[Accepted] Lucaken Deputy Loremaster Application

[Lucaken]

Ckey/BYOND Username: Lucaken
Position Being Applied For: Deputy Loremaster
Have you read the Lore Team Rules and Regulations wiki page? Yes.

Past Experiences/Knowledge: I have been a part of the community for about a year and a half, much of which I've spent heavily involved with the lore, be it through endless discord discussions, making/commenting on canonization applications and interacting personally with lore writers. Before that I spent around four years roleplaying and writing on Star Wars: The Old Republic, where I served in minor management positions for various guilds. I consider myself an avid reader of anything sci-fi related, and I'm planning on pursuing a higher education in anything writing-related.
 

Examples of Past Work: Two of my (mostly) accepted canonization applications.

And two larger pieces of writing I've done for Star Wars roleplay. They are not my best work, but I want to include them to show I'm able to execute ideas. (And some very light image editing skills)

https://malgus-rp.enjin.com/forum/m/46474106/viewthread/33062119-substance-344-sehrellium-reports-development

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hRiWkzgZx1nep64_WTAJPC0Uiym43CxX8Cvb8XoVNuY/edit?usp=sharing

Criticisms: As people that know me from discord will probably already recognize, I often criticize the team and state of the lore whenever I think it's needed. I am not afraid to voice my concerns in the moment it comes up, which has given me a lot of opinions and ideas over the months about what should and shouldn't happen. Some of these I have gone back on (as is expected over such a long timeframe), but I will try to compile below what I feel most strongly about and especially what relates to my roadmap.

- Lack of direction for species teams. As I see it, teams only begin to fall behind when they are unable to keep themselves on target for their own plans, whatever they may be. Although I lack an insider's eyes, I think it really shows when one team is chugging along with their projects steadily and another is giving radio silence - this is felt most acutely by avid players of that species, and can completely throw some players off. 

-  Lacklustre collaboration on group projects. Although this may have already gotten better, I vividly remember how rocky the Biesel political parties revamp was, and being astonished when I was told some writers simply didn't offer anything except some minor edits. Players (including me) later had to offer our own examples to see more representation added. Group projects, unless specifically focused on one element, should have some semblance of addition by everyone in the team.

- Unsatisfactory canonization application process. While not as crucial, I think it is high time for the team to get more serious about fixing the system, largely in terms of making it more pressing for writers. Players (including me, again) who have gone through it even after the changes are often left feeling disappointed or even ignored. They take too long to go through and are often considered secondary to lore writer projects. 

- Bits of the lore are still scattered and seperate from the wiki, making it hard to know what is truly canon or not. Centralizing everything into the wiki is becoming ever more needed, especially as teams begin to use methods such as articles and arcs more frequently.

Roadmap/general plans:

- Ensure any NBT developments go smoothly. Although I am currently not aware of the team's full plans, I do know that making sure our start is as smooth as possible will be paramount for future developments. We should lay the exact groundwork for how the team is going to develop our 'main storyline', so that we are not scrambling for a method months down the line. As long as each team is aware of how exactly this will influence them, it will make everything a lot more efficient.

- Keep communication up with the teams, especially with those falling behind. This includes seeing what their hurdles are, whether or not their plans are achievable and helping them keep on track. The individual teams are much more in-touch about their own lore than the lore masters, and so all that is likely needed is encouragement from Lore Team Administration. I don't believe in a one-fits-all type of method. Each case must be handled with a seperate solution; whether it is daily pings, deadlines or just the occasional DM. This also includes getting people involved with group projects.

- Revamp the canonization application system. Currently, my thinking is to introduce three separate types of deadlines based on word count. The larger the addition/change, the more time the writers should be given to look over things. With size also comes greater expectation of partial acceptance from players. With all hope, this will make the process feel like less of a chore for writers, and also manage players' expectations about their scope. 

- Centralize everything important onto the wiki. Articles, past lore arcs and events have to make their way over onto the wiki as they are being developed. Looking through old lore will no doubt be a chore, but teams will have a much easier time going forward once everything is in place. This is where I think Lore Team Administration can help the most, personally curating with the teams as needed.

- Encourage more inter-team collaboration. Much of our more well-celebrated lore comes from well-coordinated and nurtured writing between species, and having more of it can never be bad. These cannot be forced, boundaries and plans must be respected, but it should still be pushed for whenever the opportunity comes up. I think the team has already come far in this department, but it bears mentioning anyway.

What I could offer as a Deputy Loremaster: Despite my lack of lore team experience, I believe my main advantage is strong ties to some of the writers on the team, and a friendly attitude with everyone else. The few times I butt heads with people I tend to make up immediately afterwards, as I absolutely detest long-term fueds of any kind after having experienced a couple during my Star Wars days. I also view my tendency to argue about ideas as a boon, often backing down whenever I've been proven wrong, but nearly always succeeding in adding something to a concept. Deputies, in my mind, should always be ready to challenge their closest friends and superiors alike. Whenever it is not needed, however, I believe I can get along with just about anyone, which is crucial to keeping the team glued together. I am also not planning on going away any time soon unless extraordinary circumstances arise, so I am likely to maintain this position for however long I am needed. Lastly, I view my place as someone without a spot on the team currently as beneficial - without a specific team to care for, I remove some potential bias and burnout that other candidates may have.

