Official Faction Spring Cleaning

[Unseelie]

To be very blunt, elgato, this is why we don't point out a faction in specific:
If I were to copy over the faction status of X.
Point out 13 mistakes, and then ask that they fix it, the response would be: "you're not a member, you're not helping, stfu."
Were I to persist, it would get much worse, and moreover, alienate me, while I was trying to make a faction stand up and play right.
Yes, that's loaded with personal biases.
Yes, that's gross.
But lets face it.
The fact that this proposal is here is a testament to the fact that some people think that there are certian factions that need work, but are afraid to point out those exact factions. Yes. People are hiding. They don't want to be perceived as a whiner, or whatnot, because they perceive a problem with any specific faction, and they see this as a good way to do that without coming out as the bad guys. Its a way to organize the whole mess, and make it look decent. Elections instead of a bloody revolution, as it were.

As for flames, it will be a lot worse if we're forced to create individual, pointed threads, because the factions at fault will not be the ones that create them.

---

[Reverend Del]

Okay. So basically it boils down whether admins/mods will have time and whether they will find it reasonable. Fair enough. In this case let's wait for their reply first I'd say. Because regardless of the way this discussion goes it all comes down to one point.

Worst case scenario is actually a single thread breaking into flaming on several times as different people can start flaming in it one after another. Thus possibility growing exponentially. With flaming in such threads being sanction-able it also increases loadout on that part as well. Now that's a nightmare really. A mandatory one as you say. I'm starting to see less reasonable seed in there. While driven by good intentions, but also now seeing unhealthy ambitions (Judge Dredd syndrome) and I'm getting more skeptical about this.

It's important to distinguish between a flamer and an arsonist. A flamer is someone who comes into a thread says something and then sparks a small argument. He would be told to pack it in but nothing more. An arsonist is someone who posts something deliberately inflaming, knowing full well it will lead to a flame war. He should eb punished. Yes if it's too much work then it's a problem and another method of getting the same treatment may be required. I still believe that some factions need an overhaul, this is just the fairest and most equitable way of doing it.

---

Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.

[Treewyrm]

It's important to distinguish between a flamer and an arsonist. A flamer is someone who comes into a thread says something and then sparks a small argument. He would be told to pack it in but nothing more. An arsonist is someone who posts something deliberately inflaming, knowing full well it will lead to a flame war. He should eb punished. Yes if it's too much work then it's a problem and another method of getting the same treatment may be required. I still believe that some factions need an overhaul, this is just the fairest and most equitable way of doing it.

So, you say that only some need that. Why not start discussing them in civilized manner then? Or are you afraid of being a person who points out and thus want to force them to start in this mandatory manner somehow allowing you to speak whereas in truth you can speak at any given time? I'm sorry, but this is how I'm starting to view this after reading some posts made there, and I was thinking better of the idea at first. You know, if there is something you think is wrong - go ahead and discuss it, there is nothing wrong with discussing for as long as it remains civilized talk and doesn't degenerate into flame fest. Problem is - mostly likely it will, but then again may be not, it's how you keep the discussion going. Only flamers can be held liable for flaming. If something is wrong in your opinion, if something doesn't meet your high standards criteria - speak it out, but that doesn't necessarily that person(s) will agree with you. People have opinions and there is no singular ideal, but there is a set of requirements though, so don't mix those up really. Forcing other people here come and say "are we ok still?" on a regular basis, that's not a path to go in my opinion and it's getting dangerously close to "guilty until proven otherwise" kind of thing. Fair treatment isn't a holy banner, equality and fairness are different things too, fairness doesn't always remain the same across various people. I've seen people starting flaming, I've seen people staring civilized discussions, why trying to reinvent the wheel here if it's already there may I ask, and putting much hassle into it?

[Reverend Del]

So, you say that only some need that. Why not start discussing them in civilized manner then? Or are you afraid of being a person who points out and thus want to force them to start in this mandatory manner somehow allowing you to speak whereas in truth you can speak at any given time? I'm sorry, but this is how I'm starting to view this after reading some posts made there, and I was thinking better of the idea at first. You know, if there is something you think is wrong - go ahead and discuss it, there is nothing wrong with discussing for as long as it remains civilized talk and doesn't degenerate into flame fest. Problem is - mostly likely it will, but then again may be not, it's how you keep the discussion going. Only flamers can be held liable for flaming. If something is wrong in your opinion, if something doesn't meet your high standards criteria - speak it out, but that doesn't necessarily that person(s) will agree with you. People have opinions and there is no singular ideal, but there is a set of requirements though, so don't mix those up really. Forcing other people here come and say "are we ok still?" on a regular basis, that's not a path to go in my opinion and it's getting dangerously close to "guilty until proven otherwise" kind of thing. Fair treatment isn't a holy banner, equality and fairness are different things too, fairness doesn't always remain the same across various people. I've seen people starting flaming, I've seen people staring civilized discussions, why trying to reinvent the wheel here if it's already there may I ask, and putting much hassle into it?

The wheel isn't already there, every time I have seen feedback threads they have descended into flame fest and been locked, before a resolution could be made. That is not productive. This is a method of ensuring that everyone gets the same treatment, that everyone meets the same requirements, as it stands it is not possible to do this, as they invariably start out as trial by forums and degenerate from there. I could start a discussion on any number of factions, but I would be seen as a whiner even though that is not the case, I simply would like to see all factions being equal. It does not hurt to have this feedback system in operation it does not remove freedoms and it is simply a method of checks and balances.


I must thank Lohingren at this point, if his feedback thread continues in the manner it has started then it shows that my logic is sound. I do believe that we can have a civilised discussion on the various factions, if people want to do it voluntarily then so much the better. However all factions should be brought up to date in such a fashion, not just some.

---

Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.

[Treewyrm]

As far as I know last few threads discussing Keepers haven't been locked up and there is less flaming in them. So it works without a need of a mandatory mechanism you see. Personally I'm just starting them, participate in them and those started by others when I have time for that and have something to add, something to ask, something to answer, not when there is nothing to do as of yet and I have other concerns. Finally, you do really care how others would see you as a whiner or whatever? Now now, that's not good, don't think bad of yourself or how bad others might think of you, because that's where many things can go wrong. If requirements of some faction there are not met - discuss it. To cut it short: keep it voluntarily, if someone who you think is wrong - start a discussion then, but forcing people going through that - this is the part where I disagree with you. Putting this guilty until proven otherwise with a mandatory tag on a side in the name of idealistic fair treatment is unreasonable to me. Like anyone else you have the right to start a discussion, so use it smartly. Present it in a sound and solid form, your point(s) and discuss. Finally, if you completely disagree with something existing - make a better variant, propose it, in the end be a builder, be a creator, but not a self-proclaimed judge, because as it as we already have enough ambulance chasers here in this community.

I'd like to believe in this idea, I really do, but on the other hand... On the other hand I'm a pragmatical and skeptical person, but also an artist.

[Cawdor]

(This sounds like an expansive compromise. Because it would mean to drop the thought of fairness towards the new factions and the really high standards they have to maintain nower days.)
However, I suggest we stop talking and start with our guinea pig(s) first. In the process of checking the official factions, that actually want to be checked, people may lose their inhibition to work on/question their own proposal or start giving the others feedback as they my loose their fear of being flamed. Should be the first step to help people to get used to the process and open their minds to it.
So they may not be surprised (or angry) about people who kindly demand an update of a proposal.;)

---

.

.

[Equinox]

You need to be careful you are not trying to make factions the way you thing they should be because theres something about that that just doesn't feel right.

Tree has some very valid points .. To me it seems like a few people don't like the way a few factions are run and want a chance to give there views on it .. Fair enough but I don't see why this needs to be in a public domain where all manor of flames will happen .. If your not happy with something to do with factions PM Hoodlum or the faction leader and try and deal with these problems privately.

The idea is a good one in essence but I have a feeling this will just give a place for the whiners and flamers to vent there anger at what they "think" a faction should be run which in turn will leave allot of hard feeling and the community really doesn't need such a thing.

Forcing everyone to comply because you have a problem with a couple is wrong in my opinion.

And im not just saying this because I don't want the factions im in to be re-evaluated because I would put The Brotherhood up in a heart beat and I don't believe RM would have many problems.

But there is allot of hard feelings towards some factions and how they are run, there back story's, the not FL enough and I think this would just get very messy very quick.

And lets remember that everyone has there own opinion on how something should be done, on how a faction on Discovery should be run but yours is not always the right one.

Hope that makes sense.

---

[Reverend Del]

You need to be careful you are not trying to make factions the way you thing they should be because theres something about that that just doesn't feel right.

Tree has some very valid points .. To me it seems like a few people don't like the way a few factions are run and want a chance to give there views on it .. Fair enough but I don't see why this needs to be in a public domain where all manor of flames will happen .. If your not happy with something to do with factions PM Hoodlum or the faction leader and try and deal with these problems privately.

The idea is a good one in essence but I have a feeling this will just give a place for the whiners and flamers to vent there anger at what they "think" a faction should be run which in turn will leave allot of hard feeling and the community really doesn't need such a think.

Forcing everyone to comply because you have a problem with a couple is wrong in my opinion.

And im not just saying this because I don't want the factions im in to be re-evaluated because I would put The Brotherhood up in a heart beat and I don't believe RM would have many problems.

But there is allot of hard feelings towards some factions and how they are run, there back story's, the not FL enough and I think this would just get very messy very quick.

And lets remember that everyone has there own opinion on how something should be done, on how a faction on Discovery should be run but yours is not always the right one.

Hope that makes sense.

The RoS put up their faction status yesterday for critiquing and feedback and I must say it went very well indeed. some points were clarfied and the thread was well intentioned, in the main, yes it nearly got messy but it was reined in quite quickly.

Now the RoS is one of the factions whose back story is not entirely Freelancer, and yet they were able to avoid turning that sticking point into a flame war and take into consideration a number of points raised.

In my opinion these factions are old enough not to worry about back story so long as they have persued attempts to make themselves gel with the rest of discovery, after all that's what it's about, a cohesive server adding different politics to the whole of Discovery. We are not a bunch of Clans interacting with each other only when the firefights break out.

If more factions do this voluntarily including the ones that need it, then I would simply suggest a feedback forum to keep it all in one place. I am not intending someone to follow how I think a faction should be run. I would just like to see all faction status containing the same information that any new faction proposal must contain. At the present moment in time a large quantity of them do not.

Again I must thank the RoS and the QCRF for showing that this can be done without it breaking out into a flame war.

---

Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.

[bluntpencil2001]

Equinox makes a very good point, and I was almost guilty of that in the other thread.

However, I think that now that it has been brought up, it will most likely be less of an issue, right?

---

[Treewyrm]

In any case, my participation in this will be strictly voluntarily, there are many things at hand and I have much work to do (for instance I need to finish OC gunboat, put some more time-consuming experiments on hitboxes and such, and there are more plans ahead). So it'll be when there is a right time for it, or when there is a precedent, until then I'd like to be more concerned with the actual development, story writing and hopefully more time spent in game. Everyone has a different amount of free time and amount of time they can spend at forums.