We Have Enough Factions (For Now)

In the last few years Star Army has experienced a flood of new factions, including several playable ones. This has introduced some issues for the site:

• The number of active players has not increased to keep pace with the addition of new playable factions
• New factions have been introduced which don't seem to relate to the other factions in the site
• It's a lot of work to maintain and grow factions
• A lot of recent conflicts between members are closely related to development of new factions (in particular, arguments over submissions)
  
• I feel like the site has lost some focus and we seem to be trying to do too much at one time
• We also have an ongoing issue with people creating a new supposedly "NPC" faction and then jealously guarding it to the point where the GMs who would like to use it don't feel comfortable using it.

In response to the above difficulties, we've been discussing putting a hold on accepting new factions for a few months now. At the community meeting in May, we discussed setting a cutoff date for the submission of new playable factions. One date suggested was September 1st but we already have Yamatai, Nepleslia, the Hidden Sun Clan, USO, Iromakuanhe, Gartagens, and the Erestu, plus Asteria. That's 8 active playable factions. Based on feedback, most people think that 4-5 would be ideal. So we already don't need more.

So, here's my plan:

1. Star Army will not accept new playable factions after the end of July, until at least the end of the year.
2. Old Playable Factions that aren't being played anymore are going to be transferred to NPC/non-playable status. (e.g. Neshaten, Lorath)
   
3. New NPC factions will have to have a plot plan for RP to get approved.
4. Don't let people "backdoor" factions by claiming their species is for NPC use and then trying to start a plot for them. I can think of recent examples where this happened.
   
5. Make it more clear that submitting NPC background factions is for all GMs to use, not for personal use. This is a character-based RP, not a nations RP.
   
6. Clarify the difference between people who submit NPC factions and people who actually run playable factions (FMs). Maybe different banners?
   
7. Don't be afraid to remind people that the Star Army RP is primarily about the Star Army of Yamatai and while building out the universe is welcome we shouldn't lose focus on the core of the site.
8. Figure out ways to reward people for building on to existing things instead of making little islands.
9. Shift focus from making Star Army's universe "wide" to making it more "deep."
10. Put more detail into the existing playable factions and try to set them up for long-term success.

tl;dr: Hold up guys! We got enough factions; focus on RPing what we got!

As always your feedback is welcome.

 

[Ira]

I'll speak the truth of it. You are either a faction manager or your aren't. Faction managers make content for the faction, and events that are Roleplaying fuel. GMs use that and make plots. Players come to play in said plots and you have a faction.

If you don't have any of those then you aren't a faction manager.

 

[Navian]

You're stressing 'the information on the wiki' as if it's 'better' than actually knowing the faction. Yes, the wiki information should be up to date. But this site is more than just a wiki. There are also IC things that have happened, and then there's also plans for things that are going to happen but have yet to happen. A faction isn't submitted and then left stagnant from there. They're constantly updating, there is no way to realistically expect that the wiki will always perfectly convey how the faction is meant to be. Because the long constant editing makes things just jumbled or loss.

Canon. From the wiki. The reason I don't need to spend pages arguing. It's necessary to catch up with this before having a debate on this subject.

What is actually wrong with having FM and NPC FMs?

The problem is not that they're biased. Yes, everyone is biased. The problem is that they're inherently biased and specifically have their own creation as a blind spot. It's as bad as having people in court be their own defense attorneys. The bit about it 'giving them the power to assert things that haven't been approved' is a separate problem. The functional problem is that it makes it difficult to use NPC factions because their unruly managers are ready to fight anyone who 'uses them wrong', subjectively.

 

[Syaoran]

Sorry. It it isn't.

NPC creations are not factions. Let's stop trying to treat them like they are.

"Sorry it isn't" what? If you're going to join this discussion, be clear what you're talking about. As for 'stop treating them like factions'. If you mean they shouldn't be respected as much as 'main' factions. Then that's pretty awful to say, for one, that's the only reason your faction even still exist. While you were banned from the site they were almost erased. But what needs to be respected is not the 'status' of the creation, but the work put into it.

I'll speak the truth of it. You are either a faction manager or your aren't. Faction managers make content for the faction, and events that are Roleplaying fuel. GMs use that and make plots. Players come to play in said plots and you have a faction.

If you don't have any of those then you aren't a faction manager.

NPC FMs do and have done plenty of this. I, for instance, run an NPC faction, and I am currently running a plot that's Indie but relies heavily on some things from the NPC faction. So I created content for the faction, created events for roleplaying fuel, a GM used that to make a plot, and players have shown up to play. So by your own definition, I have a faction. Which means all NPC factions have the potential to qualify as factions according to you, and most of them do. So by that definition, yes NPC factions -are- Factions.

Now are you going to throw out some other random 'qualifications' to try and put it down or are you going to accept that NPC factions need respect?

 

[Ira]

See it isn't random, that's how Star army literally operates.

You are either a faction manager or your aren't. Pick one, and get the abwherans off the ground and make it happen.

 

[Wes]

The wiki is where Star Army's canon resides. GMs are supposed to follow what's on the wiki.

GM's are not required to:

• Read other plots' RP threads to know what happened in other plots
• Talk to the species creator outside of plot planning threads (though it's encouraged)
  
• Somehow know what's in a faction creator's head

Basically if you don't put things on the wiki, they basically don't matter. The wiki is the setting. So a huge part of being an FM (and also a key responsibility for GMs) is making sure wiki articles stay updated.

 

[Ira]

Personally I give GMs leeway. I also leave things open for interpretation and possible discussion.

 

[Syaoran]

Canon. From the wiki. The reason I don't need to spend pages arguing. It's necessary to catch up with this before having a debate on this subject.

The problem is not that they're biased. Yes, everyone is biased. The problem is that they're inherently biased and specifically have their own creation as a blind spot. It's as bad as having people in court be their own defense attorneys. The bit about it 'giving them the power to assert things that haven't been approved' is a separate problem. The functional problem is that it makes it difficult to use NPC factions because their unruly managers are ready to fight anyone who 'uses them wrong', subjectively.

First the page you linked. "Hard Canon" is defined as "Things are considered “hard canon” if they have an approved wiki article that is based on events in the roleplay. They are part of the universe's continuity (e.g. the series of events that make up the timeline)."

So, in the end, it's about what happens in plot, not the wiki, cause the wiki is supposed to be based on what happens in RP.

As for being inherently bias and NPC factions being 'hard to use'. That is simply not the case. NPC factions are used easily all the time. You're sitting her generalizing managers for NPC factions as unruly which is just disrespectful firstly, but it means that you're also only looking at the situations that actually become an incident.

Maybe, just maybe those incidents happened because of someone -was- actually doing something that could cause a problem and you just didn't see where else it could affect things.

I want to say I am not blaming @Zack for this or anything, but this is just a good example. The 4th Elysian Empire thing. The reason that was opposed was not that"Elysians can't be evil" but that "That many Elysians going down that route makes no sense" and "That would yank a huge amount of resources from the Elysian Empire when we're about to try and fix them up." Once the effect on the actual Elysian Empire was dropped to manageable levels, the 4th was approved.

The wiki is where Star Army's canon resides. GMs are supposed to follow what's on the wiki.

GM's are not required to:

• Read other plots' RP threads to know what happened in other plots
• Talk to the species creator outside of plot planning threads (though it's encouraged)
  
• Somehow know what's in a faction creator's head

Basically if you don't put things on the wiki, they basically don't matter. The wiki is the setting. So a huge part of being an FM (and also a key responsibility for GMs) is making sure wiki articles stay updated.

Yes Wes, but we're talking about what 'has the final say' in terms of 'what is canon'. The wiki and plots are supposed to agree, that's a given. But we've had times where the wiki was forced to be changed because of it wasn't what people were RPing and it'd been so long.

 

[Navian]

"Hard Canon" is defined as "Things are considered “hard canon” if they have an approved wiki article that is based on events in the roleplay.

The other essential point to emphasize was missing. The approval process is critically important, because without it, soft canon could overrule hard canon.

Note that firm canon (approved wiki articles not linked to the RP) is still above soft canon.

As for being inherently bias and NPC factions being 'hard to use'. That is simply not the case. NPC factions are used easily all the time. You're sitting her generalizing managers for NPC factions as unruly which is just disrespectful firstly, but it means that you're also only looking at the situations that actually become an incident.

This is a lot of words to say 'nuh-uh'. Aside from replying with 'ya-huh, this is a real problem', I'll tell you no, I'm not 'only looking at situations that become an incident'. It doesn't matter whether or not someone falls off a balcony every time it gets used, the balcony should still have a railing.

 

[Syaoran]

The other essential point to emphasize was missing. The approval process is critically important, because without it, soft canon could overrule hard canon.

Note that firm canon (approved wiki articles not linked to the RP) is still above soft canon.
This is a lot of words to say 'nuh-uh'. Aside from replying with 'ya-huh, this is a real problem', I'll tell you no, I'm not 'only looking at situations that become an incident'. It doesn't matter whether or not someone falls off a balcony every time it gets used, the balcony should still have a railing.

No one thinks approval is not important. I don't know where you got that. The point I'm making is that not everything is going to end up on the wiki, so relying solely on the wiki, while it will suffice, is not 'better' than someone who has the wiki and all the information that's not there too.

The point I'm making is that the systems works. The only times it doesn't work is when people don't use it right. Just like a balcony railing is useless if you jump over it. You can't say "This doesn't work" and then use people whole ignored it or used it wrong as an example. That's like trying to say a company should build their products tougher because someone pitched a fit and threw it around and it broke.

