Heya guys, I know it's been a few days and I haven't really said much in regards to what I have planned for the server and community. No worries, I haven't forgotten or given up or anything like that, I just wanted to take a few days to prepare before I posted this announcement. In this, I'm gonna do my best to explain all I've got planned and I want you guys to give feedback on it before I put any of it into effect. If there are things you feel need improvement or should be removed altogether, explain how it could be improved or why you disagree and I'll do my best to remedy that. So, prepare yourselves, this will be quite lengthy. Now, first thing's first, the rules! We've had the same set of rules for quite a while now, and to be honest, they don't cover a whole lot. They're basic and bare-minimum, and they need to go. Now, we've had a new list of rules in the works for quite a while, but they were never finished and so they were never used. I've taken the past few days to finish them up, with the help of a few others, and I feel what we've got now will work out much better for the server and the community. For the sake of saving space, I'm going to avoid copy/pasting them all here and instead link to the Gdoc they're written on. I'd really love to hear what you all think of them before they're added to the rules page, so click here to take a look. So, next, I wanna address our staff issue. Lately, we've had a lot of trouble with staff becoming burnt out quickly and then we're stuck with an inactive mod team, which is most certainly a bad thing. I was guilty of the same thing, and after thinking about it for some time, I think I figured out the cause. Staff, overall, is just not very good at writing lore for the server, or making any serious decision that we want everyone to be on-board with. Every time we focus on it, we spend hours in discussion and end up with nothing to show for it but exhaustion. We tend to be indecisive when it comes to those things. So, I'm no longer putting lore in the hands of staff. Instead, staff will go back to its roots and focus primarily on the moderation and administration of the server, as they're supposed to. Staff will also be expected to act more independently than they have in the past, because when we work too closely together on every single matter, we get nothing done. The amount of discussion we took part in compared to the amount of work we actually got done was insane. This means that moderators will have to be active so that they can be around when needed. Moderators will actually be expected to be in game at least occasionally. I'll be removing any currently inactive staff members and reopening staff applications here soon to replace them. Now, while we're on the topic of staff applications, I'd like to bring up something I've had on my mind for a little bit now. In the past, staff applications have been up to staff to make a decision on. Often times, the community had little say in the matter. Well, I would like to implement a new system in which staff applicants post a thread where they explain why they feel they would be a benefit to the community as a staff member. The community would then be able to rate that post depending on how they feel about that person becoming a member of staff. In that post, the applicant would be able to explain what qualifications they have to improve the server, or what experience or how well they work with people. It would be separate from the actual staff application, but both would be taken into account when considering these individuals for staff positions. After all, having a team of moderators is important, but it doesn't mean much if the community can't trust them. With that outta the way, I wanna go back to lore, which I mentioned a bit up above. As I said, staff aren't very good at writing lore. Not for our lack of creativity, but because we can never actually get it done. The community, however, is phenomenal at it. That's why I wanna make lore open to be edited by anyone. The wiki is an excellent spot where anyone is able to edit any entry they want. Of course, there are some very obvious drawbacks to this; Mainly, the potential defacing of the wiki. As I said, anyone that's apart of the community can edit anything there. So, there would need to be some dedicated wiki editors that are tasked with maintaining the wiki. It's an important position and requires a vigilant eye. I wanna make sure that there are those interested in such a position and that they will take it seriously before it goes anywhere, because I'd hate to see a lot of hard work go to waste because someone decided to erase entire pages of lore. Alright, I'm nearing the end of what I wanna talk about, but I have one more thing I wanna address, and that's player assistants. We used to have them awhile back, which some of you may or may not remember, and their job was to review applications and help out struggling new community members. We got rid of the position when we felt it was no longer necessary and wasn't doing much good. The reason I wanna bring it back is because I feel it's important for the community to have certain players that can be looked up to as role models, players that are able to help those that need it and review whitelist applications when necessary. Is there anyone that feels they would be willing to accept a role like that, and if so, how would you feel about both it and wiki editor being merged into one position for the sake of avoiding creating too many positions to be reasonably filled? That's about all I have to share for the time being, so please, write down below whatever thoughts you've got on your mind. There was a lot of read through here, which I apologize for, but there's a lot that needs addressing. I hope you took the time to read through it all and will lemme know what you think.
On the new rules document, #2 and #3 of "Disagreements with other Players" could be combined, I believe. Just a thought.
I think that what you are doing here is great, and appreciate what you're trying to do with the server. Also, idk much about this helper role thingy but I am usually pretty helpful with people in chat (I think) because I try to look at all sides of everything, but idk how good I'd be at looking at applications
I think that having some player assistants again would be good. I occasionally see players that could blossom if there were someone willing to help them.
Everything is good in my opinion, except one rule. The #3 regarding behavior and conduct. "Always cease discussion of aforementioned topic if such discomfort is made known, including in-character discussions if a player discloses their discomfort out-of-character." I mean, my character should be able to be an asshole, shouldn't he? I should be able to take up opinions that aren't the ones I personally share, and expect other players to know the difference between a character and a player. I mean, people shouldn't even feel discomforted out-of-character for things happening in-character in the first place, given we're role-playing, but anyways.
I think that what is meant by this is something more extreme, like discussing a topic like the... Negative impacts of a certain race of people among humans, or speaking intolerantly against a sexuality. Basically, things that are just blatantly offensive and would realistically have long since been phased out 400 years in the future. So just don't talk smack about groups of people ICly for no reason other than "damn them [insert group of people here] are fucking disgusting because I feel like saying that" and you're good.
I like this idea I have a bit of hesitation to this. As there are many that prefer cetain races and want to make them better then the other races. That is going to be a problem and balance needs to be in place. Also I feel that while the "Dedicated wiki editors" are fine. The Staff (odd numbers) should have the last say weather or not some goes, or make changes. If that is still a problem well... then bring in the moderators and assistants to better even the situation. The term "Timely fashion" needs to be more defined. What one person sees as one month being timely, another will not. Specially when it involves a character life/consent. Another suggestion should that all disputes that require the staff should involve a minimum of 3 staff. The greater number in agreement is the resolution to the dispute and it final. I feel this should be a bit more defined. Again it comes down to what one person sees, another may not. Most houses take about a month to build, the Prudential Tower (which is a 52 story tower) took 4 years to build while the Burj Khalifa tower took 5 years. I am not saying this needs to be realistic in nature. But Frankly I am tired of seeing colonies popping up over night and never explaining anything. Also I would personally like to see more unique looking colonies them the sprawls that seems to be the utterly boring normal. Like what was suggested here. I personally feel the colonies should have a financial back by either an authorized staff business, or a player ran business. This would help with player owning and creating a business. Also I feel that previous rules should be in forced or improves for the new vision: Faction and Colony Rules
I've modified the rules to set #3 as an extension of rule #2 rather than its own since you're right, they are very similar, though I still feel the distinction is important considering #3 clarifies what should be done under different circumstances. While I understand what you mean and I agree entirely with the fact that characters should be allowed to act however they would normally act in-character, that rule is mostly in place for extreme scenarios. It's expected of most players to be able to separate OOC from IC, but if someone simply can't help but feel offended by what's said or shown in-game, then it's preferable to avoid any sort of problem than have to bring a moderator in to mediate. Above all else, balance will always be a factor that's taken into consideration. Regardless of what lore may or may not say, when it comes to the rules, it's stated that all races are equal in player vs player combat. Staff will, of course, be keeping an eye on what lore is come up with to ensure that nothing too over the top is added. As long as things are kept fair and reasonable, staff will hopefully never have to get involved with lore-related matters, but all moderators and administrators reserve the right to overrule any decisions to add to or modify the lore. The term has been intentionally left loose to allow for individual interpretation. It's up to those involved to determine when it's necessary to bring in a staff member; If possible, it's preferable for players to resolve matters on their own. When resolving disputes, three staff members is likely not going to be a possibility, unfortunately. Having three moderators around to take a vote on how to resolve a situation might be ideal, it'd be difficult to have everyone on at the same time. The main benefit of having multiple staff members is so that not everyone has to be actively working on resolving reports during their free time. It prevents people from becoming burnt out if they have time to cool down and relax. Well, again, it comes down mostly to personal interpretation. In this case, however, a fair amount of reason and logic is expected of players. Rather than giving specific values for how long a city should take, I'd rather players simply leave it up to reason. It's better to take things slowly and be safe about it than to take things too quickly and get in trouble for it. It's not our goal to enforce a large amount of fun-sucking restrictions on players and I don't wanna discourage anyone from making an effort to get thing started. Placing too many restrictions on colonies causes people to feel overwhelmed by responsibility, and in truth, I'd rather see people having a good time and showing off their creativity than force them into this strict system in which they're too held down to go anywhere. But if anyone ever feels a colony is moving too fast, it's simply a matter of creating a report for a moderator to look into and then resolve. With that being said, the old faction and colony rules that you linked to are, in my opinion, excellent guidelines to follow, but there are no current plans to enforce them as actual rules for the reasons I stated above.
As one of the oldies still kicking around, I'd like to tackle this concept, if you wouldn't mind Angre. (LOL YOU HAVE NO SAY I'VE ALREADY POSTED THIS!) While I agree that staff are not great at maintaining lore for the server, I would argue that players across the server do not all have common interests. For instance, I think you know quite well that I am a fan of science fiction-esque plots in which characters interact with strange occurrences, characters, and abilities that seem supernatural or otherworldly. This kind of nonsense however is not always tolerated by everyone across the server, as a large portion of people here also strive for realism. On top of that, Antares has struggled with having too many cooks in the kitchen for ages. I don't think that throwing everybody into the pot with different opinions, roleplay styles, and desires is going to help. Even with dedicated wiki editors, I fear you run into the issue of your editors simply becoming janitors, which would probably quickly burn them out. I don't think there is a best solution to this issue, but I'd like to suggest something regardless. Maybe its hogwash, I'm not sure. I think that there should be lore specific staff. You could steamroll these into your wiki editors, but let the community choose several representatives for each section of lore, and have them build upon it. So areas like tech, government, culture. Pick one person for each. Obviously these are all still interlinked, so there will be discussion amongst the representatives. But the person representing tech, for instance, would be the de facto leader and gets to make the final call on what can and cannot be introduced to the server. On top of that, create sections in the forums discussing these topics, and allow users to talk about it, suggest ideas, and the like. Because we are a community, I think that this would give us the benefit of some democracy, while allowing a single person with vested interest to get the job done. If someone is disliked, remove them.
You bring up some good points here, and I must admit, I do like the idea of having certain specific members that are there for the sole purpose to write for specifics areas of the lore. However, I'm worried that the same issues will arise from this solution as they did before; That is, I'm worried that the chosen individuals will eventually become burnt out or lose interest and stop writing lore. I suppose a big difference here is that they wouldn't have to wait on anyone to give them the go-ahead to finalize any lore, so plenty would actually get done, but I'm worried that it could result in the same issues nonetheless. I'd like to hear from others on the subject though, and find out what everyone feels is the safest route to take here. Lore affects us all, so I wanna make sure everyone's happy with the way it's decided for it to be handled. On a different note, I'll be adding the new rules to the rules page very shortly, likely some time within the next day. So, if anyone has any other suggestions or concerns about 'em, now's your chance to bring it up. Anything from unnecessary rules to adding overlooked rules to fixing grammatical errors, I wanna hear whatever you guys have to say about 'em so that everyone's comfortable and happy with 'em.
Reason I asked for more definition of "timely fashion" is that I have had to deal with having the staff resolve a few things and it took a month before I got a reply back, dragging out the issue at hand for months due to the lack of it being in a "timely fashion". I wouldn't want to wish that kind of dragged out resolution of others.
In the past we've had to include almost all staff members in any sort of report or topic that comes up, which could take a very long time to get anything done. Recently, staff members have been encouraged to take matters into their own hands and are allowed to be the final say on a matter by themselves, usually. This dramatically speeds up the response process to as short as one or two days. I think the longest I've seen a report take was 4 days, with this system. And as always, if you feel your report is not getting the attention it requires, it is absolutely alright, in fact even encouraged, to give one of us a little poke to remind us about it.
We can speculate on it, as we usually do. That'll take forever. We'll get burnt out thinking about it, stop caring, and go with the familiar as per usual. We have a habit of returning to status quo. Not specifically just with my idea, but I think with the shift in management, it might be time for some fast and loose decision making. Antares has been doing things the same way for a long time, with a mixed bag of results. I personally wouldn't be against trying a whole ton of new stuff to spice things up around here. Worst thing that happens is it doesn't work, and we just revert back to our old ways anyway.
Well, you do make a good point. Besides, I was hoping to receive all necessary feedback by the end of this weekend so that all the structural changes could be finished up by the end of next week. Since I have no intentions to put this off so that more can post, I'll be going ahead and getting everything set up and posting new announcements when necessary to explain all changes more in-depth. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm not still looking for feedback from the community. No matter how small an issue may be, I wanna hear it so that it can be fixed. If one of these changes doesn't work out, there's always the chance for everyone to say so. So, everyone can expect the rules to be up by tomorrow evening. I'll work all night to get 'em set up if I have to, and then I'll see what I can do about getting staff applications up and running. Expect another announcement here soon in regards to that, for all of you interested in applying.
Long timer here, somewhat inactive on SB in general, though, so take my words with a grain of salt. (Also typing on mobile, forgive my messiness) These new rules seem a bit SJW in some bits, more specifically Rule 3 in community guideline expectations. Why would my character, who is a religious, bigoted birb, not discuss the topic of the grounded heathens sexuality? That was just an example but you have to remember that different species react differently to all the SJW stuff. You're effectively shutting down RP scenarios, or allowing people to abuse them with this rule. "I'm offended by you talking about my characters religion so wrongly, please cease and desist." And this server is 17+, if people cannot handle In-Character criticism of their characters... then God help them when they find out how accepting and understanding the REAL world is. We don't need to babysit people if we're making the server have these age restrictions. I'm sure an (almost) adult can handle their feelings, especially when it's something as simple as sexuality or identity. The real world doesn't shield you as much as the Internet, and if you're gay, transgender, furry, whatever, you gotta prepare for that, and in an environment where they can't even physically harm you, and you always have an escape (I.E: turning off the computer), its the perfect place to get used to it. This rule shouldn't be here. I understand you want everyone to feel safe and stop being dicks to eachother, but this rule seems to specifically stop characters from being dicks to other characters. Conflict is interesting, and it's damn fun! Especially if it doesn't involve OOC bickering, but instead IC. Now, I understand that it's 400 years into the future and most humans would be accepting of human sexuality by now and what-not, but you have to remember. People don't like people being different. Sure, you're a Bronco's Fan, and I'm a Packer's Fan, but I still dislike your choice for being different in your likings. Many people do! Humans simply don't like things that are different, and I'm sure that homophobia, trans...hatred or whatever it is will be less common in the future, but it's human nature to dislike different things. There's going to be racists, there's going to be homophobes, there's going to be people against others cutting off their dicks and shit. It's just natural for humans to do so. As for the wiki and lore. I have mixed feelings about this. I like how it's now in the hands of the community, instead of the hands of the staff. Why would a mayor run the police department, after all? Sure the moderators can be good at writing lore, but that's not what they signed on for. However. It's the unrestricted anarchy with the wiki that worries me. We all remember Shadow Avians and Wreth's Floran 'lore' about them being able to grow guns and make ships out of plant material. The community will always have differing opinions on how the lore can be intrepreted. That's why we should vote, or the moderators should choose someone from a list of volunteers to write the lore on each race. Not choosing one person to do all of it, but instead to specialize. I, for example, don't know anything about Glitch Lore or Hylotl Lore. Why should I write about that instead of focusing on what I do best, Avian lore? What I'm saying is that for the wiki, setting things up with specializers would be amazing for it. Have a bunch of threads up looking for people interested in writing about a certain lore based on Chucklefishes foundation. Then, by moderators or popular vote, accept one or two and have them write it out! After that, you could release it for open editing on the wiki, but drastic changes are to be viewed over by the Lore Specialist. That's just my two cents. The rest of his stuff is looking pretty decent. I'm liking this new change in the community!
I've been iffy about that rule for quite a long while now, but have been hesitant to get rid of it or change it for the sake of making sure no one was overly offended by anything they saw or read on the server. But, I really can't argue against your point about it shutting down potential RP, which is something that I've never been okay with. I'll modify the rule to get rid of the bit regarding in-character interactions; As long as everyone can keep in-character separate from out of character, then no issues should arise. As for the wiki part, I've decided to go with Node's suggestion on this. I don't yet have the lore forums set up, which I plan on doing, but wiki editors will be the only ones given power to edit whatever lore pages are created. Discussion on what should or shouldn't be added will take place in the lore forums under different relevant threads, and the wiki editors will decide what's best fit to be included and what isn't. This way, the lore is still in the hands of the community, but there'll be some order to it. Anyone can still apply for wiki editor, of course, if they wanna get involved in the writing of lore.
