Q4 2025 Parole

[jammi]

As a declaration of interest, I run the CDI who've had their status restored by this decision. I abstained from the staff vote and didn't participate in the discussion.

---

@Kherty - I just want to briefly touch on two points you've raised (I'll leave the rest to any other staff who want to respond).

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.

The rework reduces the required activity level from 3 days a quarter to 2 days. The previous system also required 3 active members at minimum. All the current wording does is explicitly define what counts as an active member, which previously was entirely undefined (and frankly unenforced). An official faction that cannot muster at least 3 players logging 1 hour a month shouldn't be an official faction. The idea that this approach places an oppressive burden on each individual member of the faction is frankly ridiculous.

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.

The official faction rework went through a large public consultation over a year ago. There was also a lot of feedback gathered from the recent discussions from the Q4 activity check. The launch of the rework explicitly is not a consultation, it is the beginning of the new system. Feedback will guide how that functions moving forward, but we're not further delaying desperately needed structural changes even longer. This isn't the British government trying to build national infrastructure.

Factions that see this as coercive pressure are entitled to hold those views, but there are also responsibilities expected of them if they do want to retain the title without it being an entirely meaningless and hollow designator. Staff fundamentally want to turn this community around and reverse the years-long decline and death of standards. Adopting official factions as the standard bearers of the change we want to see seems like a reasonable approach.

I also appreciate that you don't think the current system is assessing for the characteristics we say we want, however the assessments are qualitative rather than checkbox. There's a bullet point list of things that we'd see as positive indicators and negative indicators that will guide staff decisions. If all we can see is clock punching, and the faction cannot scrape together any examples of roleplay they're cultivating, that group probably also shouldn't be an official faction.

If groups feel that this is an onerous burden and they're not receiving any tangible benefits from being an official faction, they're not obliged to keep being one.

Liberty Navy First Fleet [LN] 20:40:00 - Haste dev faction

lmao?

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.