Talk:Server Policy - Revision history

K5: /* On Player Matters vs Development */

2024-09-25T05:16:47Z

On Player Matters vs Development

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:16, 25 September 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Staff Heads are generally in control of everything that can be known about the round before a player joins the server the first time.		Staff Heads are generally in control of everything that can be known about the round before a player joins the server the first time.

			[[User:K5\|K5]] ([[User talk:K5\|talk]]) 05:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

K5: /* On Player Matters vs Development */ new section

2024-09-25T05:16:38Z

On Player Matters vs Development: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:16, 25 September 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:

	[[User:K5\|K5]] ([[User talk:K5\|talk]]) 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)		[[User:K5\|K5]] ([[User talk:K5\|talk]]) 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

			== On Player Matters vs Development ==

			Seeing as I keep saying this, I'm going to write it down:

			Staff Heads have no authority over the natural progression over the server.

			If players are creating a story arc within their own right and characters, that's an administrative issue to be handled.

			Staff Heads are generally in control of everything that can be known about the round before a player joins the server the first time.

K5: /* An opinion on events and where it's split between event staff vs administration. */ new section

2024-09-25T04:51:14Z

An opinion on events and where it's split between event staff vs administration.: new section

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:51, 25 September 2024
Line 1:	Line 1:
		== An opinion on events and where it's split between event staff vs administration. ==

		At least in my eyes, for it to be a development-related event it has to be:
		# Doable in any round. You could go 'we'll do this tomorrow instead' and nothing would significantly change about it.
		# Context free. Doesn't matter who's in the round. That intentionally includes the ability to abort an event if the 'wrong people' decide to show up to fuck with it as LC or something. This is also why the whole union shtick irks me.
		# Consequence laden. Whether it just means changes to later events in the series or plotline, or actual sanctions or rewards for factions (not individuals) is up to the whole development team.
		# Self-Justifying. If someone commits a crime and faxes are sent leading to an agent coming up, this is an administration issue - the circumstances are justifying the event. Inversely, an event where Soteria is given absolute ownership over all teleportation tech on the colony is, inversely, justifying something other than the event itself, or its storyline.

		(as sent to Skink)

		[[User:K5\|K5]] ([[User talk:K5\|talk]]) 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

K5: Blanked the page

2024-09-25T04:50:15Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:50, 25 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:

	~~At least in my eyes, for it to be a development-related event it has to be:~~
	~~# Doable in any round. You could go 'we'll do this tomorrow instead' and nothing would significantly change about it.~~
	# Context free. Doesn't matter who's in the round. That intentionally includes the ability to abort an event if the 'wrong people' decide to show up to fuck with it as LC or something. This is also why the whole union shtick irks me.
	~~# Consequence laden. Whether it just means changes to later events in the series or plotline, or actual sanctions or rewards for factions (not individuals) is up to the whole development team.~~
	# Self-Justifying. If someone commits a crime and faxes are sent leading to an agent coming up, this is an administration issue - the circumstances are justifying the event. Inversely, an event where Soteria is given absolute ownership over all teleportation tech on the colony is, inversely, justifying something other than the event itself, or its storyline.

	~~[[User:K5\|K5]] ([[User talk:K5\|talk]]) 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)~~

K5 at 04:50, 25 September 2024

2024-09-25T04:50:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:50, 25 September 2024
Line 5:		Line 5:
	# Consequence laden. Whether it just means changes to later events in the series or plotline, or actual sanctions or rewards for factions (not individuals) is up to the whole development team.		# Consequence laden. Whether it just means changes to later events in the series or plotline, or actual sanctions or rewards for factions (not individuals) is up to the whole development team.
	# Self-Justifying. If someone commits a crime and faxes are sent leading to an agent coming up, this is an administration issue - the circumstances are justifying the event. Inversely, an event where Soteria is given absolute ownership over all teleportation tech on the colony is, inversely, justifying something other than the event itself, or its storyline.		# Self-Justifying. If someone commits a crime and faxes are sent leading to an agent coming up, this is an administration issue - the circumstances are justifying the event. Inversely, an event where Soteria is given absolute ownership over all teleportation tech on the colony is, inversely, justifying something other than the event itself, or its storyline.

			[[User:K5\|K5]] ([[User talk:K5\|talk]]) 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

K5 at 04:49, 25 September 2024

2024-09-25T04:49:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:49, 25 September 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:

	At least in my eyes, for it to be a development-related event it has to be:		At least in my eyes, for it to be a development-related event it has to be:
	1: Doable in any round. You could go 'we'll do this tomorrow instead' and nothing would significantly change about it.		# Doable in any round. You could go 'we'll do this tomorrow instead' and nothing would significantly change about it.
	2: Context free. Doesn't matter who's in the round. That intentionally includes the ability to abort an event if the 'wrong people' decide to show up to fuck with it as LC or something. This is also why the whole union shtick irks me.		# Context free. Doesn't matter who's in the round. That intentionally includes the ability to abort an event if the 'wrong people' decide to show up to fuck with it as LC or something. This is also why the whole union shtick irks me.
	3: Consequence laden. Whether it just means changes to later events in the series or plotline, or actual sanctions or rewards for factions (not individuals) is up to the whole development team.		# Consequence laden. Whether it just means changes to later events in the series or plotline, or actual sanctions or rewards for factions (not individuals) is up to the whole development team.
	4: Self-Justifying. If someone commits a crime and faxes are sent leading to an agent coming up, this is an administration issue - the circumstances are justifying the event. Inversely, an event where Soteria is given absolute ownership over all teleportation tech on the colony is, inversely, justifying something other than the event itself, or its storyline.		# Self-Justifying. If someone commits a crime and faxes are sent leading to an agent coming up, this is an administration issue - the circumstances are justifying the event. Inversely, an event where Soteria is given absolute ownership over all teleportation tech on the colony is, inversely, justifying something other than the event itself, or its storyline.

K5: Created page with "At least in my eyes, for it to be a development-related event it has to be: 1: Doable in any round. You could go 'we'll do this tomorrow instead' and nothing would significant..."

2024-09-25T04:49:30Z

Created page with "At least in my eyes, for it to be a development-related event it has to be: 1: Doable in any round. You could go 'we'll do this tomorrow instead' and nothing would significant..."

New page

At least in my eyes, for it to be a development-related event it has to be:
1: Doable in any round. You could go 'we'll do this tomorrow instead' and nothing would significantly change about it.
2: Context free. Doesn't matter who's in the round. That intentionally includes the ability to abort an event if the 'wrong people' decide to show up to fuck with it as LC or something. This is also why the whole union shtick irks me.
3: Consequence laden. Whether it just means changes to later events in the series or plotline, or actual sanctions or rewards for factions (not individuals) is up to the whole development team.
4: Self-Justifying. If someone commits a crime and faxes are sent leading to an agent coming up, this is an administration issue - the circumstances are justifying the event. Inversely, an event where Soteria is given absolute ownership over all teleportation tech on the colony is, inversely, justifying something other than the event itself, or its storyline.