Q4 2025 Parole

[Kherty]

*snip*

Luke, you did say you don't want an essay but I want to reply with precision because this discussion risks becoming very unfocused, when the core issue is actually, very small.

You frame the OF "rework" as a reciprocal arrangement, with expanded and more perks, rights etc..., and on one side, and activity on the other, with the intent that the OFs should represent "the best" that the community has to offer. The problem is not that standards exists, it is that the mechanism chosen to enforce those standards is incoherent with the stated goal.

The "rework" wants to add new and intensified obligations that are procedural and coercive in nature, by way of mandatory individual activity minimum, essentially forcing virtually every player, quarterly audits, expanded reporting requirements, as well as formalized compliance checks. These obligations are enforced onto individual members as a condition of legitimacy for the OFs.

In contrast, most of what has been emphasized as the "kept side of the bargain", consists of visual identifiers, tags, roundels, titles, and cosmetics. However polished these are (I've seen the dev preview video, it is neat, but...) they are not functionally equivalent to compulsory and coercive individual activity and administrative exposure. That "exchange" introduced by the "rework", is therefore structurally skewed. More importantly, the "rework" does not actually measure what it claims to value; if OFs are meant to be "the best" then excellence must be evaluated in terms of quality: leadership, continuity, narrative stewardship, diplomacy, events, infrastructure, long term contribution... That current "rework" does not assess these directly. Instead, it substitutes availability for excellence, by putting legitimacy with mandatory presence, that's not an incentive toward making the OFs "the best"; it's disciplinary.

There's also a process issue that cannot be ignored. Declaring that the rework "will remain in force", while inviting feedback is not consultation. Consultation implies that affected people have an opportunity to influence and discuss whether and how a system, rework, etc is adopted, not merely how it's adjusted after implementation. On changes this structural, the absence of prior, formal consultation with Official Factions (and players in general) is precisely what makes the measures feel coercive rather than collaborative.

Finally, this approach does not account for the reality of a volunteer-driven community, with a limited and dwindling player pool. In an environment/community such as ours here, mandatory individual activity requirements will not generate better RP or stronger factions etc.. They incentivize minimal compliance, literal clock-punching, and the concentration of effort onto a small core, while adding bureaucracy on top of already existing administrative burden.

Do note that this is not an argument against activity or responsibility or standards. It is an argument that accountability should sit at the faction command level and be evaluated on outcomes and custodianship, not enforced through compulsory individual presence backed by largely symbolic incentives. If OFs are meant to "lead by example", then the system governing them should be one that helps shape excellence, one that measures what "excellence" and "being the best" actually are, and one that relies on trust and responsibility, rather than uniform, undifferentiated pressure applied indiscriminately.

---

"Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." - Hunter S. Thompson
Favorite song
Second favorite song
Third favorite song (Changed: 26th Oct. 2025)
Did you sent something to me/factions/etc. and I forgot about it? Please send a message >here<!