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!

Invasion Negotiation Time Limit

Quote
Before an Invasion begins, Faction Leaders must convene to discuss how the Invasion will be handled by both sides to account for fairness and balance. If a compromise is not reached within 7 days, please consult the SWRP Staff Team and a Role-play Judge will be assigned.

1. Minimal edits to the rules but drastic change
2. RPJ will dictate the time he/she needs when he/she is assigned. We do not micromanage RPJs when they are working their magic.
3. Obviously, this informs the members the RPJ will not be chosen, but assigned by Staff.
4. We'll accept reports or PMs, as always, to inform us the negotiation has gone over the time limit.
5. There's no reason to mention if the FA's agree to extend that they can, because if they do, they won't consult Staff - it's an inherent compromise made by both Factions to not contact Staff.
6. This is a "soft punch". Staff's not barrelling in and forcing anyone to do anything, we're just giving 'trapped' FA's an out in a quickened manner.
7. RPJs do not need to obey the laws and rules imposed by Factions. If an RPJ assesses the situation as unfair and bottled in buearacracy, the RPJ has the authority to override the Faction Leaders and assign their own rules.
8. This takes some of the weight of responsibility off the Faction Leaders. If the Invasion is deemed to fail because of the rules, and an RPJ was involved, Staff will take the bulk of the blame.
 
Only one question:

If the Invasion is deemed to fail because of the rules, and an RPJ was involved, Staff will take the bulk of the blame.
Now when you say fail, I'm assuming you mean either due to lack of participation or continuing stalemate or something of the like. With blame falling on a third party, what remedy could be offered to the two participating factions? I'm assuming that if the attackers were at fault, the defenders would likely get the win and vice versa. But with fault lying on neither involved parties but rather the arbitrator, this kind of nullifies that assumption. Could you elaborate a little more on this, please?
 
Don't take that too literal, these were just talking points during Staff's discussions. Failure is a broad term and isn't geared towards only failure by the rules.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom