Questions & Requests

In-Game and Forum requests and complaints.

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby cm9777 » Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:20 am

Occam wrote:
House Spencer wrote:
iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.


What does this mean?


It is an attempt at preventing "party sitting". Party sitters are players who don't really contribute to or even take part in the game but for some reason want to keep their parties active. Therefore they still log in regularly enough not to be considered inactive. That's why parties can get inactivated if they keep logging in but not voting for five days. Of course this is easily prevented by not just regularly logging in but regularly voting on something. The rule you cite is intended to close this loophole. Thus when a player clearly only votes in order not to be inactivated, this is party sitting, too. A criterion for whether or not a player is doing this, is whether he contributes to bill debates, RP, etc. For how long this has to go on for a player to get deactivated is not regulated and therefore left to Moderation's judgement.

Regards,
Occam



These proposed changes are still in the works and weren’t meant to be public yet. They will likely be changed in wording to make it clearer and to avoid issues if necessary.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby cm9777 » Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:26 am

House Spencer wrote:The other party in Jelbania doesn't comment on any bills. Can he be closed down for that?

Sounds harsh. I'd rather we just got rid of the dictator tactics like limiting proposal quota



Obviously as the player of the party In question I would sound biased (maybe someone else should deal with this but I’ll do what I can).

Commenting on bills is not in any way a requirement and it’s not possible for me to be inactivated for that. Regarding the proposal quota I don’t necessarily think it’s a dictator tactic but a competitive one. It has never been against the rules to do this but perhaps we can look at maybe having a proposed minimum proposal cap in the rules.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby House Spencer » Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:23 am

cm9777 wrote:
House Spencer wrote:The other party in Jelbania doesn't comment on any bills. Can he be closed down for that?

Sounds harsh. I'd rather we just got rid of the dictator tactics like limiting proposal quota



Obviously as the player of the party In question I would sound biased (maybe someone else should deal with this but I’ll do what I can).

Commenting on bills is not in any way a requirement and it’s not possible for me to be inactivated for that. Regarding the proposal quota I don’t necessarily think it’s a dictator tactic but a competitive one. It has never been against the rules to do this but perhaps we can look at maybe having a proposed minimum proposal cap in the rules.


Then what exactly does the rule I quoted actually mean?
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby cm9777 » Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:06 am

House Spencer wrote:
cm9777 wrote:
House Spencer wrote:The other party in Jelbania doesn't comment on any bills. Can he be closed down for that?

Sounds harsh. I'd rather we just got rid of the dictator tactics like limiting proposal quota



Obviously as the player of the party In question I would sound biased (maybe someone else should deal with this but I’ll do what I can).

Commenting on bills is not in any way a requirement and it’s not possible for me to be inactivated for that. Regarding the proposal quota I don’t necessarily think it’s a dictator tactic but a competitive one. It has never been against the rules to do this but perhaps we can look at maybe having a proposed minimum proposal cap in the rules.


Then what exactly does the rule I quoted actually mean?


It means someone who logs in every 3 days and votes with the intent of avoiding inactivation while being very inactive themselves. We would be looking for a pattern of this happening several times before inactivating someone.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby House Spencer » Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:39 pm

???

iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby cm9777 » Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:27 am

House Spencer wrote:???

iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.


The rule currently says three days. There is a draft proposal being discussed by moderation to change this to 2. For now it is three.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby EasyPeasy » Fri Jul 27, 2018 9:50 pm

Hi,

At the moment Beluzia hasn't put in any time or effort to build a working military. It kinda exists but only in a very vague way. So as Prime Minister I wanted to reorganize the military. I am not interested in invasion or war etc and i appreciate i'd need consent and planning from other people to make that work anyway. Also I appreciate the need for heavy realism which means I wouldn't award Beluzia 800 nuclear subs and 700 stealth fighters or star wars death stars. My idea is that whatever money we do spend on our military would also cost money to maintain which then causes budgetary knock on effects. Apart from those considerations though are there any other special rules we'd need to follow?

Also, imports and exports. Is there any way to find out what our country has in terms of resources, commodities and industry or can we just agree on this via ourselves with grounded realism in the picture?

Thanks a lot.
Beluzia.
EasyPeasy
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:59 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby lewiselder1 » Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:02 pm

EasyPeasy wrote:Hi,

At the moment Beluzia hasn't put in any time or effort to build a working military. It kinda exists but only in a very vague way. So as Prime Minister I wanted to reorganize the military. I am not interested in invasion or war etc and i appreciate i'd need consent and planning from other people to make that work anyway. Also I appreciate the need for heavy realism which means I wouldn't award Beluzia 800 nuclear subs and 700 stealth fighters or star wars death stars. My idea is that whatever money we do spend on our military would also cost money to maintain which then causes budgetary knock on effects. Apart from those considerations though are there any other special rules we'd need to follow?

Also, imports and exports. Is there any way to find out what our country has in terms of resources, commodities and industry or can we just agree on this via ourselves with grounded realism in the picture?

Thanks a lot.
Beluzia.


For the first question, you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head: just be careful with realism and not going overboard. Also, if Beluzia hasn’t opted out of the Global RP Accord, make sure you stick to the guidelines set out in the military and economic rankings drafted by the GRC (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7929&start=0).

You will note that the GRC now does not generally consider just long lists of numbers regarding troops and equipment sufficient for an up-ranking; you’re free to make them, but as an aid to RP that shows, not tells military power, if that makes sense. You can find the more official description in that link to the rankings.

For the second question, not for the time being. Try the Wiki, but otherwise you’re free to kind of just make this up: just be reasonable and relatively realistic, again. Bear in mind the laws of your nation too I suppose: taxes, for example, and regulations.

Ultimately you don’t want to get too bogged down in numbers and making everything hyper-realistic (well, some players like to, but it’s not an expectation). So long as it’s reasonably grounded and doesn’t conflict with previous RP you’re good to go, though I always prefer RPs that show a story rather than telling us every little detail. It’s up to you though, really. It is as your name suggests easy peasy ;)

Thanks :)
aka Lewis

I used to be a moderator like you, until I took an arrow to the knee
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby EasyPeasy » Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:18 pm

Hi,

Thanks for clarifying the stuff about the military. Very useful going forward.

I have another question this time about treaties. We have plenty of out of date treaties on our books some over 300 years old but would it be game-legal to implement an RP law putting a time limit on the legality of treaties after a set period of time beyond voting them down directly by Congress?

My intention is to ensure that long forgotten, inactive or obsolete treaties aren't just left to sit in 'storage' and a pro-active attempt is made to keep them up to date.

Here is the wording of my Treaty Expiration Act for reference:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577184

Many thanks again,
EP.
EasyPeasy
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:59 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Occam » Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:35 pm

EasyPeasy wrote:Here is the wording of my Treaty Expiration Act for reference:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577184


Article IV i) is definitely against the rules.
Upon expiration the treaty must be brought before Congress and voted down by a majority.

In particular rule 6eiii (my emphasis):
iii.An RP law must not contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Additionally they cannot ban types of parties (without considerable RP justification) or users. RP Laws must also not force users to vote in a particular way.
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Game Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests