Making Changes to Canon Corporations

[Gorba the Hutt]

OOC logic: If there was any abuse it has been corrected. No current abuse means status quo OOC is advantageous and a shift is unnecessary.
IC logic: Sasha said it best, but I will expound on her example to the audience's indubitable chagrin.

Even with the Gulag plague causing the collapse of many corporations it doesn't follow that those same corporate brand names wouldn't arise again. For instance: Blas Tech collapses one hundred years into the Gulag Plague. Another hundred years later someone decides to startup an arms dealing company, they want a name that will get them immediate recognition, draw on a long tradition, and seize on the previous incarnation's stereotype of quality to form a positive image in the minds of the consumer. So they name their corporation Blas Tech Industries.

Or.

Remnants of BlasTech actually survived the plague, because it was such a massive bastion of capitalism that even if 2/3 of its employees and executives died off it could still function. Weapons manufacturers are always going to find a market and thus they quickly rose from the ashes to regain their former glory.

That Said...

We got rid of canon characters, because they should have died off long ago. Those on the side of getting rid of canon corporations want to do so to enhance the uniqueness of this site's player-created lore. So we want to get rid of canon corporations too. Next? Let's get rid of canon factions, because they all should have collapsed as well.

It's a slippery slope. We need to draw a bright line where canon is infringing on OOC and where canon is so ingrained in the lore that if you get rid of that portion you might as well take an eraser to "Star Wars." I.E. no more X-wings because no more Incom? No more TIEs? Get rid of those icons and we might as well call ourselves a Star Trek board.

But that's just my hyperbolized opinion.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

I vote no to this. Now firstly I feel the first two arguments are inherently very weak. But I've always felt that the companies factory section of this site, and how they work and grow, have been in need of reform. However this is not the right course of action for making any changes. Now with "Canon names are abused to gain shortcuts to influence/power." Perhaps there is a larger issue at hand. "Abuse to gain shortcuts to influence/power" is what you really need to stop and changing a name does not accomplish that.

 

[Quietus]

I can see good points from both sides.

As the CEO of Kuat Drive Yards, for me a name change makes absolutely no sense at all. It was written into my character's history that the KDY did, indeed, collapse due to the Gulag Virus. But when it was re-opened and built back up, there was absolutely no point in renaming a business that has a historical, canonical prestige and clout. I'm rather opposed to the name change, as I do not think a name chage will fix the inherent problems being brought up here.

That's like saying "members are abusing each other with pies, so we're not going to call them pies anymore."

The problems are not a company issue, they are a member issue.

If members are abusing the system to gain power through companies, then the company system needs to be looked-over, not the names. Changing Kuat Drive Yards to Kuat Industries doesn't change what I can do with my Tier 5 company. I can still abuse the company system, I can still make power-grabs through large companies by building them up just as I've always been able to, and I can still be a douche about it if I want to.

Denoting that the current incarnation of KDY is not the same as the original, canonical KDY also does not change anything, and is kind of a given anyways. Yeah, it's the same company, but it's run a little differently and it now serves a different government. But KDY has historically served many governments, so this also makes little difference.


So a counter proposal to this? New company creation and ownership rules such as:

A writer may not have more than 3 companies of Tier 5 and over.

Tier 5 companies may not have more than X number of subsidiaries. Any additional subsidiaries must be controlled by other unique writers.

 

[Theophenes]

I don't think the name change is meaningful. I also don't think an asterisk is all that practical. If anyone's exploiting canon company ownership in way other than being more visible than non-canon ownership, I haven't seen it. That having been said, many canon corporations have sounder logic for still existing than factions do--corporate structures outlasted governments all the time in Star Wars canon.


In canon, Czerka was around from Revan to new Republic. The Banking Clan has to have been around as long, mostly independently--we're still using the galactic credit, after all.



The truth is that even though it seem legally weird, corporations can outlast dynasties and factions, and indeed many have. Now, canon companies shouldn't be invulnerable. They shoudl be subject to review. And they won't always win out, either. But frankly, I don't see a practical route to eliminating them, nor do I think any of the proposed options will somehow limit abuse.




That havign been said, I suggest the following rule, or some variation of it, as a counter-point:


If you are submitting a canon company for ownership, you must post a through history from the last point covered on wookiepedia to the present time on the board, explaining the company's dealings during various events.


This will allow the judges of the submission to review the position of the company and discuss its place in the galaxy with the owner with some decent context. Anyway, that's my two cents worth.

 

[Gorba the Hutt]

A writer may not have more than 3 companies of Tier 5 and over. Tier 5 companies may not have more than X number of subsidiaries. Any additional subsidiaries must be controlled by other unique writers.

That puts a cap on the amount of success people have. A lot of people work to expand their corporation by producing threads that other people participate in. By capping the amount they are able to achieve you're effectively capping the incentive for success. Say person X is an extremely energetic writer and is pumping out volumes that contribute to site activity and participation, but then person X hits the cap limit. They have hit an artificial barrier to their success and 'completed the game.' This usually results in a drop in activity and the individual growing bored.

Let's keep the sky as the limit. If members are abusing power let's do what we've always done and take it case by case, rather than creating an entangling web of bureaucracy.

 

[Xalus]

3. Canon names are abused to gain shortcuts to influence/power.

Factions are used to gain influence and power. Companies are fairly similar to government, just profit-driven.

I haven't seen any problems with Canon Corporations, even during my pair of tenures as a Factory Judge.

 

[Sabena Shai]

I do not believe the brand of canon companies should be banned. By brand, I pretty much mean their name, logo, general likeness, product, etc. That brand is a tie to Star Wars Lore - and cutting any tie is a disservice to this site much like saying someone can't roleplaying a Sith, Jedi, Mando, etc.

Plus, since the brand of these companies is very attractive to roleplayers, you can use special stipulations for them in order to encouraged heightened activity with them - much like there's currently a rule about "owners" of these canon companies having posting requirements. These stipulations can easily be modified to get the desired result.

I also believe that any actual, historical ties to the canon company is pretty superficial. There's a 700 year gap, so pretty much most things, even the Republic and One Sith, are more or less in-name only. And it's easy to say that someone resurrected a popular, ancient brand. Staff can move forward by subjecting canon companies to the same judging requirements as every other company - and I would honestly be surprised if they haven't of recent.

Therefore, of the given choices, I would choose "No, they are fine the way they are." Yet if a problem is seen in the use of canon companies, I believe the solution lies elsewhere than the very limited amount of choices presented in the lead.

 

[Sabena Shai]

And to address the specific reasons brought up in the lead:

1. Canon characters/names aren't allowed, companies should be treated the same.

Per the Character Creation Rules, one cannot roleplay Luke Skywalker or Yoda. With a literal interpretation, I can roleplay a character named "Luke Skywalker," someone named after a legendary Jedi from centuries ago in the Star Wars Chaos universe. This can be seen in real life and to an extent in Star Wars Lore (ie. character being deliberately named after another character).

So, the brand of companies could logically be copied if someone knew of them or if the company managed to survive the 400 year dark ages.

2. These canon companies should/would have collapsed during the gulag apocalypse.

It's logical that they wouldn't be at the same level that they were before the Gulag Plague. Yet people survived, and companies are collections of people. Survival seems just as possible as complete collapse - even if that survival is a mere shadow of what it was once before just as many of the Factions mirrored after Star Wars Lore governments.

3. Canon names are abused to gain shortcuts to influence/power.

As I said in my previous post, the brand is very, very desirable. I see that a lot of value could be added to the community if staff tweaks the stipulations of owning a canon brand - regardless of it's a "shortcut to power" or not. I'd rather reward shortcuts to active people that involve the community than to take away an iconic aspect of Star Wars. Yet if staff wants no shortcuts available, then it can be very easy to simply change a judging policy and put all companies on the same level for judgement.