Political God-Modding

[Siggon Kristov]

Stuff like this make the game boring for other players:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=344871

There were 2 monarchist parties in Indrala, and one is gone now. I remember while being there, the other party boasted about IML support; I can only laugh now.

Anyway, this bill is unfair. I know I'm no longer there, but this is really messed up for new players. It will prevent anyone from gaining visibility, especially with the long term lengths and the ICP popularity already existing. It will take a 2/3 supermajority to revert this law, and I figure the dude isn't leaving for now.

The other player said exactly this to me: "I was planning to leave, but not since the monarchy is being threatened"
They are trying to somewhat own Indrala. By the way, the party that installed and controlled the monarch's character is gone; isn't that a violation? The intentions, of both those monarchist parties, were to remain in Indrala to somewhat keep their mark in the game, even if they weren't really participating or playing, much.

Less bills, less debates, therefore less fun. That bill defeats the whole purpose of the game, and it puts the old party, which doesn't want to participate much (I recall there being a bill where he complained about new parties being able to raise visibility too quickly by proposing lots of changes at once), significantly ahead of the newer parties. That leaves a bad first impression on new players who may end up in Indrala. They may think this is a crappy game overall, and leave. We don't want that, do we?

[Zanz]

While nation-locking can be frustrating, it's been done countless times in the past and it will continue to be done. It will take a concerted effort to remove the party, but it can be done by a dedicated and organized effort. It's not godmodding, it's using the game mechanics to the player's advantage, and game mechanics are first in Particracy.

[Siggon Kristov]

It's telling a player that all is decided and no changes are allowed. If the proposal quota handout could be "0" then I bet they'd put it at 0 instead of 1.

[Zanz]

They probably would, you're right, but it isn't 0, it's 1, and that's the point. It's not impossible, just difficult. Many real life political regimes would jump on the same opportunity, were it presented to them.

[UniSocAll]

Indeed, it is a tactics used. It happens, and as Zanz said, the game mechanics comes first. It is there to be used, and so players use it.

[Siggon Kristov]

But RL political regimes don't have "RP protocols" which prevent RP of civil war or something.
A real life political regime can lie and alter visibility, but it's difficult to strike down a real populist movement. The party is being prevented from gaining visibility.

It's the concept of it that bothers me, even if it's "difficult" instead of "impossible" as you say. Besides, that still turns away new players. What's the point of holding onto a nation as if you own it? It's just a game, and Liu Che and chamon123 were way too serious about it.

You said it yourself, that the "nation-locking can be frustrating" which is why you have to think of the new players. It's even more frustrating for them.

[UniSocAll]

But it's there in the game-mechanics, so it is perfectly legal. It can be used for RP, but is used to lock nations as well. Not much you can do, but talk with the players that did it.

[Siggon Kristov]

And you're not paying attention to the main point; you're just nit-picking at what you want ot talk about...

New players might get frustrated.

Why am I talking to anyone? I've done enough by starting this thread. I'm not affected by the problem; the new players are. Something can be done about this.

If we're going to talk about "nation-locking" in the "RP" sense, then that should not be allowed; that's definitely god-modding, in my opinion, at least.

And read what I said: it's the concept that I'm against. I'm against what the players have in their minds. Liu Che and chamon123 think they own the nation. They would message me to tell me what's allowed and what's not allowed, and nowhere idd I violate cultural protocols when I checked with the mods, but they told me I did. And they told me RP came first, and that I was lying when I said game mechanics came first (mods told me game mechanics came first).

They like to determine their personal subset of rules for their nation, not in the sense of game mechanics and legilsation, but in the sense of telling other players how to play and what's going on.

This is not about my own problems when I was in Indrala; I'm only showing you what I mean when I refer to the entire concept of what they're doing.

The other party in Indrala, and newer ones to come, can't do anything anymore. They basically can't play the game.

[UniSocAll]

And what are you proposing to be done, then? Yes, new players will be affected, but what do you want to do? Change the minimum limit? Ask moderators to step in?

There is nothing to do. New players will either move on to another nation, or leave the game. Players do think they own the nation, and it is done via different ways. Locking the nation, asking for early elections repeatedly, impose past RP conventions on newer players, force people to adhere to their cultures, etc.

[Siggon Kristov]

In gets a little out of hand, and yes, Moderation should step in, even if that only means saying "Hey, if Indrala gets too boring, move to another nation if you like" then guide them on how to do so.

If it was possible, they could give all players max quota whenever such a bill is passed; that would be great. I just hope Indrala doesn't set the maximum accumulative quota to "1" as well -_-

Anyway, I left the entire thread for moderation. I wanted them to look into the issue and decide what to do, from there.