The original and new names of nations

[catparty]

I don't think time going by is sufficient. I feel that we need to keep the significant RP component. Countries do not change their names lightly. If a player is unwilling to put his time into developing a long/sensible RP plotline that includes justification for changing the name, then I do not feel that he deserves to establish a new permanent name.

[Siggon Kristov]

I don't think time going by is sufficient. I feel that we need to keep the significant RP component. Countries do not change their names lightly. If a player is unwilling to put his time into developing a long/sensible RP plotline that includes justification for changing the name, then I do not feel that he deserves to establish a new permanent name.

It's why I said 50 years minimum BEFORE Moderation even considers dropping the brackets
Reconsidering your point, I think it should be 100 years, and still with the idea of it being solely up to Moderation.

Also, other nations would have to recognise the name, and by that, I mean other nations would have to call the nation by the new name. If you find them calling the nations by the old name for over 30 years after the change, then it's almost failed new name.

[catparty]

I'd agree with 100 years (200 days real time), coupled with a strong RP justification for the change.

Your idea about other nations needing to have also noted the name change is a really good idea. It promotes an international relations aspect to gameplay. It would also make it harder for a troll to slip a stealth name change through, because other countries will get a chance to hear about the change before it happens.

[Hofsky]

More rules and conditions doesn't mean the game is becoming more realistic. It seems to me that people want to preserve something they have created and fear the loss of their dreams. To me, this is a reflex of weakness. In RL btw names of nations are changed overnight. Even cultures are changed in just a few decades.

So, pls keep in mind this is just a game for joy and try to avoid unnecessary red tape to keep it attractive and manageable.

[zlopado]

Countries do not change their names lightly.

In Cobura/Koburo's case, the name change would be for linguistic reasons (like changing "Germany" to "Deutschland" or "Inglaterra" to "England").

[Siggon Kristov]

I'd agree with 100 years (200 days real time), coupled with a strong RP justification for the change.

Your idea about other nations needing to have also noted the name change is a really good idea. It promotes an international relations aspect to gameplay. It would also make it harder for a troll to slip a stealth name change through, because other countries will get a chance to hear about the change before it happens.

Yup, and the main point of it is to see if the name is really feasible.
If an administration isn't recognised by the international community, it barely exists.
Look at Transnistria and Somaliland. Anyone remembers Zaire?

If a nation isn't called by its new name by other players, then it's not really "recognised"

More rules and conditions doesn't mean the game is becoming more realistic. It seems to me that people want to preserve something they have created and fear the loss of their dreams. To me, this is a reflex of weakness.

Agreed. The whole cultural protocol thing somewhat gives players the feeling of ownership in a nation.
In Beluzia, ownership is shared among active RPers.
The statue controversy was caused because a player who had done no RP tried to make it all up in 1 second and it didn't add up. Despite my dedication to RP in Beluzia, I have been one of the most anti-conservative players. This topic came up before, about players having strong and disturbing emotional connections to fictional nations. I was among critics.

In RL btw names of nations are changed overnight. Even cultures are changed in just a few decades.

Which is the point of my suggestion. Nations can get their name changed to anything they want, but the original name stays in brackets, but there have been exceptions in Kalopia/Wantuni, Kizenia, Vorona, etc.
What I'm suggesting is to drop the brackets if the name eventually becomes recognised.

Davostan, for example...
If most players start referring to it as "Davostag" instead of "Davostan" then maybe the brackets can be dropped.
If I renamed "Beluzia" to "Beluzstan" then the mods would put "Beluzia" in brackets. I'm suggesting that after a certain time, the brackets can be dropped if the new name is recognised by other players.

[LukasV]

Any hope for this idea getting any traction? I think things may be much more aesthetically pleasing if we got rid of the brackets and put a larger focus on RP.

[GreekIdiot]

Which is the point of my suggestion. Nations can get their name changed to anything they want, but the original name stays in brackets, but there have been exceptions in Kalopia/Wantuni, Kizenia, Vorona, etc.

Good point but, Wantuni had absolutely no RP, there was no hellenic based nation in particracy, and I was all too powerful back then - realistically speaking, Wantuni changing to Kalopia has one of the most peculiar RPs in particracy history. Check the wiki (mainly the Aristocrats section).

Deltaria Nova was abandoned so -sometime- it had to move on and I have no idea what Kizenia is. Is that a cake name? Athlorcaea rings NWO bells, many nukes, a nation disappearing - but what was Athlorcaea called before?

[Amazeroth]

Hutori.