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.

 

[Syaoran]

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

Either they're in use or they arent

Undergoing development means many things but it doesn't mean 'unused'. Just because they're not appearing in a plot at this instant doesn't mean they're being 'sat on'. Wiki pages could be being made and updated, and some people don't have the time or disposition to spend hours a day in and out to put out several pages very fast. It could mean they're in talks with a GM to get them into a plot. It could mean no one wants to use them for some reason and the FM doesn't feel they're capable of GMing. Yes either they're 'in use' or aren't, but not being 'in use' does not equal "nothing is being done with them" the world is not binary like that.

(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.)

The simple fix for this is limit how much in terms of 'impositions' the NPC FM can make. Why when you literally know where the problem is, are you targeting something else?

 

[Wes]

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean we are confused @Syaoran.

As Navian said, overreaching FMs and species creators has been a consistent problem that has hurt RPs, where putting too many restrictions on the GMs causes them to avoid what's built and make new stuff. In light of that, limiting species creators' powers seems like an obvious solution, and also the edges of FMs' powers need to be defined. We've already done a good job on the latter by adding the FM rights lately so we're already making progress.

 

[Navian]

The limit is zero. Zero impositions. Imposing on anyone is not a content creator's role, ever! Instead, we can have someone who didn't write the articles interpret them, which solves so many problems I don't understand why we're still having this discussion, unless it's because people like having the problems around.

 

[Ira]

People in the past and present have come to me asking to use the Gartagens for things. My response? "Yea sure. they'd behave like this in such a situation, have fun!"

I get it. You've made something---well the Abwehrans were made by Matt AKA AbwheranCommander----But you want to protect that something. Well Making something on star army that others want to use does not make them BAD. It means you have made something somebody likes.

 

[Syaoran]

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean we are confused @Syaoran.

As Navian said, overreaching FMs and species creators has been a consistent problem that has hurt RPs, where putting too many restrictions on the GMs causes them to avoid what's built and make new stuff. In light of that, limiting species creators' powers seems like an obvious solution, and also the edges of FMs' powers need to be defined. We've already done a good job on the latter by adding the FM rights lately so we're already making progress.

This is why I'm saying you're confusing what we want Wes. We're not against that. We just want confirmation that the NPC FMs will be able to put a stop to -damaging- misuse of the faction. That's it. We don't want the right to control plots or anything like that. Never have.

As for the term 'impositions,' it's impossible to have 'zero' impositions rules in themselves are an imposition. Minimal is best in terms of imposition yes. But content creator being able to protect their content from blatant misuse should not be seen as unnecessary.

That's all this part is about, being able to protect against blatant misuse/damage. Not about controlling people, not about 'imposing' on them.

Now yes what this 'misuse' is will probably need definition, but I don't see a reason to keep that away from the content creator other than "They might abuse it", but literally part of the staff's job is to make sure people don't abuse their powers.

People in the past and present have come to me asking to use the Gartagens for things. My response? "Yea sure. they'd behave like this in such a situation, have fun!"

I get it. You've made something---well the Abwehrans were made by Matt AKA AbwheranCommander----But you want to protect that something. Well Making something on star army that others want to use does not make them BAD. It means you have made something somebody likes.

I do not want FMs to have the power to stop people because I think they're bad, in fact I believe most the time people have good intentions with this kind of thing. I would also love for people to use the Abwehrans. But I -have- seen people try to do things that damage or go against the image of the faction they are trying to use. I'm not saying everyone is like that, I'm saying NPC Fms should have the power to protect from that if/when it does happen.

Like with what you said when people ask you to use the Garts and you say yes and how they would behave. If NPC FMs don't have the power to actually protect their faction's image (and Garts were still an NPC faction, since they have a plot now they're not) that person could just turn around and do the exact opposite of how you said they'd act, and you'd have no power to stop them. That is the kind of thing what I'm suggesting is meant for.

 

[Syaoran]

(Sorry Double post) But also something needs to be made clear. I am not the FM of the Abwehr's because of power or something like that. I became the FM of Abwehr because I love the faction, but they fell into disuse, and they were literally going to be erased if someone didn't take up the reins. I'm a GM before I'm an FM. I'm an FM to keep something that I wanted to GM with, in the setting.

 

[Navian]

If we continue to allow FMs to decide what is 'damaging' to their faction, and prohibit it on that grounds, they're going to continue to disallow 'damage' to the faction even if it would be beneficial for the plot or the setting. On that grounds alone, it's a conflict of interest.

For PC factions this sort of okay, the conflict of interest is only partial and can perhaps be tolerated, since they're not just protecting their own pet project, but also all the players and plots it contains, and those are (presumably) a major part of the site. For NPC factions it's inexcusable.

Since people are already abusing and pushing the limits of the power they have, they don't need to be given more. That should go without saying.

I'm not saying GMs should be unchecked. We can have someone else protect the setting, which includes making sure the NPC factions continue to be useful to GMs in general, even if one or more GMs would prefer to unfairly monopolize their use or other abuse their GM status at the setting and site's expense.

 

[Jack Pine]

I agree completely with @Syaoran in the regard of FM rights, Kirk is Kirk, he's a captain out for exploration not to be a pirate. Factions have personalities, behaviors, certain ways of thinking. Changing those goes against what that faction is about, a character, group, faction must played as they are meant to be played.

 

[Syaoran]

If we continue to allow FMs to decide what is 'damaging' to their faction, and prohibit it on that grounds, they're going to continue to disallow 'damage' to the faction even if it would be beneficial for the plot or the setting. On that grounds alone, it's a conflict of interest.

For PC factions this sort of okay, the conflict of interest is only partial and can perhaps be tolerated, since they're not just protecting their own pet project, but also all the players and plots it contains, and those are (presumably) a major part of the site. For NPC factions it's inexcusable.

Since people are already abusing and pushing the limits of the power they have, they don't need to be given more. That should go without saying.

I'm not saying GMs should be unchecked. We can have someone else protect the setting, which includes making sure the NPC factions continue to be useful to GMs in general, even if one or more GMs would prefer to unfairly monopolize their use or other abuse their GM status at the setting and site's expense.

Then you simply define what constitutes 'damaging'. Like I said all I care about are things that'll actually damage the faction's resources or image. Like saying suddenly there was an exodus of half the population. Or saying the main tech company for the faction gets destroyed. Or a faction that has strong anti-pirate policies is for some reason just ignoring a pirate hide out in their space because "It's cool for the plot". I'm not talking about things that could be summed up as "Well, of course, the entire faction isn't homogenous"

 

[Navian]

I agree completely with @Syaoran in the regard of FM rights, Kirk is Kirk, he's a captain out for exploration not to be a pirate. Factions have personalities, behaviors, certain ways of thinking. Changing those goes against what that faction is about, a character, group, faction must played as they are meant to be played.

Yes, I agree with that part, too. The problem is the conclusion he's drawing is like saying no one can use Kirk without personally consulting Gene Roddenberry or his successors, not even the franchise writers. There's other ways to make sure that the character is used appropriately besides this, otherwise it would be impossible for anyone to write good fanfiction... or even new episodes.

 

[Syaoran]

Yes, I agree with that part, too. The problem is the conclusion he's drawing is like saying no one can use Kirk without personally consulting Gene Roddenberry or his successors, not even the franchise writers. There's other ways to make sure that the character is used appropriately besides this, otherwise it would be impossible for anyone to write good fanfiction... or even new episodes.

The reason for the consultation is so that nothing becomes a 'surprise'. SARP is way to big to expect an FM or NPC FM to find when someone is using their faction to see if it's damaging misuse unless they regularly do searches for key words or read every new post.

The easiest way to prevent that is put a mention down for the FM when you start talking about it, they show up, and check to make sure it's nothing crazy, and if it's something that's on the fence they tell you what would be considered too far, and then they let you on your way.

 

[Jack Pine]

It all depends on how familiar they are with the character, my example was probably bad because everyone is familiar with star trek, but some of these factions may not be as well known. Kirk is a well known character, but not every character/faction on sarp is as well known of, and this must be taken into account. A person who knows nothing about the character/faction, can't accurately portray the character, therefore they should consult the FM to get a good idea of how the character is before they do something with said character or faction.

 

[Acewing13]

Well, this went in an interesting direction. First off, let's be clear that there are some lines involved, which we talked about last night.

Faction manager rights had to be brought up on a serious level, when they were going to be used in a way that was counter to my wishes. I don't know what I would have done if the player/ GM that wanted to do what they were planning to do with them and, frankly, the plans were a little inappropriate to bring up in polite company. This was before they were submitted and if I didn't have FM rights over the faction, I likely would have not even submitted them and that enemy would not be a part of SARP today.

That's how much FM rights play a role in the creator being talked to and approached about their creation and they are just the examples I have, I bet there are others that better highlight why the conversation about NPC FM rights being sidelined should not even be happening.

To build off of that, this whole situation is making me wonder if people actually want new stuff on the wiki. Having made a species of my own and slowly building them into a 'faction' of their own that's going to have more than the six pages of material that I've heard thrown around a few times, I'm personally wondering whether I want to put more effort into them if I don't have some say in how people use them. Do I want other people to use them? Of course, then I might get them to help with the wiki work. But just like we can't have new polka-dotted Nekos running around because Wes has a clear idea for how his faction should be shown off, I don't want my faction to do stuff they wouldn't do. Is there a line where there's overreach? Of course there is and that's why we have these conversations and staff to go to when something like Ame's situation happens. I just want to be able to tell GMs, for instance, that they can't be referring to the Theradactan's front limbs as arms, cause they're not. They're pincers. If that's all I can do, then I'm happy with that.

Edit: Or just wipe them off the map in a big war, just cause a GM thinks that's cool. Which it is in a sense, but kind of makes any wiki work or other RPing pointless.

 

[Navian]

It isn't a content creator's responsibility to detect 'surprises' in GMs plots, or to defend their creation from them. Approving content for the wiki should never be a one-person job. If a GM does something in private that shouldn't be allowed, then it simply should not be approved as canon. Ultimately, that's a setting decision, not a faction decision. The FM might have some input, but they're not 'the thin blue line'.

 

[raz]

Ultimately the GM can run whatever plot they want, but if they can't agree with the FM, the RP likely won't become hard canon or become part of the lore/history.

Put this on the wall and frame it.

Every time a GM has argued with me in my role as an FM, it's because they claim to know better when "official" advisement on a setting element is provided. As long as GMs know that certain details of their RP aren't canon when they decide to be obstinate about setting accuracy then there won't be any problems.

 

[Navian]

@Acewing13 If your wiki articles say they're pincers, not arms, and they're approved, congratulations--now they're pincers. GMs have no right to contradict established canon, though you're not its champion, either.

Instead, everyone knows you're right because it says so right on the wiki, you don't need any power. You already had your article approved and its content has power because it's firm canon, even if you do nothing. No matter what anyone says. Even if you and everyone else say they're arms, they're still pincers until Wes decides the article should say 'arms', or a revision is approved by the normal channels.

 

[Syaoran]

It isn't a content creator's responsibility to detect 'surprises' in GMs plots, or to defend their creation from them. Approving content for the wiki should never be a one-person job. If a GM does something in private that shouldn't be allowed, then it simply should not be approved as canon. Ultimately, that's a setting decision, not a faction decision. The FM might have some input, but they're not 'the thin blue line'.

The problem with that method is you're waiting until it's done then. That means that if it -is- bad we have to go back and remove it from canon or retcon it till it works. There will also likely be a big discussion about it too as to whether or not it is or isn't valid. Also now you have players who thought they were doing something canon, suddenly told "Hey all that stuff you did, didn't actually count as canon"

However, if you have to talk to the FM before hand. If it's not a huge problem the FM helps you get it so it's canon and you move on. If it's a huge problem that can't be 'fixed' you have the same big discussion, but then you get the choice -before- you put in all the work. "Do I want to still do this and just make it canon, or do I want to do something else?"

Pretty sure most people would like the second outcome.

 

[raz]

Honestly, I can't even believe we're having a lengthy discussion about this because:

However, if you have to talk to the FM before hand. If it's not a huge problem the FM helps you get it so it's canon and you move on.

Thiiiiis. For serious. It's the simplest thing in the world.

We're all here because we enjoy SARP. Managers put in more time, effort, and creative energy into the setting than anyone and are all definitely down to talk about what they've written. So take the time to learn! Go talk to Professor Abwehrans or Professor Iromakuanhe or Professor SA Logistics or Professor SAINT and absorb their expertise rather than ignore that they're here for you.

I can't actually understand why people would rather literally mess up canon and then whine about it instead of just talking it over in the first place. Saying "muh but we're the GMs and shouldn't have to" is pretty indefensible.

 

[Navian]

The problem with that method is you're waiting until it's done then. That means that if it -is- bad we have to go back and remove it from canon or retcon it till it works. There will also likely be a big discussion about it too as to whether or not it is or isn't valid.

No, because that's not how canon works. See the wiki page about it... again.

Also now you have players who thought they were doing something canon, suddenly told "Hey all that stuff you did, didn't actually count as canon.

This is a feature, not a bug. It means players have an interest in making sure they and their GM don't do things that will cause their actions and stories to be ejected from canon, so they can put pressure on their GM to play it straight and not abuse their position.

However, if you have to talk to the FM before hand.

...then you're at their mercy. You depend on their input. They get to tell you how to run your own plot. They get to criticize you every step of the way unless you do what they tell you to. It's awful. Even when they don't mean to cause harm, this still ruins plots.

If the FM isn't the one who tells you how to use their faction, but rather their articles or a moderator does, then at least they'll be held accountable, and there are checks and balances to make sure that they do, in fact, make it easier for people to RP and use the site's content.

 

[Legix]

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.

As a side note, I think requiring them is the best option. But that's because talking to FMs is like #1 goal of all GMs, I'd like to think. How else can they best act in a faction's interests?