We should be -encouraging- discussion between GMs and FMs of all kinds, not trying to minimize it to only when needed.

 

[Navian]

I don't think you understand what I meant. Since soft canon can contradict hard canon, and the highest levels of canon are on the wiki, that means someone who only reads the wiki will have a better idea of what the site's canon is than someone who is familiar with soft canon, and has to keep things sorted. So, the more someone is engaged with the RP, the less objective their viewpoint is, and the more cloudy their view of hard canon gets.

It's true that the perfect person for the job of managing NPC factions wouldn't be someone who is only familiar with the wiki and never uses the forums, but that's not because they need to keep up with what's going on in plots. It's because the role requires good judgement, and for someone to have good judgement, they need to understand how plots function and what a GM's role is in general. They can learn about this from using the site, but they don't need to stay up to date with what's happening. Having a general idea of how this or any other similar RP operates is enough to temper their pure wiki knowledge.

We're going to keep disagreeing on whether the system works. We're both biased in the same direction and yet we still disagree, though, does that mean anything to you? I'm annoyed that people expect me to explain how to use the content I created, that they don't think they can use it without my input, and that they don't see this as a problem. And it's not like I'm using anyone else's content in my plot. So I have no reason to be arguing that we change things except that I see the way things are now as dysfunctional, I have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I expect it would serve everyone better in the long run.

 

[Syaoran]

I don't think you understand what I meant. Since soft canon can contradict hard canon, and the highest levels of canon are on the wiki, that means someone who only reads the wiki will have a better idea of what the site's canon is than someone who is familiar with soft canon, and has to keep things sorted. So, the more someone is engaged with the RP, the less objective their viewpoint is, and the more cloudy their view of hard canon gets.

It's true that the perfect person for the job of managing NPC factions wouldn't be someone who is only familiar with the wiki and never uses the forums, but that's not because they need to keep up with what's going on in plots. It's because the role requires good judgement, and for someone to have good judgement, they need to understand how plots function and what a GM's role is in general. They can learn about this from using the site, but they don't need to stay up to date with what's happening. Having a general idea of how this or any other similar RP operation is enough to temper their pure wiki knowledge.

We're going to keep disagreeing on whether the system works. We're both biased in the same direction and yet we still disagree, though, does that mean anything to you? I'm annoyed that people expect me to explain how to use the content I created, that they don't think they can use it without my input, and that they don't see this as a problem. And it's not like I'm using anyone else's content in my plot. So I have no reason to be arguing that we change things except that I see the way things are now as dysfunctional, I have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I expect it would serve everyone better in the long run.

That last paragraph is very telling. You are aware that you have the right to forgo any 'protections' offered. Just because we make it so that people are supposed to talk to the NPC FM, doesn't mean you have to have your NPC faction like that. You can put on its faction page "This can be used without consulting the NPC FM first" that's your choice. But by saying that the protection is not needed, people who are less confident in their wiki work, or people who are in the middle of trying to do something big with their NPC faction, don't have the choice of that protection. So literally whether things stay the same or change, it has next to no effect on you.

 

[Syaoran]

The ideal person to manage factions is someone who updates the wiki based on what's happening in the RP. Using the forums is a vital part of being a Star Army member in general.

Sorry about double post. But this is why I think the NPC FMs should be the one to decide what is and isn't 'right' for the faction. Because they're the ones doing the wiki work, and or managing and organizing the people that are, in the case of multiple people updating a single faction. Not some third party person who only looks at the faction when there is an argument over what should and shouldn't happen.

 

[Navian]

Seriously? Now you're telling me that because I can close myself off and watch things rot from the sidelines, that means I should let it happen?

You're conflating allowing FMs and GMs to have discussions with requiring them to. How's that for 'telling'? If people aren't confident in their wiki work, they need help with their articles, they don't need to be given the authority to make whatever declarations they want whenever it's convenient for them.

I just said that this wasn't about whether it has an effect on me--it shouldn't be about that for you, either.

 

[Zack]

Along those lines, we have far more people sitting on and doing nothing with NPC factions than we do people who are updating their NPCs

 

[Wes]

NPC faction creators don't run the site; the staff does.

NPC faction creators don't run plots; the GMs do.

NPC faction creators don't control characters; the players do.

And (under current rules) NPC faction creators don't run factions; Faction Managers do. And an FM is defined as someone running a playable faction.

NPC faction creators are simply the people who wrote factions for the above parties to use. They can give advice on how to use their factions and it's best practice for people to talk to them, but I mean, you submitted the faction to SARP, it's for SARP's use in general.



One does not donate a T-shirt to the thrift store and then hang around the store telling people how to properly wear the T-shirt, or who the thrift store can sell the shirt to.

If you made an NPC species to be in charge of it, you need to reexamine your motivations.

 

[Navian]

Right, good point. We don't need to change that, the problem is that it's being abused...

 

[Syaoran]

Seriously? Now you're telling me that because I can close myself off and watch things rot from the sidelines, that means I should let it happen?

You're conflating allowing FMs and GMs to have discussions with requiring them to. How's that for 'telling'? If people aren't confident in their wiki work, they need help with their articles, they don't need to be given the authority to make whatever declarations they want whenever it's convenient for them.

I just said that this wasn't about whether it has an effect on me--it shouldn't be about that for you, either.

GMs should have to talk with the FMs when they use the FMs work. Are you saying I should just be able to say "A Yamatai fleet is in sector X being dicks" without consulting Wes? That's ridiculous. You're also confusing things. Wes is

You're also confusing the way the system works. The system does not give the FM the right to make any and all calls he wants. The ways it's supposed to work is the FM and the GM talk in the planning thread. If the FM doesn't like what the GM is trying to do, they talk it out to try and get it to work. If that still doesn't work the FM can say no top it. But the GM has the right to call in Wes if he believes F the FM is being unfair. FMs and NPC FMs are not given unlimited power.

NPC faction creators don't run the site; the staff does.

NPC faction creators don't run plots; the GMs do.

NPC faction creators don't control characters; the players do.

NPC faction creators are simply the people who wrote factions for the above parties to use. They can give advice on how to use their factions and it's best practice for people to talk to them, but I mean, you submitted the faction to SARP, it's for SARP's use in general.

One does not donate a T-shirt to the thrift store and then hang around the store telling people how to properly wear the T-shirt, or who the thrift store can sell the shirt to.

Please do not confuse what Navian thinks people are trying to say with what we're trying to say. No one wants NPC FMs to run the site. What we want is just a slight improvement on that "They can give advice". We're not talking about giving them an unvetoable say in what does and doesn't happen. We're talking about letting them within reason make sure their work is being used as intended. Of course, if the NPC FM is being unreasonable, it can be vetoed. We want protection against misuse of the faction, because like you said, it's for SARP. If we have someone come in and suddenly try to destroy a huge portion of a 'good guy' faction just because a GM wants them to be cool bad guys, that's bad for the site as a whole. Or if someone makes a faction that's specifically peaceful, and some GM decides that their mechs are going around destroying stuff, the FM should be able to say no to that.

If you're worried about people overstepping their bounds, you already have the power to stop that, so it's not really a problem. But allowing FMs to say no to people using a faction in a way that goes against what they're supposed to be, keeps the races and factions in the setting true and consistent. It also helps with getting rid of the 'confusion' of the huge diversity of things, because the NPC factions will have a clear image.

Along those lines, we have far more people sitting on and doing nothing with NPC factions than we do people who are updating their NPCs

The majority of NPC factions that have actual active players on them are undergoing development. It's in different ways, but they're not just sitting around.

 

[Jack Pine]

I feel like this argument is my fault. I've been reading all your posts and I feel like trying to connect things more would help, and I also see where NPC's should be usable to all within reason of course. A mediator for disputes is a step in the right direction, but in the end a FM who creates a faction knows what their faction is all about, how they behave, what they would do. Having someone else tell the creator how they should be is like having your kid taken from you and them saying they're the father. yes you can't tell someone how to wear a shirt after they buy it, but they should already know how to wear it. And i agree that they still need to work within the canon, but a collaboration should be in order to help them create the faction they want but still work within the setting. The biggest complaint when I've seen when suggesting a faction, was that there were too many human factions. There maybe numerous human factions, but that's not going to stop people from wanting to do humans, aliens are just that alien, it's not something I know how to do or interact with. But i'm getting off track, my point is that we need to work together to make things work and not just assume they will on their own. One man may have come up with the idea for Star Trek, but it took a crew to make the show a reality. Alone our work is weak, together we can build a universe. it may sound corny to some of you, but look at what you have already built, this expansive universe you have each added onto is what drew me into this site. Everyday I learn something new about the sarp universe. But I also see a creation divided, as stated before, it's like a sea filled with islands, but we need to start building bridges, starting boat lines, and talking to each other on how to bring these islands closer can create a much richer experience. Don't let this end like Panchea, an entire continent breaking apart at the seams. I may only be the new guy, and this is all only my opinion, but please let us work together to solve our differences not try to halt things and hope it rights itself.

 

[Zack]

Undergoing development and No changes being made are the same thing.

Either they're in use or they arent

 

[Navian]

(Edited this into the last post, then out again because the responses come so fast.)

Often we end up with good reasons not to consult the creator, because they'll start making impositions on GMs, to the point where the GM would rather just not use the content. But then they'll get upset, point to this when they aren't consulted, and say that means the GM is failing to respect them... even when it's the person managing the content who's failed to make their content usable (or worth using, due to the perils of their management.)