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?

 

[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!)

 

[Arbitrated]

In terms of the time limitation on new players, personally I think that even a bare minimum of four roleplay posts (as per Char's example) is still a far better start to understanding the setting and community than simply "jumping right on in". And if the player ends up spending time roleplaying in faster-paced areas like the Resurgence or Welcome to the Kikyo Sector, or even writes some JPs, they'll certainly fit in a lot better.

Chances are, if a player is really interested in actually roleplaying, the one month limitation shouldn't hold them back too much. A recent member of the community (goes by Sosina on the discord) has been doing pretty good here already!

Char brings up a good point about the existence of subfactions, or subfaction-like entities, for new content. Especially if the experienced FMs are willing and able to be mentors for new players looking to add to SARP as a setting, that idea is worth merit.

As a suggestion, perhaps there should be more encouragement on bolth an In Character and Out Of Character level to interact with "Independent" factions more. Maybe some sort of significant, international trade station that manages to keep in contact with multiple factions that hate each other. A bit of a tangent, but that one time in STO where Klingon captains could visit one of the federation planets for a summer event does come to mind!


...that turned into a bit of a ramble there. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[raz]

I rather liked the "outlaw" mention. It brings flavor, and to be real most Independent characters are in fact actual outlaws. It's a little boring and sterile without the word.

 

[FrostJaeger]

I was thinking about this the other day when Wes floated this to me one on one and thought that if the person feels they need to comment on the submission, they can set up a DM with the reviewer and staff. That way the voices can be heard and if their concerns hold water, the reviewer can require that changes be made.

This is not a good idea in my opinion, because it would allow a submitter to silence any criticism of their submission, regardless of how legitimate and valid those criticisms are. It’d be easy, too, because all the submitter would have to do is claim that a commenter is “harassing” them - even if no harassment actually exists - and poof! That commenter’s ability to comment on the submission is gone.

I also don’t think that any sort of “backroom deal” - which is what a DM between a member with concerns about a submission, the reviewer, and a member of staff is - should be permitted in the review process, as, well, that makes the review process more opaque and prone to corruption and bias (as opposed to transparency, which is what the NTSE should always be striving for).

Otherwise, the NTSE would become a loophole for harassers to neg.

Why can’t the submitter just place the harasser on ignore? Doing so would let the harasser say their piece without troubling the submitter - and if the harasser’s posts are in bad faith, the staff and/or the reviewer can deal with the harasser as need be.

Remember we're dealing with problematic people in someone's online life. The harassed is more likely to never submit anything after bad experiences than be a contributing member of setting submissions.

Then the person being harassed needs to talk to Wes and get the issue resolved, probably by having the harasser be banned from commenting in the thread. Censoring anyone and everyone who disagrees with the submitter - which I can practically guarantee will happen should this rule be implemented - is not the answer to a problem that in my opinion doesn’t even exist, as in my nine years here I’ve never seen anyone say they were harassed into not submitting anything to the NTSE. All of the complaints I’ve seen have instead been related to the NTSE’s bureaucratic nature and sluggishness.

We should be uplifting members and supporting them to create, not making them fear the process of such.

I agree, which is why I simply can’t support this - someone who doesn’t receive constructive feedback from their peers during the submission process will in my opinion inevitably craft submissions of a lesser quality then someone who received the aforementioned feedback.

Edit: TL;DR: Censorship is not the answer to a problem that, if it exists, can be solved by the tools members and staff already have at their disposal.

 

[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.

 

[Rizzo]

Not to be argumentative, but could you define ‘safe’? I’ve seen it used.. loosely on occasion and want to make sure I’m understanding correctly.

 

[Rizzo]

I am VERY passionate about bringing PvP support to SARP. Specifically, there is one Player Right that I feel needs slight revision, Rule 7.
“I have the right to refuse any roleplay that makes me uncomfortable, especially sexual or strongly violent role-play, without negative consequences on my character or myself.”

Ducking out of ERP or sexually charged RP is totally understandable. This is however Star Army, not Salvation Army. If a player puts their PC in a situation where violence is obviously an inevitability or has a jousting of words with a dangerous PC that turns violent they should not be able to just leave!

I suggest a clarification that this cannot be used Willy-nilly. If you commit your PC to something it’s committed unless a real reason presents

 

[raz]

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.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I could have sworn rules already existed for this but they may have been confined to discussions because I cannot find such on the wiki. It makes RP uncomfortable when a supposedly adult character who talks like they're 7 shows up in RP naked.

On a broader side note, I can't believe how downvoted my first comment is. The first paragraph is a joke based on something similar an admin told me, and the second paragraph just reminds people to follow the rules that already exist. Chill out.

 

[Ametheliana]

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.

I agree, exceptions to the rules really rub me the wrong way. Even if they seem innocuous, it makes it hard to justify why we follow the rules at all if they get bent. (edit: Besides for obvious basic respect rules! the justification for those is inherent!)

 

[Ametheliana]

I was thinking about this the other day when Wes floated this to me one on one and thought that if the person feels they need to comment on the submission, they can set up a DM with the reviewer and staff. That way the voices can be heard and if their concerns hold water, the reviewer can require that changes be made. Otherwise, the NTSE would become a loophole for harassers to neg.

The two examples I gave, in both the people were especially not allowed to go into submissions.

I don't believe anything constructive comes between two people that have gotten to that level of avoidance. I've seen it multiple times where people that do hate one another don't listen to the criticisms or either go too hard with them. It would probably benefit the harasser more to just tell their concerns to NTSE staff and have them filter it to the submitter, anyway, as it's more likely to be received well from the reviewer.

Remember we're dealing with problematic people in someone's online life. The harassed is more likely to never submit anything after bad experiences than be a contributing member of setting submissions. We should be uplifting members and supporting them to create, not making them fear the process of such.

 

[raz]

Saw my name in the OOC credits and realized this includes stuff from the last thread on this topic. Linked for perspective because this is essentially a continued discussion.

That's cool. It's a cleaner page and seems more digestible than the current iteration based on a first readthrough.

 

[Rizzo]

A good point @Ametheliana, though I think some confusion is going on with my quote:
“If a player puts their PC in a situation where violence is obviously an inevitability or has a jousting of words with a dangerous PC that turns violent they should not be able to just leave!”

This was not specifically meant to be a call to the Optional Combat System but rather a clarification to Rule 7. The OCS is meant to be a tool for the GM, not to replace the GM outright!

The point I intended to make regarding Rule 7 is that it can abused by players AGAINST the GM or fellow players when the problem player commits to a foolish action, realizes the bad situation they are in, then tries to get out Scott-free by claiming they are “uncomfortable” with the situation.

Clarification to Rule 7 is meant to preserve the original intention of the rule and restore power to the GM in a bad situation where this happens by maintaining his / her the right to refuse a retcon and allowing them to treat that PC(who was present in the plot) as an NPC to the next dropping off point.

My combat system on the other hand is if the players wanna rumble and seek glory in battle! I’m sorry I let the two points get conflated and mixed together. Those who choose the OCS most likely are not going to be people abusing Rule 7. We go hard

 

[Rizzo]

You make some good points, but one I think requires an argument.

I disagree, we are writing fiction not simulating a gritty reality. Our PCs are for the most part heroic character who should have plot armor. If someone wants to take that off, it's fine, but they should never be forced to.

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.

 

[raz]

We should have a rule that saying “gatekeep” leads to an immediate 3-day suspension. No one gets gatekept here, which is creative discrimination based on identity, though bad ideas are routinely filtered.

More seriously, I think the site’s rules are generally fine. These threads pop up every few years because people forget Code of Conduct rule 1 and its subsections. “We expect and require respectful behavior.” Just DM that to people who aren’t doing their best as a reminder.