Additional Comments: I am aware that during the last round of applications I was both publicly and privately encouraged to apply, to which I said I don't see myself developed enough as a writer, or just as a person, to take on the responsibility. Although I still feel inadequate in this regard (who doesn't), I have come to see this position as a lot less writing-focused, and more like what I talked about in the last section. This was also helped by the blurb about a lack of lore team experience in the announcement, as well as lots of encouragement from friends. In the end, I am doing this both to finally have a chance to act on my wishes to help the lore directly, and so that I don't kick myself later for not trying.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Lucaken
Spelling mistakes

[SilverSZ]

Hi, Thanks for Applying. I understand not feeling adequate for the position, I didn't want to be a deputy either. It takes courage to apply and it's a good thing to see people do, if anyone is reading this and thinks they would like the position you should also apply. You'll have the ability to work on any aspects you feel inadequate on when joining the team, I've been doing that myself, self-improvement is eternal.

 

 Luca mentions his strong ties to members of the lore team and as a forward I will say we are friends and get along quite well. In the aspect of being able to work together I'm of no question we could well. I also have no questions that he can do quality writing based on his portfolio. Regardless, I intend to be as critical as anyone. These aren't in order other than when I read the subject of the question in the application.

 

Firstly, often some teams' inactivity comes from natural factors. People just get busy and sometimes an entire team will simply get busy all at the same time, which at that point does bring the species to a standstill especially if they were working on a large project. I understand you suggest some solutions but they seem more targeted at people who are just distracted or not working as hard as the could be, other than deadlines. If the issue is more complicated than that, such as the lack of time I mentioned before. How would you deal with that and why would you do it in this way? Do you think there should be a set minimum contribution level over a certain amount of time?

 

I do agree with your point on group collaboration, and whilst right now I think it is good and getting better there are still cases where in certain things, especially if a lore team is not too engaged with it, species or lore can be missing from wider projects. Inter-team collaboration is great, I'd argue it's the basis of my beloved synthetic lore in general. So my question is where would you want to build on that kind of lore, obviously you mention boundaries must be respected but equally you saw you want to push for me. Would you want to build on our current multi-species lore and locations or introduce entirely new relationships between species that previously were very disconnected, like say Diona on Hro'zamal as an example.

 

I agree with the canonisation point, I don't really have much to say here. I'd be happy to work on improving the process with you if you became the deputy loremaster within my abilities.

 

I'm curious how you propose to centralise things on the wiki, and what exactly you want to centralise. You mention bits and pieces but what bits and pieces exactly, how would you put these all on the wiki and how would you ensure that say, if you decided to put articles on the wiki. You don't create many more pages or long pages that people will struggle to read and digest. At the moment I find we try to keep the wiki as lean as possible, and most of the time new pages come out of nessecity. For example I originally wanted to put my CoC IPC lore on its own page, but that was cut for it to be placed on other pages. So how would you go about centralising this and keeping it digestible.

 

I agree with your idea about keeping the NBT launch on track and well-planned. This would be something I would be happy to assist with. I also already addressed the communication between teams in a previous question.

 

For the canonisation overhaul I like the idea you raised but I would like to ask if you would consider any other changes to the process at all? Would you want to set a certain way it should be written? Bar certain submissions or in some way encourage others, or would you keep it identical outside of new categories and deadlines based on length?

 

As for what you mention being able to bring as a deputy, I don't think the lack of experience is an issue. But there's other stuff I'd like to ask, for one you mention strong ties amongst the team and whilst this is good I am wary that this might see you even if subconsciously choosing to focus on lore or parts of lore where you are friends with said team members, and I say this as your friend. Do you think this will be an issue, if not why won't it?

 

I think being able to argue and raise your mind on issues with team members is important, the synthetic team has a very cooperative attitude in this regard and I have never felt any reason to not say my piece and contribute even if it's in a critical way. But I also know you are the type to get passionate over lore and sometimes this can flare up and these incidents even if resolved after can be detrimental to the progress and development of lore. Do you think this will be an issue and if not why won't it be?

 

Finally and this is something I've seen you mention outside of your application but I know you have admitted one of your weaknesses as a writer is writing alot and then struggling to cut things out, and this is a normal part of the creative process for the lore team, and part of being a lore master, even the deputy, is being one of the main voices to make a call on "do we need this?" And other similar things. Do you think this is still an issue for your writing and do you think it would impact your performance in this role?

 

This is plenty long already so I'll stop here, take your time with your answers and good luck with the application. 

 

[Lucaken]

1 hour ago, SilverSZ said:

Firstly, often some teams' inactivity comes from natural factors. People just get busy and sometimes an entire team will simply get busy all at the same time, which at that point does bring the species to a standstill especially if they were working on a large project. I understand you suggest some solutions but they seem more targeted at people who are just distracted or not working as hard as the could be, other than deadlines. If the issue is more complicated than that, such as the lack of time I mentioned before. How would you deal with that and why would you do it in this way? Do you think there should be a set minimum contribution level over a certain amount of time?

This is a very complicated topic, and is obviously uncomfortable for some (it sucks to talk about expectations in a hobby environment, we're here to have fun, not do a second job), but nevertheless I think it is manageable with a combination of using the rules we already have, and careful assistance from Lore Team Management (LRM). Communication must be at the front of all of it, because even though our regulations say that LRM is responsible for the team's output throughout the duration of the leave, this requires everyone to be very upfront about said busy times. Having read over those few lines, I can also understand why we haven't seen many of those, as I would assume writers would feel at least a bit worried about leaving their projects in different hands for an extended amount of time (even LRM, who in my opinion should generally trust the developers over themselves when it comes to their corner of the lore). So if leaves are properly announced, I think all that is needed is for LRM to run articles/mini-events that do not influence the projects of the team massively, but mostly lead up to it. This way, we can make sure that players do not feel abandoned and at the same time encourage writers to take more honest breaks if needed, without the worry of LRM interfering too much.

As for a minimum contribution level, I would avoid any hard numbers/limits as that will likely contribute to even more burnout, and instead go by the (I presume purposefully) very vague standard set by the regulations. I think if a team or writer is worryingly behind on things, it will become very apparent and will also likely be highly specific to each case. Adding more specific rules is going to feel draconian no matter what, so I think the best option is to keep our rules and have LRM communicate as much as humanly possible. Private talks about performance can feel awkward, but are still a softer way of reminding writers that we do technically have a job to do. And when in doubt, I think our expectations-extended leave-resignation process is robust enough to handle very severe cases.

1 hour ago, SilverSZ said:

I do agree with your point on group collaboration, and whilst right now I think it is good and getting better there are still cases where in certain things, especially if a lore team is not too engaged with it, species or lore can be missing from wider projects. Inter-team collaboration is great, I'd argue it's the basis of my beloved synthetic lore in general. So my question is where would you want to build on that kind of lore, obviously you mention boundaries must be respected but equally you saw you want to push for me. Would you want to build on our current multi-species lore and locations or introduce entirely new relationships between species that previously were very disconnected, like say Diona on Hro'zamal as an example.

There are far too many examples I could name here for potential collaborations, but I have to be realistic with both myself and the team here - trying to create connections where there were none previously is difficult, and more likely to sow distrust than anything else. For this reason I think it is perfectly fine to focus on the ones we already have, and strengthen them as much as can be tolerated by either team. While there are obvious picks like Gakal'zaal, I feel a large part of the work is with human space here, which due to its widespread nature has a lot of hints and mentions of alien interaction, but could go much further in my eyes. Unathi and Dominia, Vaurca and Elyra (even antagonistic interaction is good!) and especially the Coalition, which feels like the perfect place for anything not already covered. I was particularly disappointed at the weird contradictions with Solarian Skrell, which I now understand are the result of some internal complications, but I am still not very happy with. I think that connection in particular is ripe with potential, and thankfully we have already seen improvements with the Beauchamp events. I obviously cannot talk about this without mentioning Dionae, where I've long since championed the idea that their focus should be about their integration with other cultures and species. I think it tends to bring out the best in everything, and while the recent updates have been good from the Diona team itself, deeper integration should be considered. No matter what or where, I think the crucial thing is to nurture carefully and slowly, and not to force things unless new developments come from the writers themselves.

2 hours ago, SilverSZ said:

I'm curious how you propose to centralise things on the wiki, and what exactly you want to centralise. You mention bits and pieces but what bits and pieces exactly, how would you put these all on the wiki and how would you ensure that say, if you decided to put articles on the wiki. You don't create many more pages or long pages that people will struggle to read and digest. At the moment I find we try to keep the wiki as lean as possible, and most of the time new pages come out of nessecity. For example I originally wanted to put my CoC IPC lore on its own page, but that was cut for it to be placed on other pages. So how would you go about centralising this and keeping it digestible.

Regarding the first part of this, my main plan is to make sure every old article we have is looked over, screened for non-canon details and then added to the wiki in as truncated fashion as possible. The goal of this is to keep everything important on the wiki itself, and to make it easier for players and writers alike to know what is and isn't current canon. The wiki has to be ontop of everything, especially as our lore expands and becomes ever more complicated. This is, again, a chore that will take a lot of time and I do not expect it to be worked on right now. I would rather it is handled by the teams in-between projects or just whenever they have the time and willpower. When retroactively adding anything to the wiki from these articles, it is important that only crucial, trimmed-down information is added so as to not completely upturn certain pages. Similarly, new articles that are posted should adhere to these same rules, and anything new and important added by an article should always find its way to the wiki pretty much immediately. 'Fluff' as it is can be left out of the wiki for the sake of clarity and flavour for players receiving them as they are posted. But before any work is done moving forward, the backlogs must be addressed.

As for the second part of this, I am of the opinion that we only tend to watch brevity when it concerns human lore, and for good reason. Almost every player begins having to read it, and due to a lack of whitelists it must remain digestible to a massive amount of players. As soon as you get to other species however, this standard becomes a lot lighter due to the expectation of a whitelist, which is why you tend to see much larger alien pages such as with Tajara. Again, I think this is fine and how it should be - the expectations are simply different, and human lore needs to cover more bases anyway. I think the solution is simply to truncate sections like your CoC IPCs into smaller blurbs on their respective page, then hyperlink it to a more available page on the IPC team's side. That way you can keep it brief where needed, allowing players to dive in deeper on their own terms and interests. A good example of this is found on the Himeo page's Free Tajaran Council, which opens up from a few short paragraphs to an entire page of its own. In short, I think it's fine to have more pages that are deeply interlinked, so that we essentially spread our lore across more digestible pieces.

2 hours ago, SilverSZ said:

For the canonisation overhaul I like the idea you raised but I would like to ask if you would consider any other changes to the process at all? Would you want to set a certain way it should be written? Bar certain submissions or in some way encourage others, or would you keep it identical outside of new categories and deadlines based on length?

I cannot give my full thoughts on a potential revamp as it is all very theoretical and would need a lot of input from players and writers alike, but overall I think giving each category a general set of guidelines would be best. For example, the lowest category may include small locations, a cultural activity or anything that is minor fluff, while the highest category can be reserved for planets, factions and everything in-between (with word count once again being the ultimate judge, not concept). It may do well to remind potential applicants that if their project is large, communication with writers is almost necessary to avoid disappointment. The main goal is to make sure both sides know what to accept from an application. If the system is sufficiently robust, players will be more inclined to have faith in it, which should translate into more additions.

2 hours ago, SilverSZ said:

As for what you mention being able to bring as a deputy, I don't think the lack of experience is an issue. But there's other stuff I'd like to ask, for one you mention strong ties amongst the team and whilst this is good I am wary that this might see you even if subconsciously choosing to focus on lore or parts of lore where you are friends with said team members, and I say this as your friend. Do you think this will be an issue, if not why won't it?

I can see why bias may be a worry, but ultimately I think it will be a non-issue from how I view the position of Deputy Loremaster - it is not so much a direct writing position, but that of coordination, communication and general help. I also know to put the teams and their efficiency above any of my own interests, and I expect to work more on things that people are stuck with rather than directly influencing any particular team. I would not have applied to this position in particular if I thought my only responsibility would be hanging out with friends - not to mention, that while my history may say otherwise, my biggest interest is not in any one species, but in the setting as a whole. This is where my love for cross-team collaboration comes from, and I highly doubt it will change for the worse as I am exposed to every team at once.

3 hours ago, SilverSZ said:

I think being able to argue and raise your mind on issues with team members is important, the synthetic team has a very cooperative attitude in this regard and I have never felt any reason to not say my piece and contribute even if it's in a critical way. But I also know you are the type to get passionate over lore and sometimes this can flare up and these incidents even if resolved after can be detrimental to the progress and development of lore. Do you think this will be an issue and if not why won't it be?

I am painfully aware of my own hot-headedness, and as anyone that has had any sort of heated argument with me before knows, I am always very quick to put the water under the bridge afterwards. Much of the reason why I am desperate to make up is because I understand these flare-ups are momentary - they aren't really representative of what I think of a person or a topic, not fully. Almost always, I come to realize that both me and the person I'm talking to are extremely passionate about the lore (else we wouldn't be arguing about it), and that's enough to put it all behind us. As the lore team is perhaps the place with the most invested people you could find, I think I will have little trouble going back to this thinking if there ever should be any sort of trouble. I'd like to think that it has done wonders for keeping me drama-free.

3 hours ago, SilverSZ said:

Finally and this is something I've seen you mention outside of your application but I know you have admitted one of your weaknesses as a writer is writing alot and then struggling to cut things out, and this is a normal part of the creative process for the lore team, and part of being a lore master, even the deputy, is being one of the main voices to make a call on "do we need this?" And other similar things. Do you think this is still an issue for your writing and do you think it would impact your performance in this role?

This is true, and you can even see me struggle to keep things short in this very thread. In my experience, however, I have had no issues when editing/reviewing someone else's work, which is likely because we all tend to get attached more to our own ideas and have a harder time separating what is and isn't actually useful. As mentioned before, I plan to work a lot more as an editor than as an original writer for most of my work, and will thus probably not have as much of an issue with this quirk of mine. I am actively working to reduce it whenever possible, and I have a feeling that the lore team environment will help a lot in keeping it checked, too. As you said at the beginning of your post, we all learn as we go and I expect this to be one of those lessons I will gradually pick up.

[Triogenix]

Hi, I was surprised to see your application, and have a few questions for you.

1) Now that we're in a mobile ship setting, the ship may venture into areas which are discriminatory towards certain species and people that work aboard the Horizon, such as the Hegemony. If those who are discriminated against make a mistake during canon rounds, how much OOC leniency, if any, should be given by lore devs before the in-universe hammer drops, and what do you think that hammer should be? As an example, if in the Federation, an IPC strays across a physical line the crew were told not to cross for whatever reason, should the event runners have the IPC detained and transported back across the line as would happen with non-discriminated/hated species, detained and sold to a company as criminal property, or the posi-brain ripped out and the chassis returned as property to the parent corporation? Or anything else besides that example, like chucking the whole situation at CCIA instead.

 

2) What are your thoughts on Matt's Origins and Culture PR? (This one: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/13400)

 

3) What is your opinion on the planet ban? Do you think we have too many planets or there's room for more?

 

4) In somewhat relation to a point another applicant made on their application, do you believe that we have too many bad things happening in our lore? If so, how would you remedy this?

 

5) As Biesel falls under Lore Team Administration authority, I think it is a good idea to ask, what are your thoughts on it now that we are leaving it as a setting? How should development go? Should it be expanded on to be more like other factions?

 

6) Finally, what are your thoughts on megacorporations in our setting? Should we see their power reduced? Are they all encompassing? With the developments of Solarian Nationalization, should other nations follow?

Good luck on your application!

Edited April 18, 2022 by Triogenix

[Caelphon]

Hi there. Just some questions.

11 hours ago, Lucaken said:

Lack of direction for species teams. As I see it, teams only begin to fall behind when they are unable to keep themselves on target for their own plans, whatever they may be. Although I lack an insider's eyes, I think it really shows when one team is chugging along with their projects steadily and another is giving radio silence - this is felt most acutely by avid players of that species, and can completely throw some players off. 

Do you mind expanding on this? Which teams do you think are lacking a direction and/or lagging behind their other counterparts in development? 

11 hours ago, Lucaken said:

Lacklustre collaboration on group projects. Although this may have already gotten better, I vividly remember how rocky the Biesel political parties revamp was, and being astonished when I was told some writers simply didn't offer anything except some minor edits. Players (including me) later had to offer our own examples to see more representation added. Group projects, unless specifically focused on one element, should have some semblance of addition by everyone in the team.

It is my belief that the Lore Team has improved significantly in this aspect. I do consider that at the time the LT was still adjusting to the new Lore Team Administration, and the loss of one of its eldest writers, and that is what caused issues with the development of Lore Team Projects. I have since changed the approach and made it a more communal experience to develop LTPs, with some minor sections still being assigned to some teams. Do you have an issue with this new approach? How would you attempt to change the approach to LTPs? 

11 hours ago, Lucaken said:

Encourage more inter-team collaboration. Much of our more well-celebrated lore comes from well-coordinated and nurtured writing between species, and having more of it can never be bad. These cannot be forced, boundaries and plans must be respected, but it should still be pushed for whenever the opportunity comes up. I think the team has already come far in this department, but it bears mentioning anyway.

How would you handle Lore Teams that don't want to handle the issues that crop up with interspecies collaboration? For an example, the Vaurcae Team and the Dionae Team oversee a planet. The Dionae Team wishes to add additional lore regarding Dionae/Vaurcae relations on the planet, but the Vaurcae Team doesn't want that lore addition to be merged, and actually doesn't want the Dionae Team to even have a say in the oversight of the planet. How would you deal with that situation? 

11 hours ago, Lucaken said:

I believe my main advantage is strong ties to some of the writers on the team

I am concerned with this. I do not see how having storng ties to some of the writers on the team is an advantage, if anything I see it as a disadvantage. You will be required to disipline those you have strong ties with, or maybe remove them from the team. Do you think you can be objective? 

5 hours ago, Lucaken said:

LRM is responsible for the team's output throughout the duration of the leave

Quote

If a lore writer goes on leave their duties are handled by lore team management unless otherwise delegated to relevant lore deputies.

This is untrue, but easily can be misunderstood. The Lore Team Administration has the responsibility transferred to them to handle the administrative requirements of a Lore Writer, not necessarily regarding developing and adding additional lore without the oversight of the Lore Writer. It is important that the Lore Team Administration also respects the jurisdiction and boundaries of the Lore Writers. I hope that helps clarify things. 

Goodluck. There are no wrong answers. 

I am also interested to see your responses to Triogenix's questions. 

[Lucaken]

8 hours ago, Triogenix said:

1) Now that we're in a mobile ship setting, the ship may venture into areas which are discriminatory towards certain species and people that work aboard the Horizon, such as the Hegemony. If those who are discriminated against make a mistake during canon rounds, how much OOC leniency, if any, should be given by lore devs before the in-universe hammer drops, and what do you think that hammer should be? As an example, if in the Federation, an IPC strays across a physical line the crew were told not to cross for whatever reason, should the event runners have the IPC detained and transported back across the line as would happen with non-discriminated/hated species, detained and sold to a company as criminal property, or the posi-brain ripped out and the chassis returned as property to the parent corporation? Or anything else besides that example, like chucking the whole situation at CCIA instead.

This is a very wide question, and generally my opinion is that we should be focused on allowing these cultural clashes to happen in a drama-free, purely ICly manner. There is not much point in chucking someone's character out of the airlock for creating conflict that is explicitly supported by the lore, else there wouldn't be much point in travelling to these diverse places in the first place. As long as no OOC rules are broken, I think these cases should remain in the ballpark of CCIA and maybe the respective lore team, if needed (An example being Federation counselors or other such high-power characters needing to step in). As for punishments, I think we should once again be a bit more leniant in proportion to what the actual 'crime' was. Throwing someone's character out should always be the last result.

8 hours ago, Triogenix said:

2) What are your thoughts on Matt's Origins and Culture PR? (This one: https://github.com/Aurorastation/Aurora.3/pull/13400)

As you can see from the thumbs up I put there weeks ago, I think it's great! Ontop of streamlining our accent/citizenship system, it's a way for us to get the lore to the players more directly. I guarantee you more people will read into the lore after seeing the little culture blurbs. I think the team should capitalize on it, and also use it to encourage cross-species lore by adding more complex origins where possible. Although I have read worries that it will restrict some character types, as long as the team spends adequate time disscussing everything with the developers, it should be fine. I have high hopes that it will mesh really well with a future update to our languages system, discussed in the thread I'll link below. You can see more of my thoughts in my replies there.

 

9 hours ago, Triogenix said:

3) What is your opinion on the planet ban? Do you think we have too many planets or there's room for more?

I think the planet ban was a good move forward in keeping us more focused on developing what we already have, and I think it should remain that way for some time. The Horizon has more than enough places to visit and each team has more or less enough space to develop. Reverting it could take away the team's attention from progressing already established lore, and should only be done if a team feels really constrained by their current number of planets. Besides, if we make the planets we already have more complex and varied, it will provide almost as much choice to players as a larger number of smaller planets would.

9 hours ago, Triogenix said:

4) In somewhat relation to a point another applicant made on their application, do you believe that we have too many bad things happening in our lore? If so, how would you remedy this?

No, not really. I can understand people worrying about our setting becoming too saturated with tragadies and negative events, but I think we are very far away from it dominating our setting. The reason why we have so many 'bad things' is because conflict naturally pushes narratives forward, while exclusively positive events are better as punctuation points for said darker moments. At it's heart our setting is decidedly gray on the moral compass, and it should firmly remain so. My biggest push in this regard would be to make sure there is always something counter-balancing the grim with the wholesome - for example, Mictlan may be a planet undergoing ruthless megacorp occupation, but it is also a place where close-knit families have massive roof-garden parties whenever they can. As long as we can maintain this balance everywhere, I think we're fine.

9 hours ago, Triogenix said:

5) As Biesel falls under Lore Team Administration authority, I think it is a good idea to ask, what are your thoughts on it now that we are leaving it as a setting? How should development go? Should it be expanded on to be more like other factions?

As I've said before in various discussions, I think it functions just fine as our baseline/introduction faction, but that does not necessarily mean it should be kept basic. In the past, I was frustrated at how small each section had to be kept, always wanting more complexity. Nowadays I understand it has to be kept digestable, and think that the right way is steady development with more complexity coming from its mini-arcs and events. In that regard, the Peacekeeper arc has done wonders to keep the faction interesting and if that kind of progress can be sustained than I think it will do great. The main points is - keep it available to new players, while using articles, arcs and other methods to entice older players, too.

9 hours ago, Triogenix said:

6) Finally, what are your thoughts on megacorporations in our setting? Should we see their power reduced? Are they all encompassing? With the developments of Solarian Nationalization, should other nations follow?

I do not particularly want to see us delving into a more nation-based setting, as I think megacorporations are the perfect main power/villains for a setting like ours. They are omnipresent and just about all-powerful, a fact that not even the newly anti-SCC Sol can avoid considering EE's influence. Any sort of radical shift away from this should only be done if we are really desperate for some refreshment of the setting, which I don't think we need with the launch of the Horizon. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have resistance, and in fact I believe the reason why we should keep them so powerful is so that we can keep getting interesting backlashes to the status quo. For these to keep popping up however, we need megacorporations to stay powerful enough to be at the top.

[Lucaken]

7 hours ago, Caelphon said:

Do you mind expanding on this? Which teams do you think are lacking a direction and/or lagging behind their other counterparts in development? 

I don't think any team is currently falling behind that badly, certainly not enough to warrant a talk. A few months back I maybe would've said Dionae or Vaurca, but both have since climbed ahead. I was generally happy to see how the Bulwark addition went, and only wish we could get the same activity in terms of articles as then from the team. Dionae also got Coeus, expansions on Ursae Minoris and their integration page, which I was all very happy with. I would say the synth team's Trinary project has proceeded very well, and I would only really expect more from the Unathi team - though they just went through a new deputy process, so some leeway is to be given. The important part in this is that I am viewing everything with the perspective of a player; plans, projects and efforts may be going on that I have no clue about, and so what I think of a specific team's activity right now is irrelevent. What I wanted to get across with that point on the roadmap is that I want to ensure we keep this up, and don't have any long-time lapses in activity. Teams should always have a project to work/think about, because an aimless team is likely to fall behind, as I said in my roadmap.

8 hours ago, Caelphon said:

It is my belief that the Lore Team has improved significantly in this aspect. I do consider that at the time the LT was still adjusting to the new Lore Team Administration, and the loss of one of its eldest writers, and that is what caused issues with the development of Lore Team Projects. I have since changed the approach and made it a more communal experience to develop LTPs, with some minor sections still being assigned to some teams. Do you have an issue with this new approach? How would you attempt to change the approach to LTPs? 

I can understand why it all happened considering the timing and it has probably become better in that time. From what I read of the opinions of other lore members and the previous round of deputy applicants, assigning teams to specific sections works out. I wouldn't change that process massively, but instead try and make sure every team is given something to work on - ontop of that, if it's a large multi-cultural project like the Biesel parties, it should be understood that players might expect their own species to be represented in some way.

8 hours ago, Caelphon said:

How would you handle Lore Teams that don't want to handle the issues that crop up with interspecies collaboration? For an example, the Vaurcae Team and the Dionae Team oversee a planet. The Dionae Team wishes to add additional lore regarding Dionae/Vaurcae relations on the planet, but the Vaurcae Team doesn't want that lore addition to be merged, and actually doesn't want the Dionae Team to even have a say in the oversight of the planet. How would you deal with that situation? 

This is a very vague scenario, and the obvious answer would be 'give me more information'. Both teams don't exactly have that many planets of their own, so it makes sense to want to hold onto the oversight. In this hypothetical example, though, I would allow the Vaurca Team to have almost complete oversight since they seem very adamant on that - the compromise being that whatever Dionae enclave exists there belongs to the Dionae team. This is how I see it done on planets like Himeo and Tajara, and I see no reason to force a connection where the writers really don't want one. Afterwards LTM may try to persuade both sides to collaberate a bit more, but all of it has to be steady. We also have to accept that sometimes a connection just does not work, especially if it is not favoured by the players. It isn't the end of the world, there are plenty of opportunities for collaboration elsewhere. I am of the opinion that if we can foster enough multi-species interactions, teams will be more willing to form entirely new ones in the future. But again; everything has to be done steady and careful, never forced.

8 hours ago, Caelphon said:

I am concerned with this. I do not see how having storng ties to some of the writers on the team is an advantage, if anything I see it as a disadvantage. You will be required to disipline those you have strong ties with, or maybe remove them from the team. Do you think you can be objective? 

I am confident that this will not be an issue, and my history reflects this. I was not joking when I said that I am not afraid to call out my friends when I think they are wrong. I could bring up a plethora of discord discussions, but to give a more solid example, here is a reply I made on a lore-related player complaint.

I chose this one specifically because although Danse doesn't hold a position on the team, he was at that time already a fairly close friend. I had no issue telling him why and how he was wrong, and remained objective throughout the ordeal to this day, where I still think his reaction was not the correct one. Had I been in the position of having to judge this case, I would've given out the same warning. I soon talked to him about why I felt the need to be honest, and made sure we harboured no hard feelings. All of this is to say, I do not see myself struggling to stay true during team disputes, even though it will likely be my least favourite part of job - whether I'm judging a friend or not.

9 hours ago, Caelphon said:

This is untrue, but easily can be misunderstood. The Lore Team Administration has the responsibility transferred to them to handle the administrative requirements of a Lore Writer, not necessarily regarding developing and adding additional lore without the oversight of the Lore Writer. It is important that the Lore Team Administration also respects the jurisdiction and boundaries of the Lore Writers. I hope that helps clarify things. 

Thank you for clarifying, as this is written very weirdly in the current regulations. My stance on it is more or less the same however, and I think LRM should do a bit more than just administrative work if a leave is severe enough. As for team jurisdiction, I already emphasized the importance of respecting the writers' boundaries in my original reply to Silvie. Based on the case, LRM should endavour to do the bare minimum to keep a team's lore going until they return, and with as much input from said writers as possible. Leaving an entire team's playerbase on radio silence is not really acceptable, and we should be prepared to help out if the worst happens.

[Triogenix]

Hi, it's been a while since any questions have been asked, so I went and thought up a few more.

1) What would you say the current relantionship is between the Lore Team and the rest of the server? 

2) You've mentioned in the past wanting to open up lore to the rest of the playerbase, such as letting everyone know what's currently being worked on by the team. Do you still believe this should be done? Why or why not?

3) The lore team regularly faces some pretty harsh criticism of our writing from players, do you think you'll be able to deal with this?

4) In your opinion, how much should the lore team factor in what regular players may think to their decisions?

[Lucaken]

10 hours ago, Triogenix said:

1) What would you say the current relantionship is between the Lore Team and the rest of the server? 

It's a bit hard to accurately say how one half of the community feels about another, but overall I would describe it as more positive than ever before. We have fresh writers who were regular players not so long ago, older writers who are respected and LTM is as directly involved with the community as needed. I have noted small disputes (see: Mars and Mictlan discussions) but from where I'm standing, I feel these small arguments are not what we need to be worried about, as I'll elaborate in a later question. I would be more worried if there was radio silence between the team and the community - I think that is always a much worse sign.

10 hours ago, Triogenix said:

2) You've mentioned in the past wanting to open up lore to the rest of the playerbase, such as letting everyone know what's currently being worked on by the team. Do you still believe this should be done? Why or why not?

I did call for something like this in the past, but it partially belongs to the list of ideas I've mulled over more. I do tend to critize the team for not being as open as they could, because I think it leads to the majority of those petty arguments that don't add much to the situation - plenty of which I've been in myself. On the other hand, it's understandable that the team cannot be as open as players often want. Plans and projects change in the matter of days, you can't exactly reveal much without spoiling things, and frankly, too much player feedback too early can often disrupt the flow of an idea. Going forward, I think the team needs to be open wherever they can be without compromising their own writing. Easier said than done, I realize, but I personally see myself advocating for more transparency whenever it is not detrimental.

13 hours ago, Triogenix said:

3) The lore team regularly faces some pretty harsh criticism of our writing from players, do you think you'll be able to deal with this?

I was/still am a frequent critic of the lore, so I know fairly well what it feels like to be a player wanting to give honest and impactful feedback. I think that position has given me a lot of experience in what is and isn't a good way to give or respond to it, and by now I feel I am good enough at it to serve as deputy loremaster. That said, I think the most important thing to understand is that we need criticism from players, because even a big group like the lore team can fall to becoming a bubble. That's aside from the fact that ultimately, we are making the lore for the players. It can be hard to change our work based on someone else's word, but that's what you need to do for the lore to serve the players and their environment. When you view criticisms as a fundamental part of the process, without which your writing will stagnate, it all becomes easier to digest.

13 hours ago, Triogenix said:

4) In your opinion, how much should the lore team factor in what regular players may think to their decisions?

As I hinted to in the previous question, allowing the public to have too much influence over a project as its being done can often de-rail things. The team exists to lead things, and it needs to remain flexible to make big decisions about that direction. Stressing over player feedback can and has messed up tons of other projects in my experience. That, however, does not mean we should disregard players entirely. We should simply focus on applying it once we are done with aa project, and if we cannot rectify it, we sould definitely keep it mind in future endevours.

[Desven]

Despite the differences you may have with some of the team, I think you're a great pick and I'm glad to see you applied. However, I do think some of your perspectives (and criticism) come from an outsider point of view. This isn't bad, but I do think your perspective of lore would change greatly if accepted. My question is, do you expect to ‘soften’ in a way? Meaning, do you think you would be more understanding of the problems of lore and, if so, would you be willing to provide alternate solutions?

[Lucaken]

11 hours ago, Desven said:

Despite the differences you may have with some of the team, I think you're a great pick and I'm glad to see you applied. However, I do think some of your perspectives (and criticism) come from an outsider point of view. This isn't bad, but I do think your perspective of lore would change greatly if accepted. My question is, do you expect to ‘soften’ in a way? Meaning, do you think you would be more understanding of the problems of lore and, if so, would you be willing to provide alternate solutions?

As I discussed in previous questions here, I’m aware of my disadvantages as someone with no lore team experience. I can tell you now that I’m almost certainly going develop some new ideas the moment I’m in the position - it’s just natural once you get access to bigger team discussions, especially at a Loremaster level. To what degree is a trickier question. It would entirely depend on how far Caelphon has planned, and how the team receives me should I be chosen.
 

As for whether I’d ‘soften’, it’s a matter of perspective. My ideas and plans might certainly change, but not my drive. I’m always going to be the kind of person that will push things if I feel they are wrong. That’s a big reason why I’ve applied in the first place, and I definitely  don’t expect to see that part go away.

[Caelphon]

This application has been accepted. Welcome to the Cult that is the Lore Team.