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

[Tefka]

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

A big part of my problem with any system is how easily we want to make every problem Staff's problem. Choosing allies is a Major Faction Owner ability - it should be made to be mostly a Major Faction Owner's problem.

Staff is not some big magic man in the sky that can easily fix every issue. Almost all issues require nuance, investigation, discussions, etc.

 

[Tefka]

The more issues we place at the feet of an MFO's responsibility, the more easy it is for me to hold them accountable, and the more accountability I can hold to an MFO, the more easily I can justify removing those who are causing the culture to slide in a direction I disagree with.

 

[Zachariah Conway]

The more issues we place at the feet of an MFO's responsibility, the more easy it is for me to hold them accountable, and the more accountability I can hold to an MFO, the more easily I can justify removing those who are causing the culture to slide in a direction I disagree with.

Okay here's a question, it's in the wrong place but kinda isn't at the same time.

Would you be comfortable sharing the removal process for an MFO? Is it an everyone in staff decision and vote or is it just "you're a problem, buhbye"?

 

[Tefka]

The day I see it as easy as the community does to "remove problematic members" is the day the spirit of Chaos dies, because most situations are not easy, most problems are not agreed upon unanimously as problems.

 

[Tefka]

Would you be comfortable sharing the removal process for an MFO? Is it an everyone in staff decision and vote or is it just "you're a problem, buhbye"?

It can be a vote or it can be a Head Admin decision. Valiens and I can unilaterally remove an MFO, but there is certainly always discussion prior.

 

[Srina Talon]

Yes - I am in favor of this change.

Why?

TLDR: The potential benefits outweigh the negatives.

Spoiler: Hot Take, Mostly repeats what Tef said...But this is all IMO

With this update, MFOs would not only have to weigh who they want as an "Ally" or a "3rd Party" but also why they want them. Whether it's for writing chops, story synergy, combat support, etc... Invasions are our big ticket threads, meant to be chaotic, but they aren't meant to be without any oversight at all. That's why we had "requesting aid" rules in the first place. This update would remove the possibility of "blanket acceptances" and ensures that MFOs are not only responsible for who they've approved but are also fully AWARE of who they've approved.

The requirement for mutual agreement between MFOs fosters communication and collaboration, which leads to a healthier environment. It prevents one-sided decisions and reinforces shared ownership and leadership of invasion narratives. This change would empower the community while letting us stay away from the ugliness and impracticality of micromanagement. It's also much easier to review an approved list of allies from the MFOs instead of reviewing 10 pages of OOC to see who got approved and who got denied.

The "ally" slot lists at the start of the thread rarely get fully updated.

If you're worried about people just "joining the faction" to get around it, please bear in mind that MFOs are free to curate their membership how they see fit. If they see someone who doesn't belong to them, it's easy to remove them and report it to the presiding Administrator. By placing this in the hands of the MFOs and requiring their cooperation, it enforces higher standards of conduct. Toxic or overly controlling people will stand out and can be held accountable if they abuse their authority. Site Staff aren't gone; we're not dead.

If you have any issues or weird situations, we're still here to help.

The update isn't all that rigid. MFOs can still give up their "share" of allies if they want, but it adds just enough structure to ensure fairness and meaningful choices. Strategic choices are not a bad thing when you're making a two-week commitment as a faction, selling your members on a story, and promising a good time. It maintains the spirit of an invasion, making them special, rather than just crowded.

Lastly...It also reinforces good behavior from the community in general. MFOs aren't going to gravitate toward people who are repeatedly disruptive and have no bedside manner. They're aiming for a FUN experience, not an effort in pulling teeth.

 

[Kira Vaal]

I’m only going to chime in for one thing because this is a rule change that is beyond my standing anyway.

The idea suggestion of a MFO having to post a denials and the why? Nah.
You already post a giant target to not be liked when you start a faction or take the title, now imagine having to every invasion (which already might be a contention point as they don’t have to be discussed they are going to happen), write a piece on why a particular ally is being denied with detail as to why.

The only behaviour this will encourage is man hunts where you find MfOs and their teams having full ooc folders and files of screenshots and logs of out of context discord chats, forum posts and private DMs that they will be then obliged to dump, out of context for the entire world to see.

That is a culture that should not be encouraged because it can (we’ve seen it) get nasty, spiteful and in all senses is practically equated to stalking and bullying. Leave the proof gathering to the Admin team and their associated judge teams, that is what they are there for.

Nope denials should have the premise of being explained in DMs, and in private. You can include a staff member in the discussion if needed, they won’t bite and actually are a bunch of people who want to see us all have fun and not turn into aggressive, information hoarding ooc assassins.

Remember we used to list the assigned roleplay judge after an invasion. It was horrible, I know I was an MfO when it used to happen and the amount of abuse they used to get ,
“They are judging unfairly.”
“They are in that factions discord.”
“Oh anyone but them.”

Nah, don’t need that be forced to be public.

Everything else though seems great, anyway warning rant over. Back into my hole in the ground I go.

 

[Tamna Korvan]

I agree with Tef's solution to this as is so yes. It can be a way for actual IC allies to show up an honour an IC agreement or for PMCs/Mercenaries that get paid like Black Sun or Mandalorian Empire to be present for invasion - helps with story.

I do agree with Kira Vaal to not broadcast any reasons for denial in order to mitigate manhunts. Lists should be agreed to by both MFOs and any reasons as to denials be kept in that room only. It does not need to be broadcasted to the community.

The lists posted in the OP should be answer enough to everyone who is in and who is not.

 

[Darth Avida]

I think wanting a reason from a MFO as to why someone is allowed or not is unnecessary. Full disclosure I was a MFO for a period and judged invasions as an RPJ (albeit at the beginning of invasions being "judged" and prior to being a MFO)

If I am unwanted (from my POV) to be picked as an ally, for whatever reason that MFO or major faction's admins have, I don't need to or want to know why I am rejected. It doesn't matter, and I'm not going to be upset because I can't participate in another faction's invasion because of that faction's decision that they don't need/want my help (or because the other Major Faction Owner/team doesn't want me there). Having to actually say that to people does literally nothing except increase resentment for the MFO in question making that decision. Does this somehow change for an admin's POV for the purposes of approving someone's presence in an invasion? Because it doesn't actually do anything at all to stop them from just joining the faction in question to avoid being blackballed for invasion ally slots in the future (or for that invasion in particular) per the rules and this forum's own advice in the initial ban announcement on ally slots in invasions.

 

[Tefka]

Since I do fear that the community is doing that thing where they only read the last 3 contemporary messages and skip everything else in the thread, at no point do I recommend or require disclosing the reasons people are added to or removed from the ally list.

Nor does an MFO even need to list it or explain themselves to the other MFO.

That information doesn’t even need to be available in the room. It can stay in yo’ little noggin. I don’t care. Speak with your consent, when consenting to an approval of an ally. Thats the only messaging the MFOs need, and its the only message the Admin needs.

I do like how everyone went straight to realizing how OOC this could get. Curious, why that might be.

I wonder what the overlap between people supporting RPJ judgement feedback and this is.

 

[Razmir Tezhyn]

This is my breakdown of how the changes (dis-)empower various groups. It's not meant as a definitive conclusion about who wins or loses, just my perspective on shifts in responsibilities and access to threads/stories.

The difference to the old ally rules would effectively be:

• a (re-)introduction of a hard ally limit, now set by site staff
• site staff now oversees only the finalizing process of approving the ally list, rather than case-by-case intervention (though they can still do this for any reason)
• both MFOs now have joint control over approving members on an individual level, rather than the faction-level
• factions can no longer join as third-parties, instead their individual members need to request limited ally slots

The implications as I understand them are:

• an overall constraint for writers who enjoy large-scale invasions and lower regulation
• a major constraint for third-party factions, though not a total one (individuals can still make requests)
• a shift toward invasions as more controlled affairs with smaller scope
• a shift of responsibility and authority to MFOs regarding invasion management
• and more streamlined oversight for site staff during the ally approval process

I don't like the changes, personally. It creates greater barriers to RP than previously existed and drastically limits the scope of invasion threads by excluding third-party factions.

But it's far more preferable to not having any ally slots at all. Because of that, I'm inclined to encourage votes for yes.

 

[LIL FINN THE BASEDGOD]

I like the proposal, I don’t think the fact that it can be ‘weaponised’ or used to gatekeep that much of a problem, since the community’s check-and-balance would come into play. Also it give people more incentive to join major factions, or build their own.

I vote yes

 

[Whottoomuzz Chantin]

Disclaimer: Newb perspective, so consider I lack the clarity of hindsight/precedent of past issues.

Spoiler: Yap Yap

Prior to the change it seemed the Request aid rule was taken for granted, that the expectation was that allies would typically be welcome unless X reasons, and third parties planned assuming they would be accepted.

This seems like a way to reign in that unspoken expectation so that acceptance as an ally remains an if, and expects more from each individual ally to contribute to the overall narrative beyond map game dynamics.

Tldr: I can see the appeal, raise the bar of entry and accountability to nudge higher quality RP from third parties.

 

[Alan]

I think, in recent years, invasions have used allies as a way to almost prop up their numbers on their side. I think invasions should be largely, if not fully, faction-specific or faction-centric stories. The characters and stories involved should be in that faction. Now I would like a limit of ally slots, but I, and I imagine some other people, am concerned with people willy-nilly joining major factions just prior to invasions. That's a lot of self-policing for faction owners to do.

I think also what this does is not necessarily force, but encourage other roleplay like annihilations, junctions, skirmishes, etc etc. There's nothing saying that a skirmish can't be a big-ass affair with IC consequences.

So my question is, hypothetically, allies go away- (I'm not against it). What's the rectifying action for people joining major factions solely to participate in the invasion? Is there going to be that at all? Because, we have, for example, Imperials not aligned with the GE signing up for the GA invasion. Makes sense in-character for them to oppose another Imperial faction whom they're at odds with. But it wouldn't make sense for them to be in the GA faction necessarily. So is there going to be a limit on people joining Major Factions, or factoring that into account if someone joins a Major Faction days, hours prior to the invasion?

 

[Tefka]

a major constraint for third-party factions, though not a total one (individuals can still make requests)

I mean hell yeah the community has crazy expectations for ally slots, this guy implies that prior to the change, entire factions could 3rd party invasions. Which I guess was maybe possible due to blanket approvals? But was never, ever the intention by Staff, thats insane.

They eatin the whole cake and the kitchen out here, this whole thread was 1000% deserved, yall is crazy lmao

 

[Tefka]

What's the rectifying action for people joining major factions solely to participate in the invasion?

Great question.

I want the chaos of more people in an Invasion, I do not want the chaos of not knowing who to hold accountable. An Invasion is defined as a faction versus another faction, it’s probably the first or second sentence of the ruleset.

“Third party”, “interfaction antagonists”, whatever the kark they’re calling themselves these days, you dont matter to me. I do want you to have fun, but I’m telling my RPJs to discount your posts for victory conditions if I’m leading a judgement. You need to know you are third wheeling the date. You’re not the star of the show. You can have fun and participate for the sake of your story or narrative, but I really cannot emphasize enough how much you dont matter to me in the context of what an Invasion is or what the factions are accomplishing.

Your attempts to muddy the waters are IC and IC only. The OOC aspects of an Invasion will remain unbothered, including not limited to the OOC aspects of the Invasion judgement.

The only time you’ll matter is negatively, like if you get banned for being an ass OOC, in which case I will (and have in the past) tell the RPJs to dock one side points in their judgement bc such and such was an ally of X’s side and poorly represented them OOC.

 

[Tefka]

The only time you’ll matter is negatively, like if you get banned for being an ass OOC, in which case I will (and have in the past) tell the RPJs to dock one side points in their judgement bc such and such was an ally of X’s side and poorly represented them OOC.

And my attacks on blanket approvals are an attempt to save MFOs from this very situation happening. Once again, they have picked the easy route and are setting themselves up for failure by not considering the consequences of taking the easy routes such as issuing blanket approvals for the sake of fun.

Invasions are more fun if you raise the stakes and treat them more seriously, not if you erode all barriers to mash in as many writers as you can.

 

[Razmir Tezhyn]

I mean hell yeah the community has crazy expectations for ally slots, this guy implies that prior to the change, entire factions could 3rd party invasions. Which I guess was maybe possible due to blanket approvals? But was never, ever the intention by Staff, thats insane.

That's a good clarification to have. The suspended rules for Requesting Aid mentioned assistance from Factions, which is where I drew that misconception from. The new ally rules make it a lot clearer that was never intended.

 

[Tefka]

That's a good clarification to have. The suspended rules for Requesting Aid mentioned assistance from Factions, which is where I drew that misconception from. The new ally rules make it a lot clearer that was never intended.

Oh okay haha theres some crazy miscommunication happening, mostly by it being worded that way. I 100% see why you said it the way you did now.

Yeah thats a really dumb way to write it, because you can totally infer it means the wholeass faction.

Haha.

Blind leading the blind out here.

 

[Aether Verd]

I like this, a lot.

The only thing I'd suggest adding is some sort of "y'all need to agree on the ally list within the seven day invasion announcement period, or no one gets allies" stipulation.

Last thing I want to see is OOC stalling because folks are hmming and hawwing the ally list (we've been on the Internet long enough to know folks are petty enough to try this.)

Other than that, ball out.