One of the things that led to the fall of Rome was the abuse of the Tribune's Veto.
The moment someone, anyone, starts using their Veto frivolously, that's the moment that the system you suggest fails. Right now, to be fair, there are some people who don't trust Reviewer A, and who expect A to veto everything they submit based on bias. Similarly, Reviewer B also has strong apparent bias. If Reviewer A and B are both biased, the NTSE grinds to a screeching halt.
The system we have right now isn't just some skeletal rule system with strings and wires; what we're really talking about is the attitude of the reviewers, which we are dissatisfied with, for allowing this tech war to continue. Honestly, I think that the NTSE would be much improved if the playerbase's involvement with it was more formal - an idea I've heard before and that I do not in any way disagree with would be restricting the issue to the tech mods, the reviewer, and the FM or GM who would be using the equipment. I really do think the peanut gallery needs formally silenced. I think that there should be a garentee of professionalism within the NTSE.
I actually waited a while to think this over before addressing it, and so I've cherry picked the quote (it's back on 3, can click to return to it).
So I want to talk about magic swords here, because that's really what we're arguing over, in the end; elements of a story, or roleplay, that are passingly important to the stories that we are writing. If there's any cardinal sin that I see being put forward here, it's that tech exists to empower a faction. That is, in my mind, an incorrect and dangerous way of thinking; the technology exists to empower the story of that faction. There should be a plot element to it, even if it's just the Yamataian AMES's ability to float around in space without an oxygen pack.
Everything we play with right now is basically a magical sword or a piece of armor.
So I don't actually see the problem with your second suggestion's theory of operation - but you tagged something else onto it that I want to address and that I feel really needs addressed. Cross contamination. You seem to assume that cross-pollination is an issue, and I am skeptical of that implication. That's why I have spoken in this thread before about the scope of a technology.
If a GM gives a player a magic sword (for instance) that's super overpowered and lol and amazingsauce, whether or not that's run through the NTSE, it's the GM's discretion to do so. As an excellent and recent example, there are rules on the wiki for the use of psionics, and even lesser forms of magic and some of those abilities exceed what any character would be approved with on the website, ever. In this article, it specifically states that the GM may ONLY empower those characters in a limited fashion, essential to the progression of the plot itself.
In other words - the big, overpowered toys should stay within the plots themselves. One would not expect the protagonists of one plot to suddenly become the protagonists of another plot. You do not leave Faerun for a Conan campaign, expecting Set to be the same god. However possible this is, I do not often see this happen; often characters are made specifically for one plot, and stay in that plot for their entire run time, with some notable exceptions where characters have switched ships or even allegiances.
At that point, it's incumbent on the subsequent GM to take a look at the character they're getting - as we already do - and determine whether that character is carrying an ability or a piece of technology beyond its scope. That's why we approve the characters in our plots now, because only we GMs actually know how high, low, or varied our tech and power preferences are. Example: Some GMs play Nekovalkyrja as almost human. Other GMs play Nekovalkyrja as heartless kill machines. Both are true and can be backed up, either by relating Nekovalkyrja to each other, or by looking at their lift and carry weights in the Wiki. However, if a player joins GM A's plot expecting it to be like GM B's plot, that's where the actual problem rests.
So essentially the problem comes when you have someone specifically wanting to abuse the system, and as bloody as it has been, I've not seen someone attempt this and escape unscathed. Wes is not an idiot, and neither are most of the GMs here stupid or blind.
Technology or resource development through roleplay, in my opinion, is better for the website than tech development through a complicated system of reviewers, or a biased system of votes, or a simple freeze on tech submissions. As long as logs are kept, and as long as the scope of the technology (its impact on the setting itself) is minimal, I don't see why we would have to submit minor technologies to the point where people submit backpacks or boots. However, if a submission is likely to affect the greater setting - for instance, a new faction or a new type of warp engine or a new Death Doom Device - then yes, it should probably be submitted.
But in the end, we are here to have fun through roleplay. Some people enjoy faction building, and that's fine, but ultimately the outcome of wars or inter-faction struggles is pre-determined by the FMs and GMs who wish to engage in that sort of struggle rather than the actual technological capabilities of that faction. Essentially, the game is rigged already, and creating tech for tech's sake is just spinning your wheels off into infinity for no purpose.
