Requests: RP Laws [RPC]

[Zanz]

So, I'm trying to catch up and slog through this debate. Here's where I'm at so far:

I've proposed http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=578291 which is clearly labeled as an RP LAW. Since some of the RP sections make claims that are at least tangentially game-mechanic enforced, I've also created a treaty http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=4183 which I'll ratify alongside. In the description of the treaty I've put an OOC request that anyone overturning the treaty should ideally only do so w/ 2/3rds vote, since that's what the RP LAW is requiring for overturn.

Both of these are linked in http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=578295 which I intend to remain on the Bills Under Debate section to meet Section 6 subsection e of the Game Rules.

Does this meet all the requirements of the rules to be an RP law which Moderation will enforce (I've found these requirements to be quite confusing)?

[House Spencer]

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.

Noone spoke to me ANYTHING AT ALL a single word what they were doing to Jelbania until after 10 days and that was because I was noticing things and ASKED, not because they could be bothered to go out of there way to tell me

Not a single pm from C7779, not "hello" not nothing. Wasnt until over a week before I even knew what his party name was which he gave no transl for & was in a totally madeup language. & that was only because I ASKED not because he bothered to go out of his way to tell me.

He fixed the system to block me out of seats for 2 weeks to try to make me leave but I was strong. He is the worst player I ever played with

They didnt respect me. EVEN after I won the election fair and square with 71% vote and C7779 left making me the only party, they were still in their bubble being greedy and still wanted to run Jelbania their way. They didnt care they were breaking the rules and they'd broken the game for me and anyone who wants to play normally like the game is designed to be played. They do whatever they want

In spite of that I was trying to fix things. Me and Sisyphis were talking about removing the troops but before we could do that the Moderation deactivated me with NO WARNING WHATSOEOVER ruining totally the work I planned.

they incorrectly accused me of trolling because I posted about boils. It wasnt trolling. it was the 1st in a series of posts being done about a disease breaking out from the nuclear bomb/radiation.

Mods are not sorry at all I asked them if they had anything to say to me and wanted to apologise for anything but they refused. As I wrote they just do whatever they want

[Occam]

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.

If even a veteran player like Zanz finds (part of) the rules confusing, there is definitely a need for revisions.

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

I second that.

So, I'm trying to catch up and slog through this debate. Here's where I'm at so far:

I've proposed http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=578291 which is clearly labeled as an RP LAW. Since some of the RP sections make claims that are at least tangentially game-mechanic enforced, I've also created a treaty http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=4183 which I'll ratify alongside. In the description of the treaty I've put an OOC request that anyone overturning the treaty should ideally only do so w/ 2/3rds vote, since that's what the RP LAW is requiring for overturn.

Both of these are linked in http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=578295 which I intend to remain on the Bills Under Debate section to meet Section 6 subsection e of the Game Rules.

Does this meet all the requirements of the rules to be an RP law which Moderation will enforce (I've found these requirements to be quite confusing)?

Excellent! One point, though, according to the current rules RP-Laws (Rule 6eii) can always be repealed by simple majority, even constitutional ones.

[House Spencer]

What a farce.

Zanz doing this over again because the original was illegal DOESN'T change the fact the original was illegal

The arrogance is what grates on me.

Like how C7779 scolded me telling me "you stepped in as a new player acting as if you knew the game better than many experienced players who are more familiar with both the game rules and the rp situation in Jelbania".

It's we know best, know your place, do what we tell you you ignorant peasant player we are your superiors.

I mean, I'm NOT stupid I am capable of reading the rules and reading RP for myself.

It should have been respected I won 70% + seats in Jelbania and then was the ONLY party in Jelbania after C7779 buggered off cos he lost. I had the right to be allowed to play the game normally like anyone else.

[Aquinas]

@Spencer I am really sorry how things went for you. Please stay with us and don't give up on Particracy yet. I think we all here want to make sure this does not happen again.

So, I'm trying to catch up and slog through this debate. Here's where I'm at so far:

I've proposed http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=578291 which is clearly labeled as an RP LAW. Since some of the RP sections make claims that are at least tangentially game-mechanic enforced, I've also created a treaty http://classic.particracy.net/viewtreat ... atyid=4183 which I'll ratify alongside. In the description of the treaty I've put an OOC request that anyone overturning the treaty should ideally only do so w/ 2/3rds vote, since that's what the RP LAW is requiring for overturn.

Both of these are linked in http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=578295 which I intend to remain on the Bills Under Debate section to meet Section 6 subsection e of the Game Rules.

Does this meet all the requirements of the rules to be an RP law which Moderation will enforce (I've found these requirements to be quite confusing)?

Excellent! One point, though, according to the current rules RP-Laws (Rule 6eii) can always be repealed by simple majority, even constitutional ones.

Well-spotted, Occam. I'd also say the thing with the Treaty is a bit unnecessary and confusing.

Section 9

The Confederal States shall possess full authority on all internal affairs (except those assigned by the Hrltaj to the Confederal government), which they may delegate in any area to the Confederal Government. The Confederal government shall possess full authority on all external affairs, which it may delegate to the Confederal States at its discretion.

Assuming Zanz's RP law supersedes the previous RP law (which Moderation ruled legal) assigning full autonomy in domestic matters to 4 of the 5 regions, and is basically returning Jelbania's law system back to normal game mechanics, one supposes Zanz is technically obliged to go through the rigmarole of rule 6eii:

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.

Could Moderation please clarify?

If even a veteran player like Zