Changing the Rules for War RP

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby PaleRider » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:26 pm

For reference and to lay clear my potential and probable bias in this matter:

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=400257

Rule at question:
9. Military RP: Countries going to war with each other have to consider the following. Before RP starts, there has to be an OOC agreement between the countries about possible or necessary consequences of the RP. It also has to have a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be interpreted in in-game terms (ie does it mean that the country is fighting as normal, surrenders, or is the RP void, or at least part of the RP).
This OOC agreement has to be voted on in the same bill that serves as the declaration of war, or in a bill made prior to the DoW, but in the same game month, and has to be accepted by a 2/3rd majority of the countries players (not parties).
If no such agreement happens, the RP will be void from day one. If a specific player is responsible for such RPs at least twice, he'll be subject to moderation sanctions.

In recognizing pre-rule history, and my own experience in such matters (both ill and positive) i ask Moderation to change these rules to allow for easier facilitation of RP. As the current military rules state: an OOC agreement must be reached before players can join or start a war RP and then 2/3 of players in each country must agree to this. Now i can understand the reasoning behind such measures (again from personal experience) however i do find them stiffing. War RP, much like real international affairs is hardly planned out in such detail and i believe that the current dearth of international and war RP is partly because of such onerous requirements. If only a positive minority of players wishes to ignore a war RP or potential conflict RP they can do so without detriment. Now i understand that we already debated this and i do regret not speaking up against this at that time. However before this becomes a problem (at least for me) i would like to air my concerns.

Now as an alternative to the rule i would like to propose a rough draft of the following:
9. When conducting a war or other military RP the following factors should be considered by all engaging parties: state of national armed forces (and nation in general), prior build RP to tensions, domestic political situation, allies and potential enemies and player support.
When preparing an RP, some form of military authorization must pass the national legislature and be declared as passed by the game mechanics. Players should note that lack of broad party support for any war bill will hamper national spirit to the war and morale of the armed forces and the less parties support the war the less popular support and morale there is. Players should role play their armed forces factoring in the above to make sure to prevent god-modding. If unsure about your actions and conduct of the war seek advice from Moderation and other players to ensure god modding does not become an issue.
Any nation that ceases to participate in a conflict and attempts to retcon will be allowed out of the RP but it must accept a "victors peace" unless extenuating circumstances exist where Moderation will step in to provide guidance and a resolution to the RP.
This rule, if approved will not apply to any RP retroactively unless consent is given by ALL parties in said RP.
Political Affiliation~ GOP (US)
Pro: Liberal Conservatism, Paleo-liberalism, Chicago Capitalism, social conservatism, neoconservative
Anti: leftist, multiculturalism, Islamic radicalism
Currently the Zardic People's Party
Starring as Wiendonia in NS
PaleRider
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby Zongxian » Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:51 pm

I oppose these suggestions absolutely.

Obviously in the real world conflicts are not planned out ahead of time, but this is not the real world. Also, under the current rules, every menial detail does not have to be pre-planned and laid out ahead of time. There is flexibility within the current rules and its not as if the rules stifle creativity or any sort of ability to have an interesting war. All that is required is a general idea about the war and how it should be done. It is an agreement of mutual understanding and exists to help aid players in avoiding clashes over the conduct of RP.

And because of the nature of international war RP, it makes sense to require a 2/3rd player approval, rather than just a simple majority or what you propose. To have wars decided by plural consent is just going to lead to player conflict and it also unfairly favors one-party states.
User avatar
Zongxian
 
Posts: 1042
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby Afrocentric » Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:01 am

I am opposed to this as well and favor the current system.

BTW, if the players in Mordusia choose to not recognize your RP, then accept it and move on because in reality, those guys do speak for the nation; 2/3 of them didn't want to RP so why are you chastising them for their choice? If they want to be the "Ikradon of Seleya", let them and ignore them; it's their loss.

