Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

In-Game and Forum requests and complaints.

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby FPC » Fri May 04, 2018 1:28 pm

CanFly wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty.php?partyid=34136

Not sure what language this is... possibly German ? Anyway it’s not the national language Of Talmoria


Thanks, I'll message the user and ask him to change it.
Used to be a mod xx current Temporary mod
Wiki Admin and Bureaucrat (for some reason)
User avatar
FPC
 
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:14 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby Aquinas » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:32 am

This report follows a discussion I saw on the #culture-and-design channel on Discord, although I felt it would probably be better for me to raise my concerns here rather than joining in the debate there.

There is a situation going on in Dorvik where the ruling Dorvische Blaue Kalifat Party is trying to make Dorvik an Ahmadi (OOC: Muslim) country, with a Caliph and with Ahmadism as the official state religion. This is despite the fact that according to Dorvik's Cultural Protocol, Ahmadis have no measurable presence in that country.

When this was raised on the server, CM responded:

There is a 2.5% Others section in Dorvik's CP and the characters are German. While it does seem rather ridiculous, it can be justified rp wise by the crazy party leader wanting to make Ahmadism the state religion. However the state religion thing should have the article (via the porposal) for state religion on there. Thats my opinion on the matter.
Not exactly the most realistic but imo still borderline acceptable


I am hoping Moderation will reconsider this verdict.

As I pointed out earlier, the current Game Rules lack specificity when it comes to outlining what the requirements are for playing in Culturally Protected nations. For this reason, the verdict CM delivered on the Discord server is arguably well within Moderation's realm of discretion, although I would personally argue it would be the wrong approach to take in this case.

Please allow me to quote what the previous Game Rules said on this subject:

6. Culture.

Some nations in Particracy have Cultural Protocols, meaning they are "Culturally Protected" and bound by this section of the rules, whilst others are "Culturally Open" and are not. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation.

6.1 All role-play must respect the established cultural background in Culturally Protected nations.

6.1.1 The players in a nation have an individual and collective responsibility to be mindful of the nation's cultural complexion and take it into account in their role-play decisions. For example, it would usually be unreasonable for a party to present itself primarily as the representative of a minuscule ethnic or religious minority, since realistically such a party would be unlikely to win significant electoral support. Similarly, for example, in a nation split between 2 ethnic communities and with 4 players, it would be reasonable to have 2 cross-ethnic parties and an ethnic-based party for each ethnic group, but it would usually be unreasonable for all 4 parties to be ethnic-based parties representing the same ethnic group. In cases where too many parties belong to one cultural or religious group and Moderation is brought in to arbitrate, the onus will generally be on the more recently-established party to amend its identity.

6.1.2 Special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically.


I believe this outlines the right approach to take in a situation like this. In other words, this is to say that religious minority rule can sometimes be permitted, but that the "burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically".

In this scenario in Dorvik, my interpretation would be that the Ahmadi regime has not been sufficiently role-played and does not have sufficient role-play justification. There have been no posts on the forum about it, and not much in the way of in-game RP either.

The only RP explanation I could find was a sentence in the party's party description field reading:

In November 4453, President Biggelswerd converted to Ahmadism after claiming that the Prophet Ahmad came to him in a dream and told him to convert the people of Dorvik and establish a new Caliphate.


I am doubtful that one man's religious conversion experience can be considered sufficient RP justification for Dorvik to suddenly move in the direction of becoming an Ahmadi state. Realistically, even if he convinced himself of this, how realistic is it to suppose he even managed to convince the rest of his party that making Dorvik an Ahmadi country is a good idea?

On a final point, as I've already made clear, I feel there are issues with the current rules surrounding Cultural Protocols. Last month Moderation seemed to indicate these rules would be reconsidered, although I notice this area of the rules has not been mentioned in the rules redraft plan. Is there any chance we could at least put the CP rules "on the agenda", as it were?

Apologies for the length of this and thanks for reading.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 8880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby cm9777 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:00 pm

It’s certainly something we can look into I will speak with the other mods and potentially the GRC to see what they think.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1333
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby lewiselder1 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:34 pm

Added CPs to the rules redraft plans, just forgot to add them to the list I’m afraid haha!

Regarding this particular situation, I think you’re probably right pointing that out. I think a more gradual change towards Ahmadism in that party, combined with the RP of a growing Ahmadi movement in the nation, would be good enough. It doesn’t have to be at a snail’s pace, but some set-up would be better.

However I’ll leave it to CM to decide as I don’t know bucket loads about the specifics of the situation. That’s my advice, though.
CRC for Dovani
aka Lewis

I used to be a moderator like you, until I took an arrow to the knee
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby Jessaveryja » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:10 pm

I will admit, I should probably RP more on it if I am going to continue with it. At the time of my bill proposing Ahmadism as the state religion, there was a state religion which had not been defined by the original bill. I took the initiative to define one. I can provide the relevant legislation if requested. I will be considering whether I will be continuing on my course and doing the proper RP work or if I will be dropping it.
Image
Joined Particracy on: December 18, 2008
Click here for my versions of Siggon's spreadsheets.
User avatar
Jessaveryja
 
Posts: 2190
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 2:53 pm
Location: Telamon

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby cm9777 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:43 am

Regarding that part of the past rules on minority rule type scenarios, I’m not sure a particular distinction is necessary for those in particular just that rp should remain realistic (with a certain degree after all we need to allow leeway for different rps).

I came across some interesting previous rules known as the Pax Cynica which were taken out of action in 2013 I believe. There are references to nation rp rules in there which I assume were before cultural protocols. Perhaps instead of keeping cultural protocols in their current form, we could combine them with potential political protocols to form collective national rp rules. Note this is my opinion and not the consensus of Moderation unless we agree on such an approach later.

Idioc, the author of this Pax Cynica document also warns against the rules turning into a constitution (which apparently resulted in textualism that led to it being rescinded) so I think there should definitely be room for interpretation and discretion so the rules are effective to keep in touch with the community.

Basically, this is a game and not a constitutional republic so to compare Moderation and Wouter running the game to how the Great Commonwealth of Australia is governed would not be correct.(Not saying that anyone is suggesting this but I think there is a lesson in there for improving the rules)


It’s probably best to move this discussion on game rules to another thread such as Moderation/GRC Queries. No doubt similar discussions closer to the implementation.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1333
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby Aquinas » Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:37 am

cm9777 wrote:Regarding that part of the past rules on minority rule type scenarios, I’m not sure a particular distinction is necessary for those in particular just that rp should remain realistic (with a certain degree after all we need to allow leeway for different rps).

I came across some interesting previous rules known as the Pax Cynica which were taken out of action in 2013 I believe. There are references to nation rp rules in there which I assume were before cultural protocols. Perhaps instead of keeping cultural protocols in their current form, we could combine them with potential political protocols to form collective national rp rules. Note this is my opinion and not the consensus of Moderation unless we agree on such an approach later.

Idioc, the author of this Pax Cynica document also warns against the rules turning into a constitution (which apparently resulted in textualism that led to it being rescinded) so I think there should definitely be room for interpretation and discretion so the rules are effective to keep in touch with the community.

Basically, this is a game and not a constitutional republic so to compare Moderation and Wouter running the game to how the Great Commonwealth of Australia is governed would not be correct.(Not saying that anyone is suggesting this but I think there is a lesson in there for improving the rules)


It’s probably best to move this discussion on game rules to another thread such as Moderation/GRC Queries. No doubt similar discussions closer to the implementation.


Parts of CM's last post came across to me as quite confused and TBH a bit concerning, although I won't go into the details of that right here, so as to keep this thread on-topic.

Regardless of whether Jess continues with this RP, it would be really helpful for Moderation to clarify whether this situation in Dorvik is legal in terms of the rules, so we all know where we stand.

To make this more specific, I am asking two questions:

1. Given Dorvik's Cultural Protocol and the RP background, is it legitimate for Jess to be running an Ahmadi party in Dorvik?

2. Given Dorvik's Cultural Protocol and the RP background, is it legitimate for Jess's party to make Ahmadism Dorvik's official religion?
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 8880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby cm9777 » Thu Sep 20, 2018 3:51 am

Yes And Yes. It can be considered an apartheid kind of minority rule esque idea. A previous example was I think when Narikaton Darnussia has a Czar named Sebastian or so which was the same dynamic.

However I do suggest that Jess makes more of an effort to Roleplay it.
Nationale Liberale Partei Inactive

Dundorfische Nationalistisches Allianz Inactive

Federalistische Partei Inactive

Patriot Party Inactive

Modrá Thalleristická Aliancia Active

Moderation
cm9777
 
Posts: 1333
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby Aquinas » Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:18 pm

cm9777 wrote:Yes And Yes. It can be considered an apartheid kind of minority rule esque idea. A previous example was I think when Narikaton Darnussia has a Czar named Sebastian or so which was the same dynamic.

However I do suggest that Jess makes more of an effort to Roleplay it.


Could you explain how, from Moderation's point of view, it is plausible for Dorvish citizens to vote in a party wanting to establish an Ahmadi Caliphate in Dorvik, taking into account that Ahmadis make up less than 2.5% of Dorvik's population?

Even putting aside the Cultural Protocol issue, I could point out that section 6c of the Game Rules states this:

c. Users should always make a conscious effort to keep Roleplay realistic and reasonable.


In Moderation's view, does Jess's current RP in Dorvik meet the rules criteria in terms of being "realistic and reasonable"?

*

http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=35495

Please also see the party linked above, in Badara. This is a "Socialist and Buddhist" party (note the RL references issue, BTW) in a nation with a Buddhist/Daenist population that must be less than 2%. Does Moderation similarly regard this situation as acceptable in terms of the rules?
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 8880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Cultural Protocol Violation Reports

Postby Aquinas » Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:58 am

cm9777 wrote:Yes And Yes. It can be considered an apartheid kind of minority rule esque idea. A previous example was I think when Narikaton Darnussia has a Czar named Sebastian or so which was the same dynamic.


I had been thinking about your Darnussia comment and trying to work out what you meant, but I'm still not sure. Do you suppose you could explain what your point was in your point was in bringing that up? It's just left me a bit puzzled, that's all.

(BTW bear in mind also that unlike Dorvik, Darnussia is Culturally Open, but even if it wasn't I'm not sure how that would necessarily be relevant...)
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 8880
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to Game Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests