion of being OP is perfectly acceptable, as there must be some sort of starting point for the process of cleaning up. While NTSE Mods are responsible for preventing them from being approved in the first place by looking past flimsy excuses using their own sound judgement, only this will get rid of them once such things have been approved.

Now, if you want to bring up concerns about my impartiality as an NTSE Mod however, you're free to do so. However, I do point out that it's simply good business for the Black Syndicate to 'outsource', just as Origin Industries has.

More importantly though, I do agree that Wes should have a role to play in the NTSE, but the more recent issue is the frequency at which he was called in to overrule an NTSE Mod in favor of a submitter who wasn't having their way. It's one of the reasons why Doshii Noped on out of the NTSE and isn't touching things in there anymore. As @Rizzo has said, it should be appealing to Caesar, something done very sparingly, and only after the other NTSE Mods have been consulted first, and still found unsatisfactory.
 
Rizzo said:
I thought much like you did when I joined, but I've come to realize that such line of reasoning leaves resentment and hostility that broods like a cancer.
It's the difference between treating site members as a community rather than a commodity.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not...really qualified for this discussion. I only jumped in to attempt to be a voice of reason, but I unfortunately was not effective, as I realized this discussion was far beyond what I perceived it as. I'd like to say I know much about SARP's logistics and history both IC and OOC, but unfortunately my knowledge is near zero. I'm trying to pitch suggestions at a planetary core mining operation and I've barely scratched the bedrock layer in my own.
 
@META_mahn, being humble enough to admit that is a strength most people spend a lifetime without. You really should be commended for trying your best.
 
*peeks head in*

First, I would like it say how much I like seeing both old and new members joining in on this conversation. It is really cool to see some people I have gotten to know lately becoming involved in an NTSE discussion. Don't feel like you can't contribute just because you're not an old salt!

Second, I am very happy, thankful, and gracious that nobody has said current NTSE mods are not doing their jobs. The problems of the past are not the problems of the present and let us hope that there will be no problems in the future.

Third, I have no qualms with submissions being made and commenters helping out and giving their input to make my job more difficult. It makes the product of my job all the better when you do that. Nobody has really come in and done so besides for Wes, though, on any submissions I've worked on.

Fourth, Wes is the reason I am here. He is the reason you are here and the reason we are able to have a community like we have. If we left him out of the process of decision-making, it would be a detriment to the site. If someone does not agree with my answer, they may bring in Wes and I'll be just as happy having his help than if I did it on my own.

That is all.
 
I do agree, but Wes should come in only as last resort. Previously, some people have abused this by calling him in frequently to ensure they got their way. I suggest Wes only be called in when all other NTSE Mods have been called in, and were unable to come to agreement.
 
Outsource to space where no one is? Really? Almost the entire width of Yamatai away from them?

:/

Honestly, as I've said too many times, I don't want to attack the NTSE members. This is a structure and what your job is supposed to do problem, not an issue with you members. Your bias in other cases isn't for here, nor is it as relevant as the submitters who are carrying this out.

Every time I've personally showed up in a thread and provided thought-out feedback, you have ignored it or simply wrote me off. The people involved do the same to other members and myself. Our concerns as member of the site are simply ignored or wrote off if it's posted in a thread that's made by someone who doesn't like us.

Whether I post 1 line of sass or a brick of thought-over points doesn't change a thing. Bringing it up hasn't done a damn thing despite many voiced concerns over various submissions recently and in the past.
 
Successfully appealed rejections say more about the reviewers than the person who "didn't get their way," in all honesty. Sort of proves that the obstruction was unwarranted. I know Wes wants his trusted yellow banners to be respected, but framing it in a way that suggests the submissions should have stayed rejected is pretty off-base.

It's important for all reviewers to leave their biases at the door. If you can't find a way forward toward approval, then the problem isn't the submission at all.
 
I think some of the concerns raised are valid ones.

Authors should generally make articles to fit their factions' places in the setting, not to try to one-up other factions. Star Army's tech level is already extremely advanced and pushing it forward is unlikely to lead to better RP.

Any time a tech author is making a submission to min-max or circumvent the OOC limits instead of going with what makes sense in the RP, I think the setting is harmed by that. For example, when all ships have the same top speed because it's the max the rules allow, that's not making our setting diverse.

Likewise I think having player factions or fleets of starships appear and become "contenders" on a rapid basis breaks suspension of disbelief.

Doshii's Setting Submissions Moratorium idea: Maybe I'd close setting submissions if we were going to be focused on fixing up older articles for a while (as in we're redirecting our efforts), but I wouldn't want to close it just to stop tech in general. A lot of new plots depend on the submissions process, especially newer factions that are still rapidly growing, to keep their plots canon-safe. A safer idea would be to do something selective, like to put a ban on submissions of new playable factions.

Navian's Faction Roles idea: I like the idea of factions being more well-defined as to what they can make and what they tend to make.

Current Operation of the Setting Submissions Staff: I think Ametheliana and Cadetnewb are doing a good job. I would like to see the full checklist used most of the time.
 

If you want to build a new spaceship, the progression should not be:
  1. I talk about wanting a new spaceship.
  2. I start building a new spaceship.
  3. I have a new spaceship.
  4. I submit the new spaceship for approval.
It should be:
  1. I talk about wanting a new spaceship.
  2. I start building a new spaceship.
  3. I submit the new spaceship for approval.
  4. I have a new spaceship.
That's the problem we're having. If you get to step 3 and you don't get approved but want to continue RP? You're RPing with a broken or otherwise not-fully-functional spaceship. You had to take it back to the shop and RP more of step 2 while you're OOCly working on the wiki page. It's that simple.



http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlayerArchetypes
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html

Again, the problem (at least as I see it) is not with any specific individual submission. It is that you either fundamentally do not understand that your view of this can be problematic, or are deliberately choosing to disregard other opinions. As people are repeatedly saying, you're not even willing to admit there is a problem, much less discuss a compromise or other solution, because if this is exactly what you want then there's no problem.



For one of the most famous examples of 'but this is all legal' you can look at good ol' Pun-Pun.

Everything in that character build is technically legal and follows the rules. Allowing you to turn your 5th level Kobold, one of the weakest critters in the system, into an unstoppable god.

If someone showed up to my table with that, I'd just say no. And that would be that.

That's the idea behind an approval process that's more than just following the letter of the rules.
 
Pun-Pun is the reason patches and updates exist. It is not an intended part of DnD, and it was fixed in later versions.

Which is to say here: If there is a problem with the rules, then fix the rules.
 
It depends on the submission @raz - sometimes it can really swing both ways. Legix himself brought up some of the things in question even. Sadly, it's not always kosher on either side.
 
Zack said:
Pun-Pun is the reason patches and updates exist. It is not an intended part of DnD, and it was fixed in later versions.

Which is to say here: If there is a problem with the rules, then fix the rules.
Click to expand...
Zack every time we try to patch something you are strongly against it (see thread for trying to implement the DRV3) we either have to patch things, or we have to have people over see the rules using logic and reasoning to spot problems and say no. However as this is a storytelling based 'game' and we're trying to avoid a rule set that's too restrictive the size the rules would have to be would be huge after all the patches.
 
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…