Removal of the "Terms" Rule

[Jsc]

[member="Captain Larraq"] I think Daella was agreeing with us. Just in a round about way. Lol.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Changes to this rule suits certain factions. Factions which have a lot of powerful duelling characters...after all that's all that happens in these invasions.
So basically it breaks down along the same lines that the One Sith and Republic invasion has gone. One side inherently wants everything to be free-form, the other wants some sort of organisation.

Since I feel invasions are the most unrealistic and broken thing on SWRP you can see which side I come down on. However, since I don't take part in Invasions I'll just leave this here and go.

 

[Soeht]

You are assuming that communication is 'mandatory' before an Invasion is posted. If communication was not 'mandatory', an Invasion would get posted. And 4 pages in a Faction Admin would call baloney and ask for terms.

Communication definitely helps and it is necessary after the Invasion has started. Yet, there's no need for previous communication if the terms are universally defined by SWRP Rules. Everyone will know what to expect when an Invasion is posted, and if there are Additional Terms then they would have been mutually agreed upon beforehand.

If in 2 out of 3 conclusions involve you either agreeing that something is fair or being told that something is fair, they it was probably fair to begin with and you should succeed the point.

The previous statements in my post explain why that might be a bad thing: RPJ's are human will not always make the correct decision and if there was an Additional Rule that created a more fair situation than no Additional Rule, then we as a community have to question why that Additional Rule is not in the SWRP's Warring Faction Rules.

Therefore, with the current Rules, it is possible for an RPJ to make a mistake and force upon a Faction an unfair Additional Rule.

If the following is made the Rule:

Attacking Factions may start an Invasion without prior discussions only in the event that they are not using Additional Terms. If Additional Terms are asked for, they must be mutually agreed upon. If there is no agreement, no Additional Terms may be used.

Then there is the following:

• SWRP Staff is no longer required if there is a disagreement.
• Neither Faction will be forced to abide by an Additional Rule that could present an unfair situation.
• If the Attacking Faction values starting the Invasion over their Additional Terms, then the Invasion can just start.

Previous notice could be added to the Vanilla Rules and these benefits wouldn't disappear. New Rules could be added to the Warring Faction Rules and these benefits wouldn't disappear.

This is simply a better solution than the current Rule.

 

[Jsc]

and if there are Additional Terms then they would have been mutually agreed upon beforehand.

So long as this is this portion remains constant in SWRP Rules. Not assumed. I agree. And would support you completely. Nice!

wait,

Attacking Factions may start an Invasion without prior discussions only in the event that they are not using Additional Terms.

Without prior discussion? No. Discussion must take place in order to allow for the Defenders to request terms before an Invasion goes live. I cannot allow an Invasion to be posted live before the Defenders have a chance to scream "Terms! Terms!". That defeats the purpose of this conversation. Which is compromise.

 

[Jsc]

Yep calling: Conflict of Interest, again.

Daella you're just trying to justify posting the Cardia Invasion before Terms were completed. I think you're crusading for you're own ego now. Ugh.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Ok. Tell you what. I think I have something here.

Lets take a look at the Factory.
I submit a ship.
Factory Judge Denies it.
I disagree with the ruling of the judge and ask for a second chance from another Judge.
And it is either given a second chance or denied.


You are worried about unfair mistakes by Roleplay Judges?

Add this to the existing rule.

"Should one faction leader or another feel that the ruling of the Roleplay Judge is unfair, they may request a second Judge weigh in on the issue. The ruling of the second RPJ is final."

 

[Isley Verd]

Could just put it to a vote.

If the majority wants it gone/changed, then it goes.

If the majority want it to stay/remain unchanged, it should stay.

Simple, no?

 

[Jsc]

If the majority wants it gone/changed, then it goes.

If the vote for change passes. We'd just be here again debating what the new status quo would be. But I get what you mean. Could just force the issue immediately without further discussion and silence the debate. If only publically. For a little while. Until it get's brought up again. Because reasons.

Nevermind. I'm being a douche now. Kay. Taking 24 hours away to cool off. The conflicts of interest in this thread are blowing my mind.

 

[Gilamar Skirata]

Before it was written, there were situations where the Major Faction simply wasn't aware it was happening

R.I.P Junction

 

[Soeht]

Yep calling: Conflict of Interest, again.

I'm going to echo [member="Darth Shara"] and ask for you to refrain from assuming such a thing. This is something I've supported for months and well before the current situation.

Without prior discussion? No. Discussion must take place in order to allow for the Defenders to request terms before an Invasion goes live. I cannot allow an Invasion to be posted live before the Defenders have a chance to scream "Terms! Terms!". That defeats the purpose of this conversation. Which is compromise.

That was a quote from earlier, so let's boil my proposal down to its fundamentals:

Under the current Rule:

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 cannot be reached please consult a Role-play Judge.

Additional Terms can be forced upon a Faction without their consent if demanded by an RPJ. For the Attackers, this means either calling off the Invasion or dealing with it. For Defenders, they have no choice.

As I've said before, it is very possible for an RPJ to make a decision that creates an unfair situation with the Additional Terms. Not only that, but if an RPJ did judge Additional Terms to be more fair than the Official and Universal Warring Faction Rules, we as a community have to question why this Additional Term is not in the Official and Universal Rules.

There is also the fact that a Faction can hard-line its demand for terms and delay the Invasion until RPJ involvement.

Plus, there's the fact that SWRP Staff has to spend time on the whole situation. Not all of us enjoy Staff involvement and mandates and SWRP Staff has more important things to accomplish than this.

If the current Rule is changed to:
Invasions without Additional Terms may start according to procedure. Any Additional Terms must be mutually agreed upon by both Factions' Administrations. If there is no agreement, no Additional Terms may be used.

Then the community reaps the following benefits:

• Neither Faction will be forced to abide by an Additional Term that could present an unfair situation.
• If the Attacking Faction values starting the Invasion over their Additional Terms, then the Invasion can just start according to procedure.
• SWRP Staff is no longer required if there is a disagreement.

These benefits exist even with a Rule requiring prior notice or any other official changes to the Warring Faction Rules (Mandates for objectives, limits to fleets/alts, etc.).

Again, this is the better solution and fixes the core issues to the current Rules.

 

[Captain Larraq]

If a RPJ rules one way or another and forces terms onto someone that they feel are fair and appropriate, then they are doing their job. Not everyone is happy when a judge steps in and tells them no. Nobody likes being told no. But sometimes we are wrong and it is an RPJ's job to inform us of as much. It's why only a select few, trusted writers are allowed to be RPJ's.

 

[Soeht]

If a RPJ rules one way or another and forces terms onto someone that they feel are fair and appropriate, then they are doing their job. Not everyone is happy when a judge steps in and tells them no. Nobody likes being told no. But sometimes we are wrong and it is an RPJ's job to inform us of as much. It's why only a select few, trusted writers are allowed to be RPJ's.

Apply such a situation to this:
For an Invasion, one Faction wants to start it without any Additional Terms. The second Faction wants an Invasion with specific Additional Terms and will not compromise.

Under the current Rules, the Invasion cannot start under the current situation. That's Problem #1. No other type of role-play (Dominion, Public, Private, Skirmish, etc) is subject to this problem. It also defeats the following statement:

You don't grant permission to someone to fight you in an Invasion. It just happens.

As the Rule is right now, to start it in the current situation, Official SWRP Staff action required. That's Problem #2. The situation is distracting Staff and is an undesirable one in general.

Finally, if an RPJ is involved and makes a decision and the Additional Term is mandated, then it leads to the following conclusions:

• If the decision was an unfair one (which is possible, even twice in a row), a Faction has just been forced into an unfair situation without consent.
• Regardless, Problem #1 and Problem #2 still exist plus we have to question why the RPJ thought Additional Terms were more fair than the Official Warring Faction Rules as well as why the Additional Term is not an official Rule.

This is Problem #3, regardless of the fairness of the Additional Term.

Is this clear so far?

 

[Tefka]

The situation is distracting Staff and is an undesirable one in general.

This isn't true, and is conjecture.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

R.I.P Junction

Never forget?

 

[Captain Larraq]

Yes, but the example you are giving is not the case. Faction 1 starts a questionable invasion. People roll with it. Both Faction 2 and staff roll with it. Faction 1 tries to start another invasion against Faction 2. Faction 2 decides not to roll with it a second time and request a more fair and balanced thread with 'Additional Terms.'

Faction 1 disagrees with additional terms. Roleplay judge is called in to mediate. Roleplay judge rules in Faction 2's favor and specifically states that should a third invasion take place, it WILL be done according to Faction 1's terms.


This is absolutely fair.

No one is being mistreated. The judges are not forcing unfair conditions upon you. There is no real justification for the general behavior that's going on here.

This is not a problem. You just want to get your way and are throwing a rather amusing tantrum.

 

[Josh Dragovalor]

For some reason I'm not shocked it's a member of the One Sith that wants the rule removed. Just my two cents.

 

[Alexandra Feanor]

[member="Joshua DragonsFlame"]

-laughs and looks at the past two invasions-

 

[Gilamar Skirata]

"stalling" has ever been an accusation.

Not true. Its happened a ton, and I've seen it happen.

On the flip side I've also seen people force Invasions during rather inappropriate times for writers on the opposing teams(For IRL issues)

So I think what Jon has put up is a good middle ground.

 

[Isley Verd]

[member="Daella Apparine"]

What I've seen for the totality of this thread are two individuals holding signs up whilst the majority of us are disagreeing.

One - The duty of an RPJ is to deal with IC/Roleplay-centric matters and to render fair/impartial judgments. If you feel that the members of the current SWRP Staff Team are incapable of rendering judgment that is fair, then I suggest you take that up with the higher ups. Advocating for a rule change based upon the potential of an unfair judgment is ludicrous.

Two - RPJ is a position that is applied for. Members are not simply tackled and pinned down with this duty, they ask for it, they want it. That said, if a matter genuinely requires the attention of staff then it is not a waste of staff's time. It is staff doing its job. What you're saying is like a janitor getting upset if he has to clean a spill; it's his bloody job! (And no, I'm not equating RPJs to janitors).

Three - Up until now, this rule has been a non issue. As the sayings often go, "What ifs" can go on forever. If (and I highly doubt this is the case, but you and [member="Darth Shara"] insist...) there is truly no correlation between the invasion of Carida and the advocating of this rule to be removed, then you both are beating to death the "what if" machine. Until the supposed "abuse" of this rule is identified by the SWRP Staff Team (and trust me, they're hawks when it comes to abuse) there isn't a problem. You guys are being ridiculously "proactive" unnecessarily (that is, going off the aforementioned assumption) and assuming that unfair judgments on the part of RPJ Team is a large possibility.

That said, I'm seeing this as having a direct correlation with the invasion of Carida. One side isn't getting what it wants, regardless of staff involvement, and so we now have an enormous stink. But what do I know, I just roleplay here and talk to most of the folks involved. >_>

That said, I once again say: Put it to a vote. If the Board agrees with your stance, then by all means axe the rule. But if the Board doesn't, then Cut the Crap and RP.

 

[J3C0]

For some reason I'm not shocked it's a member of the One Sith that's had the rule removed. Just my two cents.

Maybe its because the One Sith is filled and lead by the biggest advocates of invasions on SWRP? Nah, thats probably not it.