Now if you do want to RP with them, message a few of them and work something out, but don't just post an article on the forums about you invading their country and expect them to automatically go along with it. I hope you understand that stuff like this can really turn people off the concept of RPing and the game in general.
Image
Image
Image

Urban Party of Kirlawa, Kirlawa - Inactive
Democratic Reform Party, Talmoria - Inactive
Labour Party, Saridan - Inactive
Urban Party of Rutania, Rutania - Inactive

http://www.soundcloud.com/djtechnotikofficial
User avatar
Afrocentric
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:20 am
Location: Maryland / Rutania

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby Aquinas » Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

On a practical level, I think it's worth considering whether you're likely to get a fun and mutually enjoyable war RP in a situation where more than a third of the players in one or more of the nations involved don't want it in the first place? You're probably better off finding a different partner/nation for the RP you have in mind.

Also, Pale, if I'm honest, in that Bill debate you came across to me as putting inappropriate pressure on the Mordusia players to go along with your RP plans. That may not have been what you intended, but as I said, that's how it came across.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby PaleRider » Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:47 am

Alright now that im done getting high of bleach and shelling out ridiculous sums of money for virus protection let me see what trouble i created....

Zong- i dont see how favoring one party states is a problem unless youre talking of a situation where there is only one party in power and the other party(ies) have yet to be elected to seats....

Afro- I have tried to work with the Mordusian players but one of the guys is being a jerk about it and the others just ignore my messages. Only Occupy Mordusia is willing to be constructive

Aquinas- I understand that however i did try to contact the relevant players and no one, except Occupy responded....

En general:

In the end i do think by moving to a majority system would actively encourage players to RP more on a daily level. It is extremely frustrating that a small minority of players can disrupt an RP, whether fairly well planned out or not and it is frustrating that players can simply blow off others in regards to RP and face no repercussions. However getting back to the main issue......

In the end i do believe that if we allowed simple majorities to declare war then it would be easier to facilitate war rp. If your opposed to a war then you could take the position, RP wise of the anti-war party and bring in a new element to the RP of a nation divided at war. Honestly i dont think that just because you dont want to do a military RP doesnt mean that you should be able to kill it off if others want to. I do think that by encouraging players to take a unique position and offer a new angle of RP, such as war opposition would be beneficial to the game as a whole and make everyone not take everything so personally.
For those players who have hissy fits...they can always change nations
Political Affiliation~ GOP (US)
Pro: Liberal Conservatism, Paleo-liberalism, Chicago Capitalism, social conservatism, neoconservative
Anti: leftist, multiculturalism, Islamic radicalism
Currently the Zardic People's Party
Starring as Wiendonia in NS
PaleRider
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby Farsun » Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:06 am

I agree with the sentiment that states do not prepare for war often times, there is usually a build up of tensions and diplomatic rows but the governing rules of RP is consensus, that is something that has been around for quite sometime, especially recently in RP. In a game such as this where nations are either active or inactive in international relations, I really believe that the current system is best. Aquinas said it best to be honest, when players consent the RP tends to be better because the players want to be involved. Forcing a group of players to be involved? Tends to have people be whinny and less apt to realistic and fair RP.
Dorvish Social Nationalist Party
OOC Administrator of the Artanian Union & Bureaucrat of the Particracy Wiki
Farsun
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:47 pm
Location: New York, United States.

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby Martinulus » Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:44 pm

By the same reasoning, Pale, we could also change the rules for international RP to allow international RPs to continue even if parties that are not on the forums get voted into office. It's happened to me a couple of times that I have been building up H&GS's international stature and right in the middle of a foreign policy discussion or RP, another government takes office that is only interested in domestic RP. That'd be as disruptive as the situation describes, even moreso, it biases the system in favour of one-party states that don't have to worry about elections (which is honestly why I believe that Indrala is in a far better position than H&GS internationally; Liu Che doesn't have to worry about the home front).

Alas, that's the game. I don't like the implications your proposal could have for nations. Here's how the argument goes:

1) War does not impact on the mechanics, being RP.

2) Hence why essentially, support for a war is not calculated into the election results and therefore, does not impact on the strength of parties. ICly, that would mean that unless all parties agree to interpret the results in a way that support for the war did matter, you can't say support for the war influences elections whereas realistically it would. (this is the same reason why I object to players playing parties having rabidly monarchist/republican views and being unwilling to compromise; it doesn't factor into the mechanics and it isn't justifiable to say your party's support depends on being pro or against a form of government).

3) Therefore, it is impossible for parties who don't want a war because it disrupts their domestic RP to stop a war except by chance. That would make it possible for one party in a nation very keen on a war (somebody who moved over just to enable a war, even!) to force the other parties into a scenario disrupting, even fundamentally changing, their national RP's character without their consent. I don't think that's right on the strength of essentially randomish game mechanics.
Image
Hosianisch-Demokratisches Verbund - Hulstria and Gao-Soto

Notable previous parties:
Folkepartiet (People's Party) - Kazulia
User avatar
Martinulus
 
Posts: 971
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby PaleRider » Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:30 pm

Ignoring the previous statements made above, it is time to ditch the Rildanor Accords once and for all. They are an archaic standard and really stifle war RP. Declaring war, in the absence of an in game agreement reached among the players of a certain nation, should only take a basic majority of the national legislature to do. Having all these hoops to jump through like having the Minister of Defense and the head of state and head of government approve puts not only multi-party nations at a disadvantage since they any one player could considerably kill an RP by holding the requisite position.
Further, the formula's regarding military forces should be chucked for the simple reason of I know of no one who follows them, or even did follow them to begin with. They are ultra restrictive and prevent nations from boosting their military numbers beyond a certain arbitrary threshold and since almost every nation in Terra has close to the exact same population, its really moot. Military number size should not be contingent on some mathematical formula, it should be based on RP and how big thy defense budget is.

anyone thinking that my latest outburst of calling for change to the War RP system is related to the whole debacle the recent RP devolved into would be absolutely right
Political Affiliation~ GOP (US)
Pro: Liberal Conservatism, Paleo-liberalism, Chicago Capitalism, social conservatism, neoconservative
Anti: leftist, multiculturalism, Islamic radicalism
Currently the Zardic People's Party
Starring as Wiendonia in NS
PaleRider
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:26 am

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby Farsun » Fri Jan 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Unfortunately Pale, this has been something that I have been attempting to work on for a few years now and everytime it gains steam something like what just happened, happens. It puts a bad taste in the mouth of the players and they do not want to participate because of people who cannot wrap their head around the fact that their country isn't America. For instance, did you know Solentia is building super-carriers right now? Probably not. Are they going to get away with it? Yup. Veteran RPer such as Liu, Khaler and myself will ignore it but newer players will sit there and agree and fight with it, why? Because they don't know any better. There is no index of purchases and buying power and what this group has or this has, so unfortunately do not complain about a system that has been attempted to be fixed and that you had a part in breaking.
Dorvish Social Nationalist Party
OOC Administrator of the Artanian Union & Bureaucrat of the Particracy Wiki
Farsun
 
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:47 pm
Location: New York, United States.

Re: Changing the Rules for War RP

Postby Afrocentric » Sat Jan 03, 2015 4:58 am

I think we need a committee of 3 technology czars that will oversee RPs to ensure players don't create outlandish militaries and I say that because Amaz can't always be here to moderate between our OOC bitching and IC bullshit. Perhaps, it's up to a player driven group to police the technologies and actions taken by players to help them understand that their nation isn't America or the British Empire circa 1800. It's unrealistic for Vorona or Sekowo to have US-style technology or Army's that rival the Chinese in terms of manpower. Likewise, it's not possible for Rutania to make bombing runs on Dorvik (whose military is more powerful than ours) and not face any retaliation.

Is this how you all want to RP from now on? I shudder to think what will happen if we carry this "MY ARMAY IZ NUMBA 1!!!!" mindset over to P3.
Image
Image
Image

Urban Party of Kirlawa, Kirlawa - Inactive
Democratic Reform Party, Talmoria - Inactive
Labour Party, Saridan - Inactive
Urban Party of Rutania, Rutania - Inactive

http://www.soundcloud.com/djtechnotikofficial
User avatar
Afrocentric
 
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 1:20 am
Location: Maryland / Rutania

Next

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests