Staff Public SWRP Staff Admin Vote - Requesting Aid Rules Revision - Community Feedback Welcome

[Tefka]

The SWRP Staff Team has agreed to my request that we do a rare, open forum, public vote. How this works:

1. This can operate as a normal feedback/suggestion forum thread, as the community can weigh in and discuss and try to persuade the Staff team with their discussions of voting one way or the other.

2. It's not a poll. Sometimes, the Staff Team will run votes without running polls, because it's a smaller forum of votes.

3. RPJs will not be included in this vote, but may still weigh in or even "vote" to have their positions officially registered, in spirit.


What's normal:

1. I think we have 100% Admin attendance this week, so we will wait on all votes. Community, we usually do this in private to avoid the pressure of the community, so become aware that Admins have lives and can't just be summoned to vote on your favorite thing at a dime's notice, I do not pay these people. Avoid pressuring Admins for timeliness.

2. I am requiring a super majority (66% of the vote) for this measure to pass. An Abstain in this situation is usually a win for the "yes" votes, as it lessens the ceiling for a simple majority, but it does still officially record the Admin's official position on the issue discussed. But basically, we can only afford to lose one Admin vote - unless the other potential "no" is convinced to become an "Abstain".

3. As always, if a "no" vote is issued, the Admin needs to qualify their "no". "Yes" votes do not need to be qualified. This means a reason must be appended, but it can be any reason.

4. Tefka and Valiens hold a veto. This means if Tefka or Valiens, as Head Administrators, writes their intent to vote with a veto, the entire measure must fail. A simple "no" from a Head Administrator does not issue the Veto - the Head Admin must clearly make it known they are intending to sink the entire vote with their Veto.

----------------------------


Tef's Proposal

REQUESTING AID

1. Starting on the day of the Invasion Declaration OOC thread, the assigned Invasion Admin from the SWRP Staff Team (once assigned) will open communication with the involved Major Faction Owners and give them a "Ally Number."

2. An Ally Number is the number of total Allies that may join the thread without being members of either Major Faction. This number may change depending on the assigned Invasion Admin's decision, but as a foundation, the official recommended number is anywhere between 10-20.

3. Upon receiving the Ally Number, involved Major Faction Owners must create an Ally List. The Ally List will possess the names of all approved allies permitted to join the Invasion without joining the Major Factions. The maximum number of allies on this list may not exceed the Ally Number.

4. Major Faction Owners must agree together on each member of the Ally List. This simulates a sort of "draft" for selecting allies.

5. There is no set default percentage or number of slots granted to each Major Faction participating. e.g. A single Major Faction can deny all allies. A single Major Faction may forfeit all claims it may have to the ally list, and give its potential share to the opposing Major Faction.

6. Once the list is finalized, and all Major Faction Owners agree, it must be sent to the Invasion Admin. The Invasion Admin will then verify with the Major Faction Owners that all are in agreeance. Allies may not join the Invasion until the Invasion Admin officially accepts the Ally List.

7. After the list has been accepted, removing and adding more allies requires the same approval process from both Major Faction Owners.

8. The Invasion Admin, as always, can remove any name for any reason from this list.

Tef's Notes
What I believe this solves: It creates a "invasion draft" like dodgeball and gives the MFOs more granular authority, while also completely preventing a "blanket approval" situation. The Ally List must be approved several times during this process, by multiple people, creating several instances in which issues or "blanket approvals" may be caught. It also provides more importance on the ally slots themselves, rather than creating a "free for all" environment where it's just accepted that pretty much anyone can join the Invasion (which also invalidates the purpose of having ally rules.)

What I believe this helps: It seems the definition of Ally has been taken too literally by the Staff Team and the community, to the point of dictation the direction of roleplay players may write. This removes a lot of the responsibility on Staff's shoulders in this decisions, as allies require both Major Faction Owner's consent to join.

Problems this creates: Valiens made the best point in private deliberation - it creates decisions that can be used tactically, so it is inevitable that it will be used tactically. That's kind of my intent, but it is very obvious how it could be used negatively, as a single Major Faction could potentially deny all possibility for all allies. However, I do not believe this is Staff's problem, lol. I realize that it can create increased tension between Major Faction Owners, but I also believe 1) Major Faction Owners are held to higher standards, and if one is deemed a problem in the culture, they can be removed and 2) I do not think the SWRP Staff Team should default to "Denying allies is bad." It is bad, yes, for the black and white interpretation of getting more posts on the website - but I also think we can afford this, in effort to make allies more special, and to keep the spirit of Invasions.

 

[Tefka]

As the proposer of this first vote, I am obviously a yes.

Admins, as discussed, the intent is to get this approved/denied prior to the GE/GA invasion, but we still have time so take your time to consider.

Community, feel free to join in, this is an open forum vote - but please keep in mind that your votes and opinions don't matter to me.

 

[Kyric]

As the proposer of this first vote, I am obviously a yes.

Admins, as discussed, the intent is to get this approved/denied prior to the GE/GA invasion, but we still have time so take your time to consider.

Community, feel free to join in, this is an open forum vote - but please keep in mind that your votes and opinions don't matter to me.

Would the staff who vote 'Yes' on this view one or both MFOs voting no to every proposed ally in an invasion wholesale an acceptable outcome if this passes? If it becomes a trend, would it be seen as a bug in need of fixing or another facet of play for Major Factions to work around?

 

[Zachariah Conway]

Here's a take from Zach I think might split the room.

Allies should have to justify why it fits their character arch to take part in the invasion on the side that they're allying with. My thought process? I've seen it happen before where people just want to be allies because "ooo cool thread" and not because it actually makes an ounce of sense for their character to be there.

I think this does a pretty good job in cutting off the blanket acceptance though. It forces major factions to be a little bit more picky in who they let in and it might allow for more cohesive story telling.

 

[D-M0N]

#6 is missing the "unless" in the last sentence. And my unimportant opinion is that this sounds pretty good and reasonable.

 

[Tefka]

#6 is missing the "unless" in the last sentence. And my unimportant opinion is that this sounds pretty good and reasonable.

I went with "until", but good eyes regardless.

 

[Tefka]

Here's a take from Zach I think might split the room.

Allies should have to justify why it fits their character arch to take part in the invasion on the side that they're allying with. My thought process? I've seen it happen before where people just want to be allies because "ooo cool thread" and not because it actually makes an ounce of sense for their character to be there.

I think this does a pretty good job in cutting off the blanket acceptance though. It forces major factions to be a little bit more picky in who they let in and it might allow for more cohesive story telling.

Even though we have every reason to believe MFOs are not locked in and don't give a shit enough to create interesting situations like this, I don't believe it is Staff's position to require this.

The MFOs can require this. This proposal gives them the onus and power to do it.

 

[Zachariah Conway]

My other concern that came to me after writing up the above is how easy the ally rules are to circumvent in general.

My worry is implementing this will just force more people to go "oh ally slots are full? I'll just join the faction then I don't need one". They then proceed to join the faction for the sake of the invasion then leave the faction or do nothing with the faction following. Now I'm well aware this has always been an exploitable loophole, especially around permissions etc but I can see this increasing the amount we see it. Will this be something for staff to police or MFOs?

 

[Tefka]

Would the staff who vote 'Yes' on this view one or both MFOs voting no to every proposed ally in an invasion wholesale an acceptable outcome if this passes? If it becomes a trend, would it be seen as a bug in need of fixing or another facet of play for Major Factions to work around?

I had to read this like 5x, I feel like its very poorly worded, but basically you're saying:

If the trend slants towards MFOs denying allies, will Staff address it?

Brother, addressing the culture is a neverending quest Staff has had since day one, of course we will address things we find problems with. But if you ask me a very transparent follow up question to learn my position, beyond what this proposal tells you where I - the creator of this proposal and the forum - lands on allies:

Tefka, do you think Major Factions should have allies rules that allow 3rd partying?

Yes, I absolutely do.

The site is named Chaos.

 

[Zel Sharratt]

Allies should have to justify why it fits their character arch to take part in the invasion on the side that they're allying with. My thought process? I've seen it happen before where people just want to be allies because "ooo cool thread" and not because it actually makes an ounce of sense for their character to be there.

Honestly that makes sense to me. I can understand an IC angle for allies joining in on an invasion. For example, if the Diarchy and the Imperial Confederation were tight for a while and the Sith Order decided to go on the offensive where they touch TIC, the Diarchy probably has good IC precedent to be the chosen ally for several invasions. I feel like there should be some long-term commitment in that case. I feel like showing up for one fight just because and then dipping with no narrative followup isn't fun anyways.


BUT also how do you even ensure that lol? Its a nice preference but kinda hard to enforce.

Edit: I am late to the party it seems lmao.

 

[Balun Dashiell]

My vote is yes.

Further cooperation between Faction Staff, specifically Faction Owners, particularly concerning Invasions, can only be a positive thing in my opinion. As leaders of the community, I would hope that these discussions can be held with maturity, and if not, at least we know that site staff will intervene if necessary. Though, preferably, that would be best avoided for all involved.

 

[Tefka]

My worry is implementing this will just force more people to go "oh ally slots are full? I'll just join the faction then I don't need one". Now I'm well aware this has always been an exploitable loophole, especially around permissions etc but I can see this increasing the amount we see it. Will this be something for staff to police or MFOs?

Valiens, my peer and fellow Head Admin, has made his stance on ally rules very apparent for this exact reason. However, I differ from him in that I don't care.

I don't care if people try to "circumvent", because you're not circumventing, you're just placing more pressure on the MFO for me to use.

I want problematic members in the Major Faction rather than outside of it. It gives me reason to throttle Major Faction Owners.

 

[Zachariah Conway]

Valiens, my peer and fellow Head Admin, has made his stance on ally rules very apparent for this exact reason. However, I differ from him in that I don't care.

I don't care if people try to "circumvent", because you're not circumventing, you're just placing more pressure on the MFO for me to use.

I want problematic members in the Major Faction rather than outside of it. It gives me reason to throttle Major Faction Owners.

Honestly Tef, if you were any more laid back you'd be horizontal.

My view on it is that they're not actually in the major factions though, those getting around the rules in this way are unlikely to actually engage with the major faction in question and are usually just there for a personal story against one person.

There's a very good chance I'm misinterpreting what you're saying (its 3am and I probably have mild heatstroke it's very warm) but I don't get how these people can be the issue of an MFO if they're not engaging or really having anything to do with the major faction?

 

[Auteme]

I'm generally feeling alright with this; seems like a codification of an otherwise unspoken system. Everyone knows the rules we're allowed to play by, so we're actually playing by rules.

Only thing I'd like to see added would be even further transparency when it comes to the MFO's acceptance/denial process. I wouldn't go so far as to say the MFOs need to state their reasoning for any given approval/denial, but being able to see a full list of prospective allies, then who was denied (and by whom) would be nice, ideally airing out any salt before it can collect.

No preference logistically; I think it'd work as a simple list at the bottom of the invasion signup for the prospective allies, and then a post in the thread maybe a day or two before the beginning of the invasion showing the approvals/denials, and for any denials whether it was unanimous or by one faction or the other.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

I like it so I’m good with it.

I’m assuming that it is still okay for people who want to join the invasion just to react to it icly (as in story wise and not assisting a faction ) can still ask permission from both MFO’s outside of the ally list to join.

I.E - if the character has a home or company on the world being invaded and wants to react to the craziness unfolding like a normal civilian would.

 

[Zachariah Conway]

No preference logistically; I think it'd work as a simple list at the bottom of the invasion signup for the prospective allies, and then a post in the thread maybe a day or two before the beginning of the invasion showing the approvals/denials, and for any denials whether it was unanimous or by one faction or the other.

My issue with this method is that you'd only be giving the accepted folk a day or two to go and find writing partners. Otherwise, I totally agree with what you're saying.

 

[D-M0N]

Valiens, my peer and fellow Head Admin, has made his stance on ally rules very apparent for this exact reason. However, I differ from him in that I don't care.

I don't care if people try to "circumvent", because you're not circumventing, you're just placing more pressure on the MFO for me to use.

I want problematic members in the Major Faction rather than outside of it. It gives me reason to throttle Major Faction Owners.

I mean, if it's too problematic, can't they just report it anyway? Kinda feels like there's already an avenue for that.

 

[Annasari]

I guess I’m an outlier. I’d rather see ally slots in invasions expanded to something like annihilations. Invasions aren’t a bubble, and in fact, with your resources spent it should be harder to stop third party intervention.

Becoming a more casual writer over the past couple years as well has made me more sympathetic to it. I’m not up to speed with most majors and don’t have the time to invest in them, focusing instead on personal stories - but when it’s a planet my character has ties to, I’d like to partake in the invasion.

That said, I’d rather have ally rules that are gamey than no allies.

 

[Annasari]

My issue with this method is that you'd only be giving the accepted folk a day or two to go and find writing partners. Otherwise, I totally agree with what you're saying.

Faction staff could still communicate approvals privately to accommodate this; but I do like the idea of denials being public record.

 

[Zachariah Conway]

Faction staff could still communicate approvals privately to accommodate this; but I do like the idea of denials being public record.

I'd argue that they're public record anyway. Look at who's requested an ally slot and then look at who requests a partner after the fact. Seems like an easier approach in my head.