Discussion about Dev threads and the Factory

[Danger Arceneau]

No.

It would be the following as it pertains to companies.

• To start a subsidiary of a Tier V+ company at III.
• To start a company with an abnormal amount/unrelated operations.

And then I would like to add.

• To become the owner of a canon company.

Perfect!

I'll put that in to clarify! Thanks. Like i said, please correct my verbaige with anything or toss in ideas. I want to make sure we are all putting in input.

• Anything created with restricted Items. ( IE the gathering of the resource or the link to where it was purchased along with a link where the original resource mining was gained and the development of said tech with that resource)
• Anything that does not have at the very least three reasonable and balanced weaknesses to prevent powergaming.
• Warships over 1500m.
• Flagships.
• Stealth Tech.
• Powerarmor.
• Force Artifacts or Holocrons ( Not including personal holocrons).
• Any item that is alchemized.
• Any Force nullification items without reasonable weaknesses.
• Moving / creating of a new Company Headquarters.
• To start a subsidiary of a Tier V+ company at III.
• To start a company with an abnormal amount/unrelated operations.
• To become the owner of a canon company.

Any more thoughts? Ideas? Able to write this more coherently? lol

 

[Danger Arceneau]

I'm still tied up about the following for alchemized things.

What would be considered baseline products? What does that entail?

How about 1 thread per additional modification, and require a baseline product to standardize from?

 

[Ordo]

Alchemized swords are canon and thus need no dev, with someone subs a standard sword that is lightsaber resistant and eversharps it is basically canon. adiing anything beyond that I say dev it. Everything else including what Darth two face (Janus) said I agree with.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

Thanks @ordo. I did not know that. Awesome. I'll add that clarification in!


We are doing great guys!

 

[Camellia Swift]

Sorry I was indisposed in class but followed everything on my phone. I agree with the thus said statements.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

[member="Ordo"] how about this.


Any item that is alchemized beyond an existing canon precedent.

• Anything created with restricted Items. ( IE the gathering of the resource or the link to where it was purchased along with a link where the original resource mining was gained and the development of said tech with that resource)
• Anything that does not have at the very least three reasonable and balanced weaknesses to prevent powergaming.
• Warships over 1500m.
• Flagships.
• Stealth Tech.
• Powerarmor.
• Force Artifacts or Holocrons ( Not including personal holocrons).
• Any item that is alchemized beyond an existing canon precedent.
• Any Force nullification items without reasonable weaknesses.
• Moving / creating of a new Company Headquarters.
• To start a subsidiary of a Tier V+ company at III.
• To start a company with an abnormal amount/unrelated operations.
• To become the owner of a canon company.

[member="Tefka"]

 

[Tefka]

[member="Camellia Swift"] [member="Danger Arceneau"] [member="Noah Corek"] [member="Ordo"] [member="Darth Janus"]

I want two things out of this discussion.

1. An easier way for Factory Judges to judge entries by knowing when and when not to enforce Development Threads, while at the same time helping the member to improve their entry. The latter is most important to me.

2. An easier way for members to know what is required of them when a Development Thread is enforced and why it is enforced.


I have come to the following conclusions:

1. Creating a list of items that players will have to navigate through to know what will require development threads will increase difficulty prior to making a submission as they'll have to hunt down what they need to know - and they'll likely have to do this for every entry, as they'll forget. Therefore, I should not enforce this measure.

2. It will be easier for a FJ to enforce things on a case-by-case level.


So I rescind my previous solution and provide a new one:

1. When a development thread is required by the Factory Judge (on a case-by-case basis), it should be provided like so:

No Development Thread
-Here are the edits I require as Factory Judge in this submission for me to approve it with no Development Thread.

Development Thread: X Posts.
-Here are the edits I require as FJ in this submission for me to approve it with a Development Thread, X being the amount of posts required in the Development Thread.

Ideas:
-Here are some ideas for you if you would like to consider them to help you improve this submission.

 

[Noah Corek]

I was indisposed in class and personal events, but I agree with the post that [member="Tefka"] posted above, this seems the way to go. I personally like it because if we had no dev threads, you could make anything within reason, but I don't like dev threads for everything because that would discourage the use of the factory and make us FJ's look lazy and complacent, so I think the case-by-case basis is the best idead.

 

[Caulder Dune]

No Development Thread -Here are the edits I require as Factory Judge in this submission for me to approve it with no Development Thread. Development Thread: X Posts. -Here are the edits I require as FJ in this submission for me to approve it with a Development Thread, X being the amount of posts required in the Development Thread. Ideas: -Here are some ideas for you if you would like to consider them to help you improve this submission.

Well, yes, this works fine for me.

 

[Tefka]

It will be a requirement.

FJ's not following this would be warned, probably two times, before being relieved due to a failure to follow the requirements of being an FJ.

I do not find it problematic or disagreeable to require an FJ to post that in response to every submission.

No Development Thread -
(insert stuff here)
Development Thread - X Posts
(insert stuff here)
Ideas - (not required of the FJ but encouraged)
(insert stuff here)

 

[Danger Arceneau]

I like the new proposition, but i also think that the above list we compiled can be a good reference in the Factory Judge forum for us to go back to.


When in doubt, we can research and ask each other as well what we think and where to go from there. I think the list we came up pretty much covers what normally needs a dev thread. So on a case-by-case basis, we can still have some form of uniformity in our thought process.


How does that sound?

[member="Tefka"] and everyone else?

 

[Tefka]

I like the idea of having a set precedent list in the FJ forum for FJ's to reference.

I don't think it should be required, but I love the idea of having a reference guide, and anyone who contributes to it and maintains it (maintenance is the priority here) will increase the longevity of their career as a voluntary FJ by tenfold.

And get cookies.

 

[Camellia Swift]

Cookies are good!

 

[Danger Arceneau]

I like the idea of having a set precedent list in the FJ forum for FJ's to reference.

I don't think it should be required, but I love the idea of having a reference guide, and anyone who contributes to it and maintains it (maintenance is the priority here) will increase the longevity of their career as a voluntary FJ by tenfold.

And get cookies.

I'll be happy to maintain it.

As long as we do what we agreed to where [member="Raziel"] put it nicely:

I think there needs to be a mechanism for adding new items to the list of items that need Dev. Maybe judges discussion and admin approval of any new items going onto the list as they come up?

Once it is approved by an admin as a reference, I can add it to our "Dev thread reference guide."

And if anything that is up there that one feel should be taken off, again we can discuss and then tell the faction admin to get approval to remove it and go from there.


[member="Tefka"] and everyone else.

Here is what we have so far.

• Anything created with restricted Items. ( IE A. The mining resource thread or B. Link to purchase of restricted item along with the sellers original resource mining thread.)
• Anything that does not have at the very least three reasonable and balanced weaknesses to prevent powergaming.
• Warships over 1500m.
• Flagships.
• Stealth Tech.
• Powerarmor.
• Force Artifacts or Holocrons ( Not including personal holocrons).
• Any item that is alchemized beyond an existing canon precedent.
• Any Force nullification items without reasonable weaknesses.
• Moving / creating of a new Company Headquarters.
• To start a subsidiary of a Tier V+ company at III.
• To start a company with an abnormal amount/unrelated operations.
• To become the owner of a canon company.

 

[Tefka]

Make a new thread for it and pin it, [member="Danger Arceneau"]

And add an addendum at the top that this list is not to be used as a requirement for judging submissions, it is only a reference guide.

 

[Camellia Swift]

Looks like a nice reference then when judging, especially for a mass or minor produced gear for groups.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

Make a new thread for it and pin it, [member="Danger Arceneau"]

And add an addendum at the top that this list is not to be used as a requirement for judging submissions, it is only a reference guide.

Will do. I'd like to wait to see if the other judges have to say or maybe add to the reference list.

 

[Ordo]

I agree with the proposition as it reads. Concurrent concurrences of concurrence be ever upon thee.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I agree with what was said, and I hope there will be ways for us to discuss this as time goes on and we see how this goes. As long as we can continue to make this a better system, I believe that what we have in place will be very successful.

[member="Tefka"] [member="Ordo"] [member="Danger Arceneau"] [member="Camellia Swift"] [member="Noah Corek"] <-Stalker [member="Darth Janus"]

 

[Raziel]

Works for me. The reference and discussion is key if we want to stay consistent when working on a case-by-case basis.