As an interested observer (which is really all I generally am 
), I’d also like to reinforce the appreciation of experienced eyes looking at ship designs and list creations.
My experience has often been like this:
1. Fan creates new, cool thing. Fan asks community for thoughts about it.
2. Veteran explains (often with merit) that the new, cool thing doesn’t really fit thematically/is poorly designed/too powerful, and says they’d prefer it not to be in the game.
3. Fan gets upset (often with merit) that the Veteran is taking such a hardline stance on something the Fan only ever intended as a fun idea and just wanted someone experienced to contribute wisdom to. Fan defends creation.
4. Veteran gets upset that the Fan is (apparently) ignoring all their experience and advice, and is furthermore attacking them over the creation and freely-offered advice. Veteran ‘shakes the dust from their shoes’ and stops commenting on new, cool things from anyone.
5. Sometimes the Fan also stops posting new, cool things. The Fan misses out on that useful advice they were after. Generally, the enthusiasm for the game has dropped for both the Fan and the Veteran.
This isn’t just something I’ve seen here but in many places, and especially where a core of dedicated gamers has been keeping a long-out of print game alive. What I’d much rather see (from my personal experience, but maybe others will recognise it, too) is something a bit more like this:
1. Fan creates new, cool thing. Fan asks community for thoughts about it.
2. Veteran suggests (often with merit) that the new, cool thing doesn’t really fit thematically/is poorly designed/too powerful, and says they’d personally prefer it not to be in the game.
3. Fan says, “That’s cool, thanks for your input! But say I was going to play with it anyways: how would you change it to make it the best version of a cool, new thing it can be, based on its own merits?â€*
After 3, the Veteran has options:
4. (a) Veteran could say, “Sorry, I don’t think I can really help you with that. All the best with it, though!†Fan and Veteran don’t work together on this cool new thing, but continue participating on the forum.
4. (b) Veteran could say, “Sure! As I said before, I don’t personally like it. But I think if you made a change to this bit of the thing, it would really help improve the concept you have for it.â€
After 4. (b), the Fan has options, too:
5. (a) Fan could say, “Thanks for your suggestions! I don’t think it’s really what I was going for, but I appreciate someone providing some meaningful feedback.†The Fan and the Veteran don’t work together on this cool new thing, but continue participating.
5 (b) Fan could say, “Thanks for your suggestions! I think you’re right, this really does improve my cool, new thing!†After this, the discussion might continue, and some useful things happen!
6. Both the Fan and the Veteran continue participating in the forum, and might even do something cool and new together. Other people get to see useful thoughts and interesting discussions.
(* Obviously replace this silly examples with something more fitting as required).
It’s a bit of a silly flowchart (and maybe too wordy), but I use it to illustrate some key things I think often get missed in these discussions. The fans coming up with cool new things aren’t generally asking the experienced veterans for permission to use something. They usually want useful, meaningful advice for how to improve their concept within the remit they’ve decided on, suggestions from experienced people who have a wider range of experiences and knowledge than they do.
It can even go the other way, too: people creating the new, cool stuff can misinterpret someone offering suggestions as someone trying to stifle and control their new stuff. That’s super-ultra-frustrating for the person just trying to offer their suggestions freely, extra ideas for the melting pot of ideas.
But it’s little wonder that people making new stuff have that misunderstanding when people shutting down their ideas is so commonplace. Maybe a little more understanding and care on both sides would make it better for everyone? (And you don’t have to be as wordy as me to do it! 
).
I like your flow charts.
I am in no way upset at his input. I hope my answer didn't come off that way. Just trying to explain the scope of the project in question. It is supposed to be OTT and ridiculous to a certain extent. A proverbial "option for everything."
I am taking to heart what he pointed out about the points though, as that is a basis for fine tuning the ships.
I completely understand where he was coming from, and if I was trying to make something for the core game, all his points would be extremely applicable. That being said, I hope going forward it is clear what the purpose of the ASC 2.0 is, and that it is by no means intended to be taken super seriously. I personally want people to enjoy the fluff and designs (and easter eggs, See if you can find them all) the most.
So please keep bringing any and all feedback. Just know the frame of reference I am working from means not all of it will be incorporated. Or as you said "That’s cool, thanks for your input! But say I was going to play with it anyways!"
