What Do Star Army's Rules Need?

[Wes]

Due to feedback and learning from experience I am working on an updated set of site rules that is supposed to be more clear and easy to understand. I am always listening to what the community wants so I figure I'd ask you all what you'd like to see in the new rules. So if you could write the site's rules what is something you'd include?

 

[Arbitrated]

Two things that come to mind from our experiences, in SARP and elsewhere:

There should be a part of the rules that encourages people to block each other if they cannot maintain civil conduct with each other over the long term. A few people blocking each other and, therefore, not causing drama or fighting due to having blocked each other, is surprisingly effective at keeping the community's stress lower.

Additionally, I think we should reinstate to requirement for new members to have some form of roleplay within the site before they can start developing "independent" things on the wiki (full species, factions, technologies, etc.).

With the way that forums tend to be fairly flexible in terms of not-fully-approved-yet characters, technologies, and other content, we can still encourage new players to focus on roleplaying before they start making a lot of wiki pages and trying to force in stuff that might not fit SARP very well. Once the new players have been doing at least a LITTLE BIT of roleplaying (let's say 1 month), they start having much more relevant knowledge on the "feel" of SARP and can therefore make their contributions to the setting feel more appropriate and significant!

Without at least some "live context" for the roleplay itself in SARP, new member contributions sometimes end up being disruptive or disconnected from the setting.

EDIT: I think that the time limit for new players should still be short-ish, previously it was three months I believe. One month seems like a more reasonable amount of time for new players to learn about the setting, in my opinion.

 

[Wes]

Posting this here to get opinion votes:

Star Army has a list of dozens of playable species listed on the Creating a Character Guide (CCG). When creating a character, members must choose one of the existing species from our setting or make a unique "Random Alien" character from an unspecified and unnamed alien species. Introducing a new species is done only through the Setting Submissions process.​

Please upvote or downvote this based on whether you think this text works for our community.

 

[Wes]

Posting this here to get opinion votes:

Members must also choose one of the existing playable factions from our setting or make an "Independent" character who isn't a member of any factions, meaning they are an outlaw spacer without citizenship to any nation. Introducing new factions is also done only through the Setting Submissions process.​

Please upvote or downvote this based on whether you think this text works for our community.

 

[Nakshatra]

1. Clear guidelines for child, childlike or characters appearing to be childlike. This includes behavior, physical appearance, mannerisms, and who's allowed or should be allowed to play them in this adult setting.
2. Guidelines for discord on childish behavior, such as actions indicative or appearing to be indicative of someone potentially underage.
3. Guidelines on when role-playing in a non roleplay area should be permissible, IE: the Discord server. Ideally it shouldn't be utilized unless a roleplay channel is created. If enough people do wish to partake in or view this type of activity I would suggest the addition of an in character/roleplay section of the discord.

 

[Hollander]

New Member Content Creation Rules
Regarding the time limitations on new players submitting Wiki content, the wiki's Creating A Species page states:

“You should have some experience roleplaying in the community

The staff is only willing to accept submissions for major setting additions if you have been on SARP for at least 3 months, and shown you are consistently active as well as a competent roleplayer.”

Link here: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?..._some_experience_roleplaying_in_the_community

As someone who’s still within that 3 month time-frame myself, I personally believe that three months is a reasonable time frame to impose on a newbie before they should be allowed to submit ‘major setting additions’ such as a species. There are quite a few things that are happening in those three months. The newbie is (ideally) becoming more familiar with the site, the people, and the general feel of the setting. The site's staff and FM's are also becoming more familiar with that newbie. Is this new person competent, are they active?

With respect to those who believe differently, I feel that one month is not enough time to meet the stated goals of the waiting period. If I may get anecdotal, I've written with some of you fine folks quite a bit, but I'm definitely just barely getting to know you as writers, and you're still just beginning to understand me and my style. I'm in favor of keeping the 3 month restriction on major setting additions from newbies.

 

[demibear]

I think that the time limit for new players should still be short-ish, previously it was three months I believe. One month seems like a more reasonable amount of time for new players to learn about the setting, in my opinion.

That would highly depend on how interactive the new player is. If they are engaged in a plot, asking questions on how SARP functions, and is clearly showing they have a good grasp of where everything fits; 1 month definitely makes sense to me.

 

[Wes]

Alright, I'll adjust the wording. In SARP, independents aren't necessarily outlaws in the sense of criminals but they're outside the law, meaning they have none of the protections that being part of a faction provides. So while there's a lack of laws or taxes out in unclaimed space and on unexplored worlds, there's also no legal protections or rights given to them, which makes them perfect prey for pirating.

 

[Wes]

Conduct is considered unsafe when it is severe or pervasive enough that it has the effect of:

• Unreasonably interfering with another's players ability to enjoy or access Star Army
• Creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment on Star Army
• Makes a member concerned for their personal safety or health

Here's the WIP rules page:

• Revised Rules for Star Army on Star Army Space Roleplay

IMPORTANT: I haven't added the suggestions from this thread or your related DMs yet, but should be able to do it soon.

Presented as-is for feedback but I need to get some rest.

 

[Ametheliana]

Focusing in on harassment of individuals.

There was a period when I noticed somebody being harassed by Ethereal. I said to the staff "I've been harassed by Ethereal multiple times in the past, and felt targeted negatively by him at least three times so please don't let him do this to this other person". The staff responded by saying they wanted to stop him from harassing me, which I agreed would be smart on reflection. He was not allowed to come into my threads, which was pretty minimal but yee. When he came into one of my threads and replied, he was banned. It felt kind of grimy, but it was the minimum and he didn't meet it. He's unbanned now so it feels okay to mention.

Recently, someone got mad at me for talking to them and so we set up the same ruling. I think that person is a lot happier knowing I won't come into their submissions or anything, but I also live in fear that I will accidentally.

I don't expect this post to get many upvotes because I shared herstory of history here, but it's important to me that people understand the reasoning behind what's stressed me out in the past and how I abide by it, even, in the present. People are allowed to say "I don't like the attention you're giving me" and have the other person back off. We're not in real life where someone can just leave the room if they don't like another person. We have to share this space together and I think it's perfectly alright for the people that just don't get along to not have a thing to do with one another.

I think there should be something clear in the rules about a "do not interact" clause for when you've gone overboard caring about another person's work on the site and need to cool it. For some people, it should extend to discord and for others, just replying in threads is the bare minimum to be met.

 

[Arbitrated]

“You should have some experience roleplaying in the community

The staff is only willing to accept submissions for major setting additions if you have been on SARP for at least 3 months, and shown you are consistently active as well as a competent roleplayer.”

Aha, it's still there! Recently (as in, several times over the past few years) however, this particular restriction has been handwaved/bypassed. It may do the community well to ensure this is more clearly stated (preferably in multiple places, given how large the wiki and community can be!) and/or enforced.

Members must also choose one of the existing playable factions from our setting or make an "Independent" character who isn't a member of any factions, meaning they are an outlaw spacer without citizenship to any nation. Introducing new factions is also done only through the Setting Submissions process.

While I agree with the general statement given, some minor parts of my brain insist on nitpicking the term "outlaw" being used. Many people might see that as "if you're not in a faction you are a criminal", which definitely isn't the intent. Perhaps instead of calling them an outlaw without affiliation to any nation, it could be something like...

"[...] character who isn't a member of any factions, meaning that they are more dependent on themselves and the people immediately around them for success instead of any major nation's influence" or something like that?

 

[Charmaylarg Dufrain]

I've always tried to encourage new players who want to come here and want to immediately make their things to RP in a plot first. Learn the setting, the rules, and get to know and network with other players. Instead you are just immediately sliding in, making your own stuff, never RPing with anyone else, and then dropping off when nobody shows interest and doesn't join you or you end up so out of touch you try to do something like, oh, I dunno, try to flex on a yamatai without the IC context of knowing better or trying to make humans-II but with one extra finger and wasting your time and effort when you get told NO because you didn't coordinate or nobody told you about a vague rule out in the depths of the wiki.

The time for that I cant decide on. One month is at most 4-posts in some plots and isn't a lot. One year is a lot of time for anyone and is too long.

Hence bringing back sub-factions and the like.

It doesn't mean you are absorbed into yamatai. But more you have FMs and GMs on hand related to you and your interests to mentor and look over your shoulder and at least a related source of possible players you are RPing with to garner interest with and network with instead of expecting the world to see what you are doing like a beacon in the dark and flock towards you.

 

[Rizzo]

Wes and/or staff have always made this call with justification from the other party. I understand the concern but it shouldn't be something thrown around willy nilly, nor has it been.

Also a good point. The problem I see arising from this is that “harassment” is not a well defined thing. Merriam-Webster seems to cover it well and yet it is still loosely defined. One constant is that harassment annoys the person experiencing it so I’ll base my argument around that.

Suppose I submit my submission, we’ll call it Boondoggle, and Miko really doesn’t like it(picking on you, bro). So he voices his argument against my Boondoggle for REASONS(doesn’t matter what). What determines if his argument is valid? Surely it would be based on the content of his argument alone.

Suppose Miko and I had just the night before gotten into a heated argument about whether Hanako or Yui is hotter and we found a way to throw fists over the internet and EVERYONE ON THE SITE knows we hate each other’s guts now…
As long as his argument about my boondoggle is about the boondoggle it’s still valid.

We are adults here. We have all worked with people we don’t like. We have all seen friends go through rough patches and adversaries become friends. If a person’s argument is based on what the argument is about it will stand on its own merit regardless of their relationship. As an adult the submitter is also expected to have adult levels of self control, and as adults we suffer consequences when we fail to keep our composure. I’ve personally had to answer for my actions on this very site, and Wes has been fair and balanced every time.

In conclusion, NTSE’s mission is not simply to be approachable. It must be completely fair and an open forum to serve the ENTIRE community. It’s bad enough that submissions have had their forums closed when controversy arises. Having to answer for the changes, you want to make to the ENTIRE setting is not “being harassed” and I feel that that is what this rule would be used for.

We’re only human and it is a known fact that a multitude of diverse opinions yield the most educated results. Sometimes those diverse opinions clash, and that is something all societies have needed to cope with throughout history. Anything that compromises NTSE’s fair application of the rules we’ve all submitted to and the openness in which it operates is inherently bad for the community as a whole. Odds are if somebody is genuinely harassing another member, they are probably about to get banned. However, if it is such a big problem, it might be better to have somebody more comfortable with criticism submit the article on their behalf and manage the process. In this way, we can have the best of both worlds. The submitter is not harassed, “harassed”, or otherwise made uncomfortable.

 

[Wes]

Harassment is dealt with as an OOC safety issue and OOC safety issues always override concerns about the RP. That's just the way it's got to be. It is more important for a member to be safe than it is for someone to be able to comment on a setting submission.

 

[Rizzo]

Conduct is considered unsafe when it is severe or pervasive enough that it has the effect of:

• Unreasonably interfering with another's players ability to enjoy or access Star Army
• Creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment on Star Army
• Makes a member concerned for their personal safety or health

I appreciate having this definition to work with, though it worries me still because this could still be just anything that the other member finds frustrating or annoying. THIS is what I was going through in the past and I got no protection, so I can see you wanting that fixed. I gave this a lot of thought so if you read it all, I genuinely appreciate that. I feel like I’m kind of in the middle on this topic, but I’d rather be the one to point out the potential abuses rather than us find them in the wild.

The Example:
Miko pointing out the issues in my article is interfering with my ability to enjoy or access Star Army! It upsets me to have negative feedback and I find it intimidating, hostile, and offensive!
Oh my anxiety, I’m stressing so much I’m concerned for my health! Miko scares me so much I’m concerned for my safety!

Obviously this is exaggerated but you can see the way these arguments can be made. I know that feeling of having members treat me with hostility, it sucks, but I’m one in a group of 200 and it’s uncommon on SARP to see that happen we need the rules to apply evenly and using outlier cases is dicey. Further, sometimes we have members loose their minds because they don’t like particular feedback on their Boondoggle, but the submitter IS the one proposing the setting wide change that might affect the supposed harasser!

Harassment is dealt with as an OOC safety issue and OOC safety issues always override concerns about the RP. That's just the way it's got to be. It is more important for a member to be safe than it is for someone to be able to comment on a setting submission.

I wanted to address this only with the concept of safety in mind. We live in a world where certain people use certain words as a veil for two-faced agendas, a nice way to say that people lie all the time. You can’t change human nature. The health and safety of people isn’t something we can really control and I had a guy claim a ‘panic attack’ to bully me off a discord thread before, as if the concept of walking away from his screen wasn’t an option. He wanted to make a fighter to surpass mine and I pointed out some things his would need to have to do that. Helping him build a submission better than mine caused a panic attack?.. yeah, sure, my wife is prone to panic attacks so I know what those actually look like. Even so I was the bad guy because he claimed HEALTH.

These are some potential abuses I foresee. I only ask you consider them so that when you make the changes you choose they are not made a mockery of by some idiot with an agenda. I agree with a lot of what both Ame and Frost say, and there’s probably a happy compromise to be had. As long as the NTSE remains of place open to the public and fair for all I will be happy as a clam with whatever you choose.

 

[Arbitrated]

This is less related to new rules, and more focused on setting development: I think that we should try to minimize "grandfathering" with rules whenever possible. If something is being left in violation of restrictions to the setting (weapon counts for starships, speed restrictions, restrictions on certain technologies, et cetera), that can cause confusion if somebody wanted to make a similar addition to SARP that is, for lack of a better term, "worse" due to be compliant to rules.

If nothing else, it would also make sure that older or "backwater" setting articles could get some TLC - I've seen several old starship weapon articles that rely on DRv2! That's like, ten years ago OOC! Plus the relevant articles tend to be stub-ish due to the era they were made in.

 

[Charmaylarg Dufrain]

I think for the rules, and I know I'm getting old bringing it up but this *is* the topic for it kind of. Is that we need to look at the process to create and what it takes to create in this setting and the rules that hamper them. We keep adding on to that while never balancing it by cutting away the fat of a time-consuming process.
Am mobile posting so incoherent and poorly formatted post incoming!

Without going on a rant as I've typed up about 50 times there are a lot of old rules and systems that no longer should apply and we should look at cutting off the fat a bit to balance out all the new ones and processes so the submission rules and process:

Spoiler

Technology should advance and trickle down without ooc blocking or justification to why it cant be.
We shouldn't be needing to do mandatory half-hearted RP when that time should be used to do RP we really care about. Some people can and are fine, don't force others.
We shouldn't be situational in enforcing an outdated system for PvP that doesn't happen anymore and revise it and all the outdated parts.
Buildup limits and weapon scores shouldn't matter as much as they do anymore.
There shouldn't be rules for thee and not for me and should be equal across the board regardless of faction or submitter.
We should be making it easier for new people to create and submit and should re-visit the rules and process for doing so.
We should be reinforcing the rules about constructive comments on submissions instead of letting them get locked or derailed because of loud people.
We need to cut down the templates chaff and fluff, and re-work them so you arent telling the same information in three consecutive headers or pointless article filler.
We need to re-visit the entire submission process to streamline it for both the submitter and reviewer.

We should be encouraging setting-creators to create things in a faction without 10-pages of arguments derailing it and need to revise the rules to protect topics instead of them always getting locked.

We need to get rid of the cliques and the stonewalling from micro-sub-vice-managers controlling one tiny aspect of something and beating people over the head with it.
We need to set rules about ooc gatekeeping in regards to who owns what on a map even if its empty space or too close to the ugly massive color borders.
We need to make rules about not using OOC to gatekeep IC like factional niche or being the manager of an organization that isn't a corp or clan within a faction.
We need to revise rules towards encouraging sub-factions again and if people want to make new factions have them temporarily be a sub-faction of an existing faction.
We need to put down on the wiki all those things that are rules and used to gatekeep but arent actually on the wiki and codify them or shut up about them.
We need to re-visit what counts as *advanced technology* in the rules after all these years.
We need to re-visit every little setting rule like we did the speed standards and justify if they need to be enforced anymore and why instead of lording 10+ year old systems and rules.

Granted only some of those things are actual rules. But my point should be well know by now without someone coming in and telling me someone wanting to use the color blue or purple outside of yamatai is ruining the setting and we should trim down the rules to make it easier for people to create and submit while encouraging them and weeding out disruptive or toxic elements to submitting and creating for the setting. The entire purpose of SARP right not should be encouraging getting people writing as much as possible and making the process of writing and creating that much easier for new players and existing ones that it doesn't take up hardly any of their free time to do so especially right now in a time where people have very little free time post-covid.

For the rest of the rules tho? TOS is all gibberish to me and player rights and protections arent bad tho could use some touching up to not be avoided or mishandled.

 

[Rizzo]

I

Focusing in on harassment of individuals.

There was a period when I noticed somebody being harassed by Ethereal. I said to the staff "I've been harassed by Ethereal multiple times in the past, and felt targeted negatively by him at least three times so please don't let him do this to this other person". The staff responded by saying they wanted to stop him from harassing me, which I agreed would be smart on reflection. He was not allowed to come into my threads, which was pretty minimal but yee. When he came into one of my threads and replied, he was banned. It felt kind of grimy, but it was the minimum and he didn't meet it. He's unbanned now so it feels okay to mention.

Recently, someone got mad at me for talking to them and so we set up the same ruling. I think that person is a lot happier knowing I won't come into their submissions or anything, but I also live in fear that I will accidentally.

I don't expect this post to get many upvotes because I shared herstory of history here, but it's important to me that people understand the reasoning behind what's stressed me out in the past and how I abide by it, even, in the present. People are allowed to say "I don't like the attention you're giving me" and have the other person back off. We're not in real life where someone can just leave the room if they don't like another person. We have to share this space together and I think it's perfectly alright for the people that just don't get along to not have a thing to do with one another.

I think there should be something clear in the rules about a "do not interact" clause for when you've gone overboard caring about another person's work on the site and need to cool it. For some people, it should extend to discord and for others, just replying in threads is the bare minimum to be met.

want to agree wholeheartedly, but with one exception based on Player Right 8:
“I have the right to comment on any setting article being submitted for approval, since changes to the setting may affect my characters or plots. My comments should be considerate and use appropriate language. I should take care not to mislead new players into thinking I am a moderator if I am not.”

I love our NTSE forum, and even our most pain in the asset commenters are still affected by the changes made there. It is important that all voices(and there are some very grating voices) are heard.

I’m all for healthy distance between people on bad terms, though!

 

[Ametheliana]

even if no harassment actually exists

Wes and/or staff have always made this call with justification from the other party. I understand the concern but it shouldn't be something thrown around willy nilly, nor has it been.

 

[Alex Hart]

Kaiyo Simulation Cup 2022
Resurgence Simulation Cup 2022
Countless more Sim Cups from Eucharis to Astral Reverie.

Sorry, what did you say? I can’t hear you over the sound of our award-winning RP website. Some thing about not simulating?

Our community is on another level, we don’t really need plot armor here. We are just naturally THAT GOOD. Also, there’s a very good reason why characters should be committed to the fallout of their actions. A common RP situation that I have seen is a disruptive jousting of words between characters, each writer, genuinely believing that their character is better, tougher, stronger. Having Metta rules that do not allow the other character to just punch him in the face creates the opportunity for players to be weenies towards each other without having to consider whether the dangerous person they are pissing off might try to punch them in the face for hurting their feelings!

Additionally, SARP is a gritty setting. Don’t believe me? Just read the NMX and Nepleslian articles. Even Yamatai has done a lot of very harsh and gritty things. Surely no one thinks that the Rikugun are a bunch of cheerleaders. Some might say that this setting isn’t post apocalyptic and therefore is not gritty. Just ask that to the people who are on Glimmergold or the freespacers!
Nah, SARP is better off without meta rules. I know common sense is the least common of all senses, but there’s only one way to get it and that’s by experience. Charging a machine gun is bad for your health, hugging a Mishu shouldn’t require a surgeon general warning to know it’s a bad idea.
I have confidence in my community to know what it is and isn’t a bad idea in the setting we built together.

EDIT: can’t believe anyone would downvote a decade of SARP excellence but I guess that’s democracy for you. I’ll quote this when I win us a simulation award.

Fundamentally, I disagree that SARP is a particularly simulationist community. "Simming" is a term from Star Trek RPs, whereas simulationist is a term to describe game systems that attempt maximum verisimilitude/detail. An example of a game like this might be Battletech or Attack Vector: Tactical. An RPG example would perhaps be Mekton. SARP, with perhaps the standout example of @Charmaylarg Dufrain's plots, tends to tell stories about heroic individuals overcoming all odds and being amazing, because they're just that good, just that lucky, or some other factor. It isn't a particularly gritty setting, regardless of whether or not distasteful actions are taken.

SARP has moved further and further away from simulationism and wargamey-ness since moving from DRv2 to DRv3 years ago, and I think it's for the best since it gives GMs much more flexibility in how they want to handle combat in their plots. Further, there's been little to no desire amongst the community to run PVP type things, which is what this combat system seems to be for.

So on a basic level, SARP's moved away from simulationism and PVP, I don't see the real need for for anything beyond a neutral adjudicator (The GM) for any kind of PVP scenario. However, were we to want one, I think that the system that you've put together definitely needs some more time in the oven. The mechanics are somewhat interesting, but I think that the system could probably use some work (I have a basic blueprint for dicepool systems that I can share with you in DMs some time so as to not clog up the thread)

 

[Ametheliana]

Kaiyo Simulation Cup 2022
Resurgence Simulation Cup 2022

You chose perhaps the best and worst examples for your point. In the first, two girls talk. In the second, an NPC grabs a gun and shoots herself. It's one of the grittiest representations on the site as a whole, bar none.

But imagine if someone had opted into PvP to take that gun. Imagine if a PC had pulled it away from her because of dice rolls and Mia hadn't done what she did. It would have taken the power of that story out of Wes' hands, too, and would have been up in the air in a way nobody could control or handle. It would be a lot less compelling story.

I prefer the story that Wes told, not the one up to the dice. You keep trying to convince the site to use PvP combat rules when most GMs either don't opt for that or, when they do, they have an affixed outcome in mind. I know you had a bad experience you want to avoid, but you're in the minority as having had one of those so I think people just don't want to adopt it into their plot. What they DO want is a GM that will make their plot center on this. I can't wait for you to do so. Have a parasite infect an ally and start the PvP combat rules you made. Have two allies need to fight one another as part of an alien culture's initation rite before you can talk to them. Have one ally mind boggled thinking the other person isn't actually who they are but an enemy. The limits are endless within your own plot and people will flock to it for its uniqueness and for your passion behind the project. But I do think if you're still trying to convince every person here it's something they should take up, you're wasting your energy (I say this respectfully—put your energy where it matters, IC!)