Requests: RP Laws [RPC]

Submit your requests on various areas of the game.

Moderator: RP Committee

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Reddy » Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:26 am

Re: Jelbek constitutional bill I accept Moderation's ruling on that law. I lazily assumed that the relevant rule hadn't changed in the new Game Rules. Also I could have been clearer on the fact that this was intended to be an RP law and a separate bill would have been wise.

The RP law is invalid as I did not reference it, does not clearly identify itself and have left the game for a bit anyway. I apologise to all over the confusion caused by this.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Polites » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:44 am

Reddy wrote:Re: Jelbek constitutional bill I accept Moderation's ruling on that law. I lazily assumed that the relevant rule hadn't changed in the new Game Rules. Also I could have been clearer on the fact that this was intended to be an RP law and a separate bill would have been wise.

The RP law is invalid as I did not reference it, does not clearly identify itself and have left the game for a bit anyway. I apologise to all over the confusion caused by this.


Thanks for the clarification. My understanding at the time was that this was not meant to be an RP Law anyway. But regardless, it doesn't meet the requirements necessary to be classified as such, so it will not be enforced by Moderation.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:24 am

Reddy wrote:The RP law is invalid as I did not reference it, does not clearly identify itself


Hold on Reddy is right, rules say:

i.To create an RP law you must: clearly label it as an RP Law, pass it through your nation's legislature with either a simple majority of seats if it is a regular law or a ⅔ majority of seats if it is a constitutional law and reference it clearly in your nation’s “Bills under debate” section.

Thing is C7779's RP law ALSO didn't clearly label as RP law & ALSO wasnt AT ALL EVER referenced in Bills under debate. But Moderation wrongly said was legal
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:12 pm

House Spencer wrote:
Reddy wrote:The RP law is invalid as I did not reference it, does not clearly identify itself


Hold on Reddy is right, rules say:

i.To create an RP law you must: clearly label it as an RP Law, pass it through your nation's legislature with either a simple majority of seats if it is a regular law or a ⅔ majority of seats if it is a constitutional law and reference it clearly in your nation’s “Bills under debate” section.

Thing is C7779's RP law ALSO didn't clearly label as RP law & ALSO wasnt AT ALL EVER referenced in Bills under debate. But Moderation wrongly said was legal


1. The bill you're referring to is clearly labelled as RP (my emphasis): "RP: Reunification of Jelbania". You're right about it not being referenced, though.

2. You're complaining about a bill you voted for? :?

3. Back when you asked about it, you referenced the content, not the form. That's what the answers were based on.

4. The only part of the bill (if any) that is actually RP is the last sentence "Legislation excluding foreign policy matters will only be effective within the territory of the Free Republic due to the autonomy of the regions." This merely acknowledges what was already the case due to role-play. So, whether the bill is "legit" or not, fact is that most of Jelbania is occupied and not under the control of the Jelbaninan government.

Regards
Occam
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:07 am

Occam wrote:1. The bill you're referring to is clearly labelled as RP (my emphasis): "RP: Reunification of Jelbania".


The rule says

To create an RP law you must: clearly label it as an RP Law".


This is not labeled "RP Law" so it is not legit.

"RP" can mean anything there are other bills I see with that label that aren't RP laws. eg.

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=575784
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=575783
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577976
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=561881

Occam wrote:You're right about it not being referenced, though.


Again means its not legit

Occam wrote:2. You're complaining about a bill you voted for? :?


In my defence I hadnt been in jelbania long then and didn't grasp what was hapenning. I was focusing on the renamings and THEY gave me impression Jelbania was being reunified and made normal again as did the title

Occam wrote:3. Back when you asked about it, you referenced the content, not the form. That's what the answers were based on.


Eh?

Occam wrote:4. The only part of the bill (if any) that is actually RP is the last sentence "Legislation excluding foreign policy matters will only be effective within the territory of the Free Republic due to the autonomy of the regions."


Thats not "(if any)" that is HUGE and it WRECKS game mechanics

Occam wrote:This merely acknowledges what was already the case due to role-play. So, whether the bill is "legit" or not, fact is that most of Jelbania is occupied and not under the control of the Jelbaninan government.


Jelbania can be broken up & ruined for playing like this without even passing a single bill in Jelbania to do it?????
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:51 am

House Spencer wrote:
Occam wrote:1. The bill you're referring to is clearly labelled as RP (my emphasis): "RP: Reunification of Jelbania".

The rule says
To create an RP law you must: clearly label it as an RP Law".

This is not labeled "RP Law" so it is not legit.

You don't think you're overly literal here? Something that is obviously a law is labeled as RP. Maybe I'm naive, but I'd say that's sufficient.

House Spencer wrote:
Occam wrote:2. You're complaining about a bill you voted for? :?

In my defence I hadnt been in jelbania long then and didn't grasp what was hapenning. I was focusing on the renamings and THEY gave me impression Jelbania was being reunified and made normal again as did the title

Fair enough.

House Spencer wrote:
Occam wrote:4. The only part of the bill (if any) that is actually RP is the last sentence "Legislation excluding foreign policy matters will only be effective within the territory of the Free Republic due to the autonomy of the regions."

Thats not "(if any)" that is HUGE and it WRECKS game mechanics

I'm sorry, I expressed myself poorly here. What I meant was that this part can be interpreted as an RP-Law or simply as an RP-statement of fact; after all it only acknowledges the status quo.

House Spencer wrote:
Occam wrote:This merely acknowledges what was already the case due to role-play. So, whether the bill is "legit" or not, fact is that most of Jelbania is occupied and not under the control of the Jelbaninan government.

Jelbania can be broken up & ruined for playing like this without even passing a single bill in Jelbania to do it?????

Yes.
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:15 pm

Game Rules wrote:e. It is possible to create RP laws which act as secondary rules which players are required to follow in character only, laws that require players to act or vote in a specific way are not permitted. They are laws which are only referenced in the bill description and not enforced by the game mechanics.

i.To create an RP law you must: clearly label it as an RP Law, pass it through your nation's legislature with either a simple majority of seats if it is a regular law or a ⅔ majority of seats if it is a constitutional law and reference it clearly in your nation’s “Bills under debate” section. To query a new RP law’s legality a user should post on the RP Law Query Thread.
ii.To overturn or abolish an RP law you must pass a bill with a simple majority which explicitly mentions which law you are scrapping and provides a link to the original law. You should then post a link to the bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread.
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.
iv.Moderation reserves the right to declare any RP law invalid in exceptional circumstances.


There are issues with the RP law section of the rules, and I recall pointing this out - to no avail - when the new Game Rules document was up for consultation earlier in the year.

In practice, I suppose much is likely to depend on how strictly Moderation interprets the text in individual cases. To give examples of what I mean:

- (i) suggests that to be legal RP laws "must" clearly label themselves as RP laws. It is dubious as to whether this really ought to be a strict requirement, since if you understand what a RP law is, they are easy to identify - it is simply detail which is not included in actual game mechanic law Articles. In practice, players do not always follow the requirement of putting "RP law" in the title and/or description of bills which include RP laws. As an example, Polites's own OOC: RP Laws reference bill in Selucia lists two bills which do not meet this requirement. Should these RP laws be declared illegal simply due to the lack of labelling? Well, I would personally hope not, although obviously on a literal interpretation of the rules one supposes they should be.

- (i) similarly suggests that to be legal RP laws "must" be referenced in the nation's "Bills under debate" section. This is a very reasonable requirement, since players - especially newly-arrived players - need to be able to easily see what the RP laws are. But should the failure to reference a bill mean it should be declared illegal in each and every case where a challenge is made? Perhaps there could be room for discretion in certain cases. For example, if the bill was passed relatively recently and it is reasonably clear all of the players in the nation know about it and understand it.

- (ii) suggests that to overturn a RP law one "must" mention the law you are scrapping in the bill and post your bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread. I argued at the time this rule was introduced that it was not necessary, and I have not changed my mind since. As you can see, not a single post has appeared on the RP Law Dismissal Thread since it was created in April, which is a fairly clear indication that this procedure is not being widely understood and followed. Are we to presume that Moderation thinks not a single RP law has been overturned since April 11th? One hopes not, but that is what one would have to presume from a literal reading of the rules.

- (iii) states RP laws "must not contradict game mechanics", but how accurately does this reflect the reality? In practice, we do see RP laws which contradict game mechanics, sometimes in marginal ways, sometimes in drastic ways - like the example of the Jelbanian central government only being able to determine domestic policy for 1 of its 5 regions. The previous edition of the Game Rules provided a lot more clarity in terms of which examples of RP laws would be considered legal and which illegal, but the current version does not do this at all.

*

Looking at this Jelbania incident as a whole, it is surely undeniable by now that there are a range of issues involved here and there are definitely lessons to be learned. It is also disappointing that one of our newer players, who is not one of us hardcore Particracy RP veterans, has had this particular experience in our game.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:44 pm

Aquinas wrote:There are issues with the RP law section of the rules, and I recall pointing this out - to no avail - when the new Game Rules document was up for consultation earlier in the year.

Of course the rules aren't perfect, they never are. Personally I share your preference for detailed rules, but I understand that most people are turned off by them. And there are certainly changes that might improve the rules without making them too unwieldy. In the current situation, however, I don't think the rules are at fault.
One of the major issues here is the lack of documentation. Even after all this time, there is nothing in Jelbania's debate section to give any indication of the current situation. That quite simply is an embarrassment, especially given that during this time one current and one former Moderator played in Jelbania and current and former members of the Role-Play-Committee were involved in the Role-Play.

Aquinas wrote:It is also disappointing that one of our newer players, who is not one of us hardcore Particracy RP veterans, has had this particular experience in our game.

Absolutely! The whole incident was unnecessary and could have been prevented. Just imagine all the energy that has been put into arguing about the game, put into the game.

Regards
Occam
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:40 pm

Occam wrote:In the current situation, however, I don't think the rules are at fault.


I would say a lack of clarity in the rules has been a factor in this saga, not just over RP laws (which this thread is about, obviously) but also in some other areas, like character naming in Culturally Protected nations.

Occam wrote:One of the major issues here is the lack of documentation. Even after all this time, there is nothing in Jelbania's debate section to give any indication of the current situation. That quite simply is an embarrassment, especially given that during this time one current and one former Moderator played in Jelbania and current and former members of the Role-Play-Committee were involved in the Role-Play.


You are right, and it is inexcusable, really. More than just that, though, it is difficult not to form an impression that there was a lack of communication going on. I mean, we have 3 Mods, one of whom was playing in Jelbania at the time, and 13 RP committee members, 2 of whom had special responsibility for Majatra. Did anyone reach out to Spencer during his early days in Jelbania, to show him the ropes and explain to him what was going on? I don't know, perhaps they did, but the vibe I get is that nobody was telling him anything until fairly late on. He was, I understand, obstructed from winning seats in Jelbania for 2 weeks, due to cm's use of early elections/reduced proposal quotas/maximum election terms. This makes it at least somewhat understandable that by the time he won control of Jelbania, a degree of frustration had built up.

Occam wrote:Absolutely! The whole incident was unnecessary and could have been prevented. Just imagine all the energy that has been put into arguing about the game, put into the game.


Indeed.

Going forward, I will suggest the following:

1. There should be a review of what went on recently in Jelbania so that lessons can be learned and appropriate changes implemented.

2. With regards to this RP about Jelbania being divided up/occupied etc...Unless at least one player who is seriously invested in this RP goes to actually play in Jelbania, and unless the documentation Occam mentioned is introduced into Jelbania's "Bills under debate" section, then Moderation should consider simply ruling that this RP has come to an end. Otherwise, the potential imposition this entire situation makes on new/inexperienced/incoming players to Jelbania is difficult to fairly justify.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby CCP » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:41 pm

Aquinas wrote:It is also disappointing that one of our newer players, who is not one of us hardcore Particracy RP veterans, has had this particular experience in our game.

Totally agree. And I have communicated as much to Moderators. Not to get anyone's hopes up, but they have listened generously and said they're considering implementing possible solutions. But as with all things Particracy, better not to hold your breath for now.
Aquinas wrote:Did anyone reach out to Spencer during his early days in Jelbania, to show him the ropes and explain to him what was going on? I don't know, perhaps they did, but the vibe I get is that nobody was telling him anything until fairly late on. He was, I understand, obstructed from winning seats in Jelbania for 2 weeks, due to cm's use of early elections/reduced proposal quotas/maximum election terms. This makes it at least somewhat understandable that by the time he won control of Jelbania, a degree of frustration had built up.

That was very much my impression as well. I believe we're failing on this front as a community as a whole and as GRC and Moderation in particular.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests