Removal of Dev Thread Requirements

[Allyson Locke]

In Staff chat last week we were talking about the removal of Dev Threads Requirements in the factory. This would help people get their stuff in and out of the factory a lot quicker, but what the idea would be that it was either a Deny or Approve system. So If the Judge/Admin/RPJ is going to deny something, they have to put the reasons why they are denying them and if the writer wishes they put it through the second chances by fixing that stuff or asking for another judge to look at it as is.


The Reasons why I want to do this is as follows:

• Avoid the mess of WIP and Under Reviews that sit there
• People hate Dev Threads, trying to make Factory a happy place
• If its OP its going to get denied or reported so that's the control point
• Second Chance will be used more often
• Quicker service with the Approve/Deny concept instead of things sitting for days as they work it out
• Addition of the Rule to prevent incomplete items being posted in factory.

Rule Addition:

A submission posted to the Factory should be ready to be reviewed as is. All dev threads, all research, and all restricted material requirements will be completed prior to posting of the submission, or you risk your submission being denied.

I want to know the Judge's concerns and ideas on this concept. I want to enforce this when the factory opens or within the week.


NOTE: Do not spam me with freak outs on Skype btw. Discuss here and have reasons behind what you're proposing/arguing.

 

[Ordo]

I SUPPORT THE SPENCER FA'EVAAAAA!

Ordo doesn't care and will just go by the rules whatever they may be.

 

[Camellia Swift]

I can get behind this.

I mean for half the stuff we require dev threads for its obvious anyways and they aren't paying attention. Like lightsaber resistant weapons/armor and stealth equipment or vehicles. And then there are the clearly overpowered ones.

We do get a few iffy ones that just barely break the margin though, or at least it depends on whose judging and what we think or know at the time, and those would be the ones I am a little worried would be hurt by this.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

We would need to make extra certain we specify what need dev threads for.

 

[Allyson Locke]

They're not required, they're a suggestion. And a suggestion can be "hey if you do some extra work ie: Dev thread you'd get more wiggle room" [member="Valiens Nantaris"]

 

[Ellie Mors]

Im on a phone at work so I can't really talk as in depth as I'd like. As far as this effects submissions, how would this effect our format for posting replies?

 

[Ellie Mors]

Also, will this mean a radical change in judging submissions, aside from no longer asking for threads? I.e; will we still follow a basic procedure of initial review, final, and approval, or will it become a two step process

 

[Allyson Locke]

[member="Silara Vantai"] Basically it removes the requirement. So if something that is pretty over powered but they didn't do any extra work IE: a dev thread or things that help show that they worked ICly for it. The Submission would get denied.


Example:

Submitter decided to submit a droid that had modified legs that would make it run up to 150mph and carries a super heavy gun. No dev thread or threads that involved the creation of the droid.

(What you would do is instead of suggesting things to fix the submission you would deny it)

Denied:

Reasons:

• Droid metal too light to support heavy gun
• Heavy gun cripples speed
• Physics isn't correct

You could also write a thread helping develop the ability of the droid to carry such weapon, but I suggest changing the above to fit better and resubmit by using the Second Chance thread. Linked [here].

Archive and Deny.

 

[Ashin Varanin]

My suggestion would be to offer each submission's creator a choice: edit to spec or get denied. Denying things without giving their creators a chance to edit is more trouble than it's worth. It'll mean a whole lot of FJs making a whole lot of mistakes and causing a whole lot of drama.

 

[Allyson Locke]

When you put it that way. Yeah. My only thing is the submitted arguing and then something sit in there for weeks.

 

[Ashin Varanin]

[member="Spencer Jacobs"]

Then that's squarely in the FJs' hands to get it right the first time, or admit that they're wrong, so that any attempt at actual contentious argument can be denied. More a matter of training and culture than of making rules.

 

[Allyson Locke]

[member="Ashin Varanin"] Agreed, I'll also be implementing a time limit. If things don't get done within that time limit its archived and you have to go through second chance.

 

[Camellia Swift]

[member="Spencer Jacobs"] [member="Ashin Varanin"]

I think a time limit is the best idea. If they can't come in and get something done after needing an edit within a certain time, or make the argument as to why such an edit is an error or unneeded, then it should be archived in due time.

Especially if it should have been done beforehand.

 

[Ellie Mors]

So, to clarify, we can still request that they make edits to minor mistakes/errors, correct? I wholly support the above suggestion, I just want to know how this will effect our procedure in judging. I get that we won't ask for development threads, or recommend them, but it's a little extreme to just deny based on an object being too heavy/light, or approving it "because that's a silly reason to deny it" or some reason like that.

Here's an example of what I don't want to see happen:

Intent: To create a disposable blaster that can hold more ammunition than the current disposable blasters and a more powerful and reliable choice.

Development thread: Will make if required.

Manufacturer: GalacticBANG Weapons.

Model: None.

Affiliation: Usually used by normal, everyday people that need a weapon that is affordable, reliable, and portable. However, it's abilities could possibly be abused by assassins or mercenaries as it is easily concealable.

Modularity: None.

Production: Mass-Produced.

Material: Durasteel.

Classification: Blaster.

Length: 0.10160m.

Weight: 1kg.

Ammunition type: Gas canister, power cells.

Ammunition capacity: Ten.

Effective Range: Personal.

Rate of fire: Semi-automatic.

Special features: The bottom of the handle holds a retractable blade.

Description: A small weapon that can easily be concealed. At the bottom of the weapon's handle is a retractable blade hidden inside. The weapon can fire thirteen rounds. The small iron sights at the front barely help, as the weapon is not a long-range weapon, and rather a weapon you would use if a person approached you in an alleyway. On the left side of the barrel, the words "GalacticBANG-Best Weapons Out There" are engraved on each pistol.

-Quoted from Mr. Lynch's submission

Denied

• Too much ammunition for a disposable blaster rifle - link to canon source here that mentions 3 shots being the maximum heard of
• Weighs too much - link to previous canon material, weight is slightly less
• Size - link to previous canon material, cite size.

Or
Approved, pending secondary
While the FJ that stamps their approval thinks "Those issues aren't so bad"

And I know that this must be rich coming from me, as I'm aware of my progression toward more and more lenient judgments on submissions, I just don't want to see people having RPJs overturning submission after submission months down the line and then this whole discussion being brought up again with why it should change back to this because of a list of issues that have shown up. I also don't want to see you and the rest of the administration spending all of your time in the second chance thread over ridiculous reasons for denial.

Let me know if this sounds off-base, or correct me where I may be misunderstanding. I'm just an anxious person, so I jump to conclusions quite often.

 

[Ashin Varanin]

Good chunk of these issues can also be addressed or forestalled by re-reading this.

 

[Allyson Locke]

What Ashin linked is basically all you need to know/read for any submission. You guys have been getting over critical.


As for judges having to over turn submissions there has only been one. I think you all are over thinking this whole thing. What this is doing is basically mandating that dev threads are optional of its over powered and they didn't do extra work tell them "hey this is op gonna need to be toned down or do some extra work"

It's forcing you guys to go back to how things are supposed to be done. Of course we aren't going to let some massivly powerful ship get thru.

I want and probably will keep the starship dev thread requirement.


Also...my example was just a very simple example of how you'd deny something...if you deny that quickly for something silly you wouldn't last long as a FJ. I thought that was something known.