The Link Problem (HEY! Listen)

[Rusty]

Creating this thread for the purpose of having a recorded discussion on the issue of link spam. It's come up in chat several times in the past few days, and everyone seems to be fed up with it, so let's put our heads together and figure something out.

For the purpose of this discussion, link spam is defined as the excessive use of links in the Special Features section of submissions. The links typically lead to Wookieepedia articles or past Chaos submissions that the submitter wishes to use in their sub. While abuse of links isn't universal, we've seen many instances of technologies being included, with no more explanation than a hyperlink to an article, that would either add hidden strengths or negate weaknesses.

The general consensus seems to be that a hard restriction on the number of pieces of tech linked in the special features is probably not the way to go. That would unnecessarily punish players who aren't getting on our nerves, and as for the ones who are, they'd likely just find some other way to cram them in.

My thinking is that we should require any piece of tech linked in the special features to be explained in the description. It should be explained what the tech does for the submission, how it is incorporated, and how it's integrated with the other tech.

This accomplishes two things: firstly, it requires that any tech used in the submission has a clearly explained purpose. This will make it easier for us to review, and it'll make it easier for anyone reading the submission to understand how the thing works. Secondly, it requires just enough effort that link spam will stop being attractive to the people who use it as a cheap way to bolster their submissions. A slight barrier like that won't stop someone who genuinely is interested in the process of submitting a piece, but it will hopefully scare off the lazy bums.

 

[Ellie Mors]

require any piece of tech linked in the special features to be explained in the description

I am on board for this - it should be mandatory to at least summarize each special feature. And anything that should be a strength, again, should be listed in the strengths and anything that should be a weakness should be listed there, as well.

 

[Jamie Pyne]

My thinking is that we should require any piece of tech linked in the special features to be explained in the description

I'm not on board with this. Submissions will become bloated, nobody will want to elaborate what their Mag-Boots do in every submission for armor they make, and it's not necessary.

Tech that is already clearly named and well understood should require no elaboration in the description, or explanation in the strengths unless it is substantial enough to warrant being there. Vague and/or proper names, or obscure tech and/or features should be linked and elaborated on, especially if it is way out there in obscurity.

Forcing everyone to always state the benefits of their oxygen mask, or jetpack will become rapidly tiresome for me to read, especially on those submissions that are already small novels.

 

[Cira]

I am so torn with this. I rather not subjugate anyone to a strict limited link rule, but I admit that this has become an increasing problem.

I am conflicted on what would be a balanced method of being able to work on this.

 

[Rusty]

[member="Cira"] I still think the best way to go about it is require links to be justified. That should, in theory, cut down on the overall number of them, and it should also greatly reduce superfluous ones. It won't stop someone determined to complicate things, but I think it's our best option short of a hard limit.

[member="Jamie Pyne"] I don't agree that it would lead to submissions becoming more bloated. I imagine that we'll have a handful of writers who don't mind the extra work, but far and away, the submissions that include excessive links tend to do so in order to cram in as many strengths as possible without having to actually do the work. It's a shortcut, nothing more. If we stop making the shortcut easy, the average writer will be less inclined to take it.

 

[Cira]

[member="Rusty"]

Here is devil's advocate: What is Justified? What makes a link justifiable? By ship? By template? by class? By role? It can be such a subjective definition.

Just trying to toss in what may be roadbumps to this.

 

[Rusty]

Long story short, if they can explain how it fits in within the submission, it's justified. We're not trying to tell them they can or can't have something, we're just adding that little bit of extra work to make them explain it. Sure, it might only be a sentence or two, but all but the most obstinate of individuals are liable to rethink their life's choices if they have to do that for 50 links.

[member="Cira"]

 

[Cira]

Power template suggestion by member using the Starfighter Template as an example. His changes are marked in "Red"

OUT OF CHARACTER INFORMATION

• Intent: (Example: 'A personal weapon for Darth Scabious' or 'an advanced armored personnel carrier for the Republic')
• Image Source: (Please link to where you found the image, or to the original artist if possible. TinEye or Google Image Search can help.)
• Canon Link: (Please link the canon link if applicable canon item.)
• Restricted Missions: (If your submission uses any Restricted Items link the threads you completed the missions in here)
• Primary Source: (Please link and cite the sources which you are modifying for your use in your submission.)

PRODUCTION INFORMATION

• Manufacturer: (Kuat Drive Yards, BlasTech Industries, [Insert Major Faction Name], [Insert Character Name], etc. You must link to any Chaos Company submissions. For Manufacturing limitations on who can make what, please see For more details see the Star Ship rules)
• Model: (Example: TIE (Twin Ion Engine). For submissions where a model wouldn’t be appropriate, such as a custom walking stick, put ‘N/A’ for ‘Not Applicable’.)
• Affiliation: (Individual Character Name (an individual PC/NPC who is permitted to use this item), Company Name(s) (Companies authorised to use this submission), Faction Name(s) (Factions authorised to use this submission, Closed-Market (Any character can use this if they have explicit permission through, for example, a marketplace purchase), Open-Market (May be used by any character without permission from the Manufacturer), other potential options include a submitted NPC unit, or another general organisation/group. Optional. If you chose Limited, Semi-Unique, or Unique in Productivity above please list what groups/characters can use this submission in role-plays. For Affilation limitations on who can field what, please see For more details see the Star Ship rules)
• Production: (The scale is Unique (Only One Character), Semi-Unique (Only A Handful of Characters), Limited (Only A Select Group Of NPCs/PCs), Minor (Any Character, Only Select Groups Of NPCs), Mass-Produced. (Anyone. For production limitations on who can make what, please see For more details see the Star Ship rules)))
• Material: (What is your submission made out of? Certain materials are more resistant, or vulnerable, to certain weapons. Example: 'Durasteel.' See pre-requisites for: Restricted Materials. Link:Manufacturing Compounds, Metals, Compounds)

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

• Classification: (Starfighter, Bomber, Scout, Atmospheric Fighter, Atmospheric Bomber, Atmospheric Scout, Gunship, Dropship, Interceptor.)
• Length: (Via Metric System. Max: 50 meters. Examples: X-wing: 12.5 meters, Y-wing: 16 meters, Millenium Falcon: 34.7 meters, Slave I: 21.5 meters)
• Width: (Via Metric System. Max: 50 meters. Examples: Y-wing: 2.9 meters, Millenium Falcon: 25.61 meters, Slave I: 21.3 meters)
• Height: (Via Metric System. Max: 50 meters. Examples: Y-wing: 7.9 meters, Millenium Falcon: 8.27 meters, Slave I: 7.8 meters)
• Armament: (You may provide your armament in list format and must provide your vessel an Armament Rating. (Choose from: None, Very Low, Low, Average, Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. Armament Ratings are scaled in relation to the class of ship, meaning a Starfighter will not equate to a Destroyer. Armament Ratings provide only basic weaponry unless the ship also has a description of weapons. Please link to all Factory Submissions used. Links: Starship Weapons, Approved Technology)
• Defenses: (You may provide your shield and armor systems in list format and must provide your vessel an Defense Rating. (Choose from: None, Very Low, Low, Average, Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. Where None is a man in a space suit hanging on to an engine, Average is typical defense, and Extreme is heaviest defense with heavy armor plating and multiple layers of powerful shields. Defensive Ratings are scaled in relation to the type of ship, meaning a Starfighter will not equate to a Destroyer. You should list particular systems under special features. Please link to all Factory Submissions used. Links: Approved Technology)
• Squadron Count: (Optional. Please provide the amount of fighters this submission would have in a squadron. If it is unique, remove this portion from the template. The average squadron for any starfighter is 12, at lengths averaging 12.5 meters. The bigger the fighter, the smaller your Squadron Count should be. The smaller the fighter, the bigger your Squadron count can be.)
• Maneuverability Rating: (Choose from: None, Very Low, Low, Average, Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. How agile is your ship? Can it take tight turns? This is relative to the size of the vessel (e.g. a Corvette with Low Maneuverability will be more agile than a Star Destroyer with a Low rating.
• Speed Rating: (Choose from: None, Very Low, Low, Average, Moderate, High, Very High, Extreme. How fast is your ship in normal space? How fast can it take off, how fast can it speed through a planet's atmosphere? This is relative to the size of the vessel (e.g. a Corvette with Low Speed will be quicker than a Star Destroyer with a Low Speed.
• Hyperdrive Class: (The lower the number, the faster the ship. You may use decimals. [Very Slow: 10 | Average: 2 | Very Fast: 0.3] Going below 1 typically requires balancing out with other weaknesses. Links: Hyperdrive, Hyperdrive Comparisons)
• Reactor: Hyperlink a specific reactor model. Reactor sizes for ship classes are set unless this is done. Reactor sizes affect how many "power slots" this submission can make. (Starfighter: 10 Corvette: 20 Frigate: 30 etc) If you do not have a specific model, you may leave this blank and state it as being a "Standard reactor model for this class of ship"
• Reactor alternative: State your reactor size. None. (0) Very Small. (5) Small. (10) Medium. (15) Large. (20) Super large. (25)

SPECIAL FEATURES
(Provide all of your submission's special features, including non-combat items and special weapons, here in a list. Please link to all Factory Submissions used. Stealth technology and other advanced features may require other weaknesses for balance. Ensure significant capabilities from features are included in the Strengths and Weaknesses lists. Links: Starship Weapons, Approved Technology, Shields, Engines) NOTE: Each listed special feature takes up 1 "power slot". Exceeding the power limit will require you to drop one tier in a statistic from the "technical specifications" for each point over your current maximum to a minimum rating of "Very low". You may voluntarily drop a tier in order to gain an additional 2 power slots, but this can not be raised in another section. Your reactor size and ship class affect how many power slots you have

Reactor Alternative: Each listed special feature takes up 1 "power slot". Exceeding the power limit will require you to drop one tier in a statistic from "technical specifications" and raise the size of your ship's reactor, for each point over your current maximum power slots. Your reactor size and ship class affect how many power slots you have.

FURTHER NOTE: Factory Judges may use their discretion in how many additional power slots a special feature can take up if it is exceptionally powerful. Exceptionally powerful armament and defense ratings may also require a power slot to be taken up if it would be unreasonable to leave the submission in its current state.

Each ship is expected to have a minimum amount of subsystems. Unless your subsystem has been noted in the "technical specifications" or can be added as a strength/weakness, it should not be added to the special features section.

Strengths:

• (Provide, in list format, a minimum of 1 strength of this submission.)

Weaknesses:

• (Provide, in list format, a minimum of 1 weaknesses of this submission.)

Description: (Describing your submission's history is optional. Please provide a detailed account or link of each special feature that is listed in this submission. All miscellaneous descriptive elements go here, such as Cargo Capacity, Passengers, Consumables, Crew, etc.. There is no requirement for amount of words here so long as you meet the minimum requirements for your special features.)

 

[Rusty]

I like the concept a lot. It's a bit on the complicated side at the moment though. Suggestion: make the reactor size limits static. No fudging the numbers somewhere else because you want to cram in that one last cap drain.

Also, I'd cut the number dramatically. 25 is about 15 too many for a starfighter, in my opinion. Now maybe a flagship could get away with that many.

[member="Cira"]

 

[Jamie Pyne]

[member="Cira"] | [member="Rusty"]

I'm going to be incredibly forward and say that I think this is a gigantic waste of time for the reasons I already stated above, and I stand firm in my belief that this unnecessarily bloats submissions.When I judged submissions on a daily basis in the past, as well as when I secondary items now, this came/comes across so infrequently that I see this as a waste of my time.

I would ask that the other FJs give their opinion.

[member="Raziel"] | [member="Alric Kuhn"] | [member="Aria Vale"] | [member="Atlas Kane"] | [member="Haytham Kaze"] | [member="Taryc Ap'Irae"] | [member="The Major"] | [member="Venthis Zambrano"]

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Cira"] | [member="Rusty"]

I'm going to be incredibly forward and say that I think this is a gigantic waste of time for the reasons I already stated above, and I stand firm in my belief that this unnecessarily bloats submissions.When I judged submissions on a daily basis in the past, as well as when I secondary items now, this came/comes across so infrequently that I see this as a waste of my time.

I would ask that the other FJs give their opinion.

[member="Raziel"] | [member="Alric Kuhn"] | [member="Aria Vale"] | [member="Atlas Kane"] | [member="Haytham Kaze"] | [member="Taryc Ap'Irae"] | [member="The Major"] | [member="Venthis Zambrano"]

I agree.

 

[Alric Kuhn]

Concur with Jamie

 

[Cira]

Another suggestion by a member:


Suite

A Suite is an extrapolation of a group of non-combatant attachments. Most space-faring vessels possess the following Suites in some capacity: Navigational, Sensory, Life Support/Preservation, Encryption/Communication, Targeting, and Shielding. It is assumed that most space-faring vessels possess the aforementioned Suites at a level that is considered Standard.

A Standard Suite is just as implied. Vanilla. Made of components and features that can be found on any vessel of comparable size. For example, a Standard Sensory Suite would enable a GA Star Defender to detect objects at the same range as a FO Star Destroyer. As a Standard Suite does exactly what any vanilla system can, it will be allowed a total of 10 links to be incorporated into the submission. For example, if I had a burning desire to make a 100% Mandalorian made Sensory Suite, I could go into 10 Canon links' worth of detail about what it does. Furthermore, as it is Standard I can have this at Mass Production no problem.

An Advanced Suite is a cut above. These would possess powerful items meant to stand out and give vessels an edge. For this reason, a maximum of five links; Canon or Approved, can be incorporated into the submission. These Suites would have to be balanced, of course, and their productions would affect their abilities. For example, an Advanced Sensory Suite can detect twice as far as a Standard Sensory Suite. Minor Production tops for Advanced.

Lastly, we have Exotic Suites. This is where your "I've spent eight hours on Wookiepedia looking for obscure references to smite my enemies with." can be applied. No more than three links. Limited Production at absolute maximum. This is where your Crystal Gravfield Trap or .5 Hyperdrive would go.

Now with the addition of Suites comes a crackdown on Fluff. If you have a bunch of Canon links' that can be condensed into a Standard Suite or omitted because they're Canon you'll be told to do so. If you have more than 10 special features that can be considered standard, more than five that can be considered advanced, or more than three that can be considered exotic, you should be told to condense the list and make a Suite. Why? Because doing so enables you, the customer, to paste one link next submission. And it enables the next three Judges to look at only one link and not 50.

On a tech template it would look like:

SUITE INFORMATION
Quality: Standard, Advanced, or Exotic
Components:
-Links to Canon/Approved Subs go here

Strengths & Weaknesses
-The Usual. If Advanced or Exotic, each Link needs to be explained as a Strength & Weakness.

Description
-The Usual. If Advanced or Exotic, elaborate.

 

[Raziel]

The power slots thing looks complex.

The suites doesn't really make much sense to me either.

I'm more tempted by making a list of standard systems a ship has and limiting the number of "Advanced Systems" that go above and beyond that.

 

[NightSister]

Okay.

I hate combing through links as much as the next girl.

But the power slots idea looks far too complicated, both for writing and judging submissions. Trying to ensure all the statistics are lined up and adding wiggle room for extra subs depending on how X or Y it is will be a pain to judge, and I imagine it'd be a pain to sub as well.

I do quite like the look of suites - if we can make them work, I'm on board - and I think saying that links have to be relevant to the sub is a good idea (a rule change is much less complicated than a template change, although in this case I agree that it's hard to define what's "justified") but honestly I think the most straightforward solution is to judge this on a sub-by-sub basis and ask individual members who go overboard to prune links.

I don't love it as a judge who hates link-checking, but I do think adding new rules for the whole community when only a small portion really need to cut back on links is excessive.

(Suites do look neat though, I'm on my phone right now or I'd talk about them more).

[member="Raziel"] | [member="Alric Kuhn"] | [member="Rusty"] | [member="Darth Ananta"] | [member="Cira"] | [member="Jamie Pyne"]