Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Suggestion I Love Democracy

These are some ideas that a few others and myself have been workshopping lately, and feel like sharing the as possible faction mandates.

I Love Democracy

"I love democracy." — Sheev Palpatine

Strength: The Major Faction Owner may request that an Invasion/Annihilation involving their faction be decided by a public vote instead of the normal Staff judging process.

Neutral: Any writer who did not participate in the Invasion may vote. Each eligible writer receives one vote, and the poll remains open for seven days. Votes should also remain anonymous to all but site staff to lessen the impact of peer pressure.

Weakness: Once requested, the public vote is binding. The faction may not withdraw its request or demand conventional judging because the result did not favor them.



Jury Duty

"The Senate will decide your fate." — Mace Windu

Strength: The Major Faction Owner may request that an Invasion involving their faction be judged by a community jury instead of the normal Staff judging panel.

Neutral: Five or Seven (just needs an uneven number) eligible writers will be selected to serve as jurors. Each juror must have been active on Chaos within the previous fourteen days, cannot belong to either Major Faction involved, and cannot have participated in the Invasion.

Jurors review the completed Invasion and vote independently. The majority decides the victor.

One alternate juror will also be selected to replace an unavailable juror

Weakness: Once the jury has been summoned, its verdict is binding. The faction may not withdraw its request or demand conventional judging because the verdict did not favor them.



Scorched Earth

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." — Leia Organa

Strength: When this Major Faction loses a defensive Invasion, it may neutralize the invaded hex instead of surrendering it to the victorious faction.

Neutral: This decision must be declared when the Invasion result is submitted for its Map Update.

Weakness: If this ability is used, the Major Faction must also neutralize one of its own eligible hexes adjacent to the invaded territory. The faction cannot reclaim either neutralized hex for sixty days.



Pyrrhic Victory

"Another such victory and we are undone." — Pyrrhus of Epirus

Strength: When declaring an Invasion, this Major Faction may invoke Pyrrhic Victory and raise the territorial stakes. If the Mandate holder wins, it may claim up to three eligible hexes from the defending faction instead of the ordinary reward.

Neutral: Pyrrhic Victory must be publicly declared before the Invasion begins and cannot be withdrawn once roleplay has started.

Weakness: If the Mandate holder loses the Invasion, the defending faction may claim up to four eligible hexes from the Mandate holder.



Safe Harbor

"In a dark place we find ourselves, and a little more knowledge lights our way." — Yoda

Strength: This Major Faction may designate one non-capital hex within its Influence Cloud as a Sanctuary Hex. The Sanctuary Hex cannot be targeted by an Invasion unless it is the faction's final remaining hex.

Neutral: The Sanctuary Hex must be publicly listed with the faction's Mandate information and may only be changed once every sixty days.

Weakness: The Major Faction cannot launch an Invasion from its Sanctuary Hex or use a thread located within that hex to claim additional territory.
 
Safe Harbor

"In a dark place we find ourselves, and a little more knowledge lights our way." — Yoda

Strength: This Major Faction may designate one non-capital hex within its Influence Cloud as a Sanctuary Hex. The Sanctuary Hex cannot be targeted by an Invasion unless it is the faction's final remaining hex.

Neutral: The Sanctuary Hex must be publicly listed with the faction's Mandate information and may only be changed once every sixty days.

Weakness: The Major Faction cannot launch an Invasion from its Sanctuary Hex or use a thread located within that hex to claim additional territory.
thor-i-like-this-one.gif
 
Sʜᴀᴅᴏᴡ Lᴏʀᴅ
I think this could actually be really good for the community. It encourages more people to pay attention to invasions, get invested in what is happening outside their own factions, and feel like they have some meaningful participation in the wider board.

It also gives people a reason to read the threads themselves instead of only hearing about the results afterward. Even if the system is not perfect, I think encouraging broader community involvement and giving writers more ways to participate is worth experimenting with.
 
I think this could actually be really good for the community. It encourages more people to pay attention to invasions, get invested in what is happening outside their own factions, and feel like they have some meaningful participation in the wider board.

It also gives people a reason to read the threads themselves instead of only hearing about the results afterward. Even if the system is not perfect, I think encouraging broader community involvement and giving writers more ways to participate is worth experimenting with.

Counterpoint:

"I don't like this faction, I'm voting for them to lose"

"I like this faction, I'm voting for them to win"

That's basically what these will boil down to. Very few will read the several hundred posts of an invasion and make an informed, nuanced opinion based on the story. Most will vote for their friends to win and their enemies to lose. (That's why we have RPJs actually)

I'm all for the community community-ing, but I don't think that this'll have a positive effect.
 
I think the idea is good, especially the Jury one, as long as the selection process is cleared up. Would give some wider feedback on invasion writing by more folks. Increase engagement with invasions as Braze Braze said.

The drama everyone else mentions and is making fun of, is there anyway, with or without involvement of the community.

And I don't know about anonymous. I think the vote should be public.



Jury Duty

"The Senate will decide your fate." — Mace Windu

Strength: The Major Faction Owner may request that an Invasion involving their faction be judged by a community jury instead of the normal Staff judging panel.

Neutral: Five or Seven (just needs an uneven number) eligible writers will be selected to serve as jurors. Each juror must have been active on Chaos within the previous fourteen days, cannot belong to either Major Faction involved, and cannot have participated in the Invasion.

Jurors review the completed Invasion and vote independently. The majority decides the victor.

One alternate juror will also be selected to replace an unavailable juror

Weakness: Once the jury has been summoned, its verdict is binding. The faction may not withdraw its request or demand conventional judging because the verdict did not favor them.

Who is selecting the Jury? I think thats very important for it to work.
 
Counterpoint:

"I don't like this faction, I'm voting for them to lose"

"I like this faction, I'm voting for them to win"

That's basically what these will boil down to. Very few will read the several hundred posts of an invasion and make an informed, nuanced opinion based on the story. Most will vote for their friends to win and their enemies to lose. (That's why we have RPJs actually)

I'm all for the community community-ing, but I don't think that this'll have a positive effect.
Agreed
 
Sʜᴀᴅᴏᴡ Lᴏʀᴅ
I think there's another important point here: this is a Mandate. A faction would have to actively choose it and accept the risks that come with it. Nobody is proposing that every invasion suddenly be decided by a public popularity vote.

If a faction believes community judging would disadvantage them, they don't have to take that Mandate. If they do choose it, they're knowingly trading the normal judging process for broader community involvement, with the result being binding whether they win or lose.

And if bias is the central concern, I think that's an argument for making the system harder to bias rather than dismissing the concept entirely.

For example: randomly select eligible jurors, exclude members and participants of both factions, require disclosure of conflicts, allow recusals, give everyone the same scoring rubric, have jurors submit their votes independently without discussing them first, and require a short written justification for each vote.

You could even keep juror identities hidden until after the verdict.

That doesn't magically make humans incapable of bias, but it creates checks against it. And those same principles could arguably improve any subjective judging system.

"People could be biased" isn't really an argument against experimenting with community judging when the faction itself has voluntarily chosen that judging method. It's an argument for designing the Mandate carefully enough that bias is difficult to exercise unchecked.
 
Sʜᴀᴅᴏᴡ Lᴏʀᴅ
Would the Jury Duty be forced on people? 'Cause in the same way I don't want to get involved in actual Jury Duty, I wouldn't want to get involved in it for invasions. I don't want to have to engage with invasions if I don't want to, full stop.
There could just be a volunteer jury pool for people who actually want to do it.

When a jury is needed, names get randomly drawn from that pool, basically like pulling names from a hat. If someone can't or doesn't want to serve, they can decline or recuse themselves and another name gets pulled.

That keeps it voluntary, simple, and makes it harder for anyone to hand-pick a favorable jury.
 
Counterpoint:

"I don't like this faction, I'm voting for them to lose"

"I like this faction, I'm voting for them to win"

That's basically what these will boil down to. Very few will read the several hundred posts of an invasion and make an informed, nuanced opinion based on the story. Most will vote for their friends to win and their enemies to lose. (That's why we have RPJs actually)

I'm all for the community community-ing, but I don't think that this'll have a positive effect.

This is correct. The popularity and infamy of certain factions would likely be exploited with such a mandate. However I don't necessarily view this as a bad thing. This creates and incentive for writers to mind their manners and strive to be more likable, popular, approachable ect. If a faction with a mandate like this may want focus it's efforts on winning invasions/annihilations by growing popular support with the wider writer base of the site rather than the impartialness of our roleplay judges, than I believe they should have the option to do so. Plus this could help to take a little more responsibility off the plate of our staff.

This is also just a mandate that a faction could take if it were ever actually implemented. Wouldn't be how all invasions would be judged site wide. It's entirely possible a widely disliked faction take such a mandate and completely kneecap itself. I view it as a very sink or swim situation.

The worst aspect of the idea I believe isn't the popularity contest, since that's basically the entire point, but more so having the narrative of an invasion/annihilation thread being sidelined for hype moments, aura, and OOC bias. Which if I'm being honest isn't too different to how things feel now in my personal opinion.

Scorched Earth seems a little silly. What's stopping the opposing faction from just taking the hex in those 60 days via dominion or whatever

Pretty much. Scorched Earth imo is probably one of the weaker suggestions here. More of a 'goblin mode' maneuver that boils down to to wasting time for an attacking faction for an invasion.
 
Staff judging invasions is the best impartiality we're gonna get, I'd rather not entertain ideas that would even open up the possibility of it being otherwise, even if it is an optional mandate.

Counterpoint:

"I don't like this faction, I'm voting for them to lose"

"I like this faction, I'm voting for them to win"

That's basically what these will boil down to. Very few will read the several hundred posts of an invasion and make an informed, nuanced opinion based on the story. Most will vote for their friends to win and their enemies to lose. (That's why we have RPJs actually)

I'm all for the community community-ing, but I don't think that this'll have a positive effect.


True. I can trust Staff to actually read the thread and make an impartial decision. I don't trust everyone who would cast a vote to truly read and understand each plot point of an invasion and make an impartial decision. I know I'm not doing all of that reading. I can only speak for myself here but I am sure I am not the only one. At least with staff, they can divide up each plot point evenly. (I assume this is how it's done, I could be wrong.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom