Let's get rid of the concept of Staff Requiring Development Threads. Period. End of Story.

[Tanomas Graf]

As a former Factory Judge, I believe this could be a nice chance to rekindle a larger sense of interest in the Factory. That way people can focus on making the submission as creative as they want without having to worry about ten, twenty, or even thirty posts for just a a few extra special features. And it's not like overpowered submissions will make it through now, Judges are as vigilant as ever in making sure that things are fair.

tl;dr I think this is a great idea

Can I have an Executor-class Star Dreadnought now?

 

[Lynn Nantaris]

[member="Tefka"]

This is an interesting idea, and surprised you haven't said this sooner. I see pros and cons both ways and maybe that is due to my brief time as a Judge. If I am understanding your over arcing reasoning based on this and other posts you have made, you are in a get back to the root of rp. Make things less about rules and must do things and more about the passion and love of writing with a more self governing atmosphere.

I like that view.

Having said that, I am a bit on both sides. On one hand, dev threads can be useless writing and difficult when you are doing a thread like, "should I pick the red one or the blue one? Ah, let's get overly detailed about this trivial question." It also opens the door to ideas people may have, but didn't do because they don't want to dev it.

On the other hand, I have seen people try to get away with seriously bad things and dev threads curbed it. I remember looking over a sub and thinking, "this isn't bad." Then I read the Dev thread and saw what theyou were eventually wanting to do with it which threw up red flags. Dev threads can help a judge and the board to see what is being made and how they intend to use it.

Having given a nutshell on both sides I say no they should not be completely done away with, but maybe more of a pull back away from them. A bit to make easier stuff get through faster, but to keep OP or plain silly stuff in check.

 

[Jamie Pyne]

I would be in favor of this if people put viable weaknesses to their submissions rather than

"It's heavy." - When weight is irrelevant to the submission. (For instance "It's heavy" but it's a tank. :mellow: )

I'm fine with the removal of dev threads if we enforce the need for logical weaknesses.

 

[BE-183]

Sounds decent. Strongly doubt it will enforce balance, I imagine if people want their invincible armour they'll still get it, but good to remove bureaucracy - that is, excessive procedure, if it can enhance the factory.

If this goes through, it'll be nice to still have the option of dev threads for the storytelling element without them being compulsory.

 

[GhostOfProtocol]

[member="Jamie Pyne"]

I agree with Taylor here that if dev threads are removed then we need logical weaknesses. I think some overpowered things are acceptable if they are balanced with enough weaknesses here. Weaknesses I think will be key if there's no dev threads to complete.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Jamie Pyne"]

That's another fight, another battle. I'm not looking to enforce balance here, with this decision, though. Cira has my full confidence that she can tackle balance on her own.

I am tackling the concept of time, and its battle is everlasting.

*bangs the drama-gong*

 

[Ariealla Vareldi]

[member="Jayden Sanders"]

I would argue that there is something of a check and balance with standards, since two different FJ's/admins need to give a seal of approval already. Some things are much easier to put standards on as well, i.e. the ships and vehicles, while personal technology is pretty much up in the air already. Outside of Canon items and RM's I could probably put up most everything my characters own, and expect maybe one or two small dev threads for only the most abnormal of the bunch.

And even then I can't imagine they'd be particularly scrutinized. As it is most of what dev threads are is justifying the item's existence and possession by certain characters. At least, from my extremely limited experience.

 

[GhostOfProtocol]

[member="Ariealla Vareldi"]

You can have that one. I forgot the two step seal of approval already exists.

 

[Miss Blonde]

[member="Tefka"] but then where will I get my false sense of accomplishment and superiority?! D:

But seriously, I think it's a great idea! Make it happen captain!

 

[Cyrus Tregessar]

I think before I tried out judging I would've been all for this. Now I'm not sure.

On the one hand I have never been fond of dev threads done in the traditional sense. They are basically as Tef says, generally unnecessary time sinks used, frankly speaking, as a deterrent to factory use. I don't know a better way to paint that, the idea behind them is provide a limiter so when someone brings something overpowered they get slapped with a 50 post dev requirement (or whatever) and decide to tone the sub down rather than do the work.

Thing is, that's often necessary, so there needs to be some limiting factor in play. Maybe having balanced Strengths and Weaknesses and relying on the report system is enough, I'm not really sure. As I understand it the abundance of rules and standards came down to trying to even things out in the Factory and set a clear standard. Perhaps that is the wrong approach. Is the Factory less creative now? I'm not sure, certainly I got stuff approved (that was previously banned) in the past by just talking it out with Ayden.

So at the end of the day I think I tentatively support this.

Though, now I wonder about flagships and ship size limits as well...

My idea here is thus: Given that we have all of 0 flagships made since the rules on them were implemented it's pretty fair to say that they're a shining example of dev getting in the way of people getting stuff done. On the other hand I think it's quite reasonable to not want everybody and their grandmother running around with a Super Star Destroyer.

Since the motivation behind all this (and I could well be wrong here) seems to be the diminishing map game, in part due to restrictions to entry and such, maybe a reasonable fix is to allow major factions, all major factions, one free flagship sized/capable vessel off the bat. That's a pretty significant incentive to go major, I think, and helps give people a big toy to play with. Future flagships would, I don't know, require at least enough IC posts/threads/whatever to demonstrate a significant effort on the part of the faction in question to go about and expend the resources necessary to make such a large and powerful vessel.

Edit: And after reading through the whole thread, especially the example from the factory made by me, I'm more supportive of this. It felt damned absurd to have to enforce that rule for an inherently under-powered and harmless ship. If you're getting bogged down in the regulation and bureaucratic nonsense it means you need to dial back on the bs, not keep enforcing useless rules. I hate this in my real life job, why would I not want to see it removed where I can actually effect change?

 

[Negative Prime]

[member="Jayden Sanders"]
Not that that is my problem I've helped quite a few people dev there gear.

 

[Rusty]

I'm gonna play devil's advocate here for a moment.

The purpose of a dev thread isn't, or at least shouldn't, be to discourage people from posting submissions with unusual properties or that may be overpowered. There's always the temptation to slap someone with dev because you know they'll give you trouble if you outright deny them or demand changes. After all, they wouldn't be submitting their 10 level armor made from six inches of beskar and unicorn poo if they weren't trying to avoid work in the first place. However, that's not what they're there for.

Ideally, a dev thread should be an opportunity. The FJ is acknowledging that the project deserves some extra attention, and rather than arbitrarily nerfing parts of it, they're giving the submitter a chance to work for their stuff. That, I think, is a critical part of the Factory.

If you nix dev threads altogether, outside of the aforementioned restricted materials and what have you, you will simplify the process. There's no denying that. But you also take away that tool that allows more ambitious or creative writers to push boundaries and come up with something awesome.

I get the whole "well the FJ can just nerf it or deny it instead" thing, but I think that's the wrong answer. Each FJ and CJ looks at things a little differently. Each one has their own views and experiences that color the way they handle submissions. Some know ships inside and out, and some know armor. That diversity of thought is important, but it makes it hard to have a standard for what is and isn't OP. I once had a project where one judge demanded several arbitrary changes that would have completely defeated the point of the thing. I second chanced and the next judge was fine with it. The first judge didn't do anything wrong, they simply didn't have the frame of reference needed to get what was going on.

I suspect that, without dev threads, you'll see a lot more cases like that. This, in turn, will increase the workload of the Factory staff, which rather defeats the purpose.

Perhaps you could make the dev threads an option, to be used at the judge's discretion. That's what I usually tried to do as a judge, and it seemed to work. You tend to get a lot less pushback if people have options, rather than just making demands.

 

[Tefka]

I once had a project where one judge demanded several arbitrary changes that would have completely defeated the point of the thing. I second chanced and the next judge was fine with it. The first judge didn't do anything wrong, they simply didn't have the frame of reference needed to get what was going on.

Or that judge just came to a different conclusion based on the same facts.

This isn't an exact science. It's why second chance exists. You'll have those same problems with or without development threads, it's just the nature of the beast that is reality. The same would happen with any other human judges.

We're not robots, and a lot of what I've seen recently from both Admins and members alike leans towards that we should be.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

I would be in favor of this if people put viable weaknesses to their submissions rather than "It's heavy." - When weight is irrelevant to the submission.

Gee, it's like forcing people to come up with strengths and weaknesses for tech is contrived and pointless.

 

[Willa Isard]

Generally in real life when you manufacture something you don't make it with the intention of having a dozen weaknesses because then what would be the point of making it. Dev threads can be boring but you have the chance to make a story out of it and have fun.

Either way if we are going back to the factory more how it was could be very nice

 

[Jsc]

[member="Darth Carnifex"]

Submission Name: Glock 17
Strengths: Shoots bullets? Is boring?
Weaknesses: Doesn't shoot hamsters? Is not a Chiappa Rhino? idk.

I feel ya homie. I really, really do.

 

[Judah Dashiell]

I'm all for removing dev threads. Just prepare yourselves for more denials and judges coming down harder on edits rather than saying "you can keep this, but make a thread first."

 

[John Ash]

[member="Tefka"]

I have an example of how well a sub can work for being both extremely useful yet balanced if people just balance things and work with judges on it. It is one of mine and the sub I am most proud of, but I feel it sort of fits what you seem to be aiming for by the changes.

Silicar

I feel dev threads are sort of both needed and yet also are a royal pain in the butt. On the one hand there are plenty of subs I've seen, please don't ask for specific examples as I am extremely tired while writing this, that I felt never should have been approved yet were because the person had submitted it with dev threads. Then there were subs I saw that required dev that I felt was fine without it just because it had one of those magic dev requiring components, such as molecular shields. So I see how removing it would fix those issues.

My other issue though is that I have seen dev work as a great deterrent for making something over the top. People generally make a sub and then wait to see how much dev the judges say is required. I have seen this completely block a sub as the person couldn't or wouldn't do the required dev and so made edits that made it more balanced. I have also seen people try to argue with judges over exactly why something was so overpowered and the dev requirement made a good fall back for the judge when the other person refused to dial back their sub. Now if dev was dropped in general these situations, which are a little too common, would have to have an RPJ get involved because the judge just can't fall back on the dev thread required rule that helps them enforce some balance.

Now with that said, I would say a relaxing of the rules for dev being required on stuff like molecular shielding but also the rules for dev thread being in place that helps judges out with dealing with people bound and determined to get an overpowered sub approved. The gradual relaxing of dev thread rules is really what I would enjoy most and would be the best route for staff in gauging how people react to the changes.

 

[Rusty]

Or that judge just came to a different conclusion based on the same facts.

This isn't an exact science. It's why second chance exists. You'll have those same problems with or without development threads, it's just the nature of the beast that is reality. The same would happen with any other human judges.

We're not robots, and a lot of what I've seen recently from both Admins and members alike leans towards that we should be.

So why take away a tool that allows for greater flexibility and cooperation? By all means, make its use optional, but leave it in the toolbox.

 

[Tefka]

Gee, it's like forcing people to come up with strengths and weaknesses for tech is contrived and pointless.

You wouldn't be forced to come to feedback threads to throw shade if you were capable of thinking outside the box instead of throwing tantrums at Factory Judges.

So why take away a tool that allows for greater flexibility and cooperation? By all means, make its use optional, but leave it in the toolbox.

Because if the tool breaks, you throw it away. My claim is that this tool is systematically broken, and I've already elaborated on why for quite some time now.