[Hellstryker]

I agree %100 with Ngtm1r, This policy goes against what HLP strives and was created to achieve...

[karajorma]

I guess the admins need to articulate better than

Or stop assuming that the board isn't full of pedants who think we're morons.

[blowfish]

I guess the admins need to articulate better than

Or stop assuming that the board isn't full of pedants who think we're morons.

Look.  I'm not trying to start a flame war here.  What has happened here is partially the fault of the admins (goober) and partially the fault of us (the members).  Clearly, there was some confusion, so Goob didn't say what he wanted to say clearly enough.  But many of us (me included ) have been rather n00bish and nitpicky about it.  I realize now that any rule regarding number of missions (especially an open-ended one) would have sparked controversy, so the 20 mission rule is as good as any.  Had Goober explicitly stated that some exceptions would be made, I'm sure some people would whine about what exactly those exceptions would be.  I think what you (Kara) said summed it up pretty nicely:

Let's see if I can make it clear. If the admins think your project is too ambitious to see the light of day we won't host it. If we think there is a good chance of a release we will. If you're in the grey area you'll have to do enough work to convince us before we'll accept you.

[Goober5000]

"No exceptions" does not really mean "no exceptions, ever" because Rule Number 0 in this policy, as in all policies, is "Use common sense".  So common sense might require us to suspend one of the provisions in this policy, depending on the application.  The reason why I replied so strongly to blowfish was to head off his assumption that the policy wouldn't apply to him.  Nobody should assume that.  As I said in that post, the policy becomes meaningless if it is never followed.  We intend to follow it.

Let me reiterate, again, that most of these complaints are hypothetical.  A hypothetical question gets a hypothetical answer, which may or may not apply to a real-life situation. 

And finally, just because I apply the "childish" generalization to the thread does not mean that everybody in the thread has demonstrated childish behavior.  That's why it's a generalization. There have been a few rational posts, but they're greatly outnumbered by the irrational ones.

[blowfish]

"No exceptions" does not really mean "no exceptions, ever" because Rule Number 0 in this policy, as in all policies, is "Use common sense".  So common sense might require us to suspend one of the provisions in this policy, depending on the application.  The reason why I replied so strongly to blowfish was to head off his assumption that the policy wouldn't apply to him.  Nobody should assume that.  As I said in that post, the policy becomes meaningless if it is never followed.  We intend to follow it.

I'm satisfied with that.

[haloboy100]

The 20-mission limit to me just seems like a standpoint to start rule from when confronted with a proposed campaign. Depending on the scope, if it was a really ambitious campaign with not enough work being done then there would be no exception to the 20 mission rule and that project would have to show considerable effort to be hosted then. However if for example you already have 10 decent missions finished quickly  and you plan to go beyond the 20 limit, I could see how that could be an exception. As Goober said, this is a hypothetical statement, but since people here are looking for that for some reason, I'll offer it.

Compare this the one-month limit monkey rule. It can be elongated if the offense is more severe, and possibly (depending on whether the Admins will forgive that much) shortened if the offense is very minimal. However, Goober may have different logic behind this, but common sense states that this limit has some degree of reasoning involved depending on the situation. To my understanding, this reasoning will be held the same way for the mission limit.

The 20 mission rule seems good to me, as it just seems like a general standpoint to make rules depending on the situation. Aim your projects to not go over that limit and you'll be fine. Exceptions, if ever made (as I could be wrong with Goober's logic behind the rule), should only be rarely and if an ambitious project is showing considerable effort.

That being said, get out of here, go FRED a campaign, and worry about the limit when the time comes. Just keep in mind that exceptions will rarely be made (again I'm speaking on behalf of Goober, so I could be wrong.), so just aim not to go over 20. It's quite simple, really.

[colecampbell666]

"Use common sense"

Thank you. That is what is wrong with the world, no one uses any.

[NGTM-1R]

"No exceptions" does not really mean "no exceptions, ever" because Rule Number 0 in this policy, as in all policies, is "Use common sense". 

Y'see, this would all be so much easier if you would add some qualifiers. Surely you've figured that out by now?

But seriously. If you present things as if they're ironclad then people are going to assume they're ironclad. We can't read your mind and that's not in our job description. So if it's not a 100-percent-hard-and-fast rule don't come out here and make it sound like it is.

[Goober5000]

Yeah, but after all the protests and complaints that came out of the monkey policy thread, I wanted to put a stop to it before it got started.  Obviously, I underestimated the enthusiasm of this forum for complaining.

[ns161]

I know I don't post that much but I must say this policy seems pretty well thought out.

I certainly don't have the expertise to FRED or MOD or anything like that, but I can write (I may actually at some point churn out a storyline for a campaign...) and I will say this:

The "Sequel" idea to get around the 20 mission limit seems useful.  There's usually three or four points in a long story where you can wrap up a storyline, call it finished, and place the rest of the narrative into a "sequel" which is really just a continuation in disguise.  So I don't think the limit is as big of a problem as some people seem to think.

Goober, I must say I'm a little disappointed in your characterization of campaign categories as falling into "terrans vs. vasudans" "vasudans vs. terrans" etc.

That's like saying FS1 and FS2 are the exact same game because they both have "Terrans and Vasudans vs. Shivans."  Obviously the particular storyline makes a big difference.

I get what you were TRYING to say, but I think it came out wrong.

Overall though it seems like a well thought out policy. 

[Mobius]

I'd like to add something to the discussion.

IMO the possibility to get a project done depends on the developing team. If you have members working on multiple projects you can't have great hopes. I work for the FSCRP and INFA and I can claim without problems that working on two projects simultaneously is incredibly confusing. Passing continuously from FRED_INF to FRED is something I find exhausting and confusing, I can only imagine what a forumite working for the FS Port, SA, TVWP experiences(this is an example, I'm not refering to someone in particular). Giving my personal experience I think people tend to prefer a project for a long and indetermined period of time, which is bad, thus slowing down the other projects, which is worse.

Obviously there are many things to take in consideration: we had to put Steadfast on hold because most members of the team had the Uni to deal with. INF SCP is being negatively affected by Rampage's RL. Just to give a few examples.

I personally think it's a matter of reducing the number of badges or, at least, make sure that whoever has/is going to get 3+ badges is really going to help 3+ projects. If people want a lot of badges they must prove their reliability.

My opinion doesn't touch small campaign development teams.

[Snail]

Other important things are how committed someone is to the project, and whether or not they're actually as skilled as they say they are (or make themselves out to be). You coul say you have 10 team members, but all of them could just be in there to steal you secrets for their own campaign, or just to find out what happens (or even to leak it to the public). Some people might overwork themselves, join too many projects, start off enthusiastically and then lose interest completely after a while. Who's on your staff is an important factor. Having 10 useless sods is definitely going to slow down your campaign.

[Mobius]

So true, I agree with you.

IMO the badge side of the subject should be taken in consideration.

[Polpolion]

Other important things are how committed someone is to the project, and whether or not they're actually as skilled as they say they are (or make themselves out to be). You coul say you have 10 team members, but all of them could just be in there to steal you secrets for their own campaign, or just to find out what happens (or even to leak it to the public). Some people might overwork themselves, join too many projects, start off enthusiastically and then lose interest completely after a while. Who's on your staff is an important factor. Having 10 useless sods is definitely going to slow down your campaign.

It's up to the project lead to sort out those idiots from the real workers, not the HLP hosting policy.

EDIT: The HLP is not a socialism. Karajorma and Goober do not own your projects just because they are hosted here, and thus they aren't capable of regulating membership of projects. You can join/start any project you want. Whether HLP will give you webspace and bandwith to put a website and forum on is another matter.

Also, it's not their responsibility to make sure members aren't joining projects just for badges. If people in your project aren't working and you feel they're holding you back, by all means boot them from the team yourself, don't make an admin do it for you.

If Goober came into the 158th internal and started ordering people around and booting my team members, I'd be pretty pissed. The thing is, he can't do that because it's not his project to independantly regulate membership and development, just like he can't dissallow me to hire someone just because they have too many badges.

[Mobius]

Well I don't understand your point. A project leader needs to contact an Admin for Hosted Projects support and requests in the public forum. It's legitimate to debate the arrival of a new team member.

The Administrators should have all the right to verify the potential of the new team member because he will contribute to the release or the death of the project. This Announcement is intended to prevent projects that will surely die from being hosted here but I don't understand why it can't be used to introduce a new modus operandi in the badge system.

[karajorma]

It's up to the project to decide who they want on their team. As far as I'm concerned the only reason the admin should ever interfere is if they feel that a team are giving out positions just cause they want their friends to have an extra badge. Beyond that it's the projects job to decide who is a waste of space and who isn't nor mine.

[Mobius]

But it should be legitimate to ask since, as far as I know, Administrators care about the progress and the eventual death of a project.

[Goober5000]

The admins are not your parents.  If a project is dying, we are not going to take over and do it ourselves; that's stupid.  We'll just archive it or delete it.

We may allow new project leaders to take over from where the old project left off, but then it becomes the new leader's responsibility.

[Mobius]

Oh well...

[Nighthavoc]

ok let me set this straight for my small insignificant mind thats having a hard time processing all this
if i want to create a campaign put it on HLP see what all you guys think etc etc i need to do everything this
policy says
simple yes or no answer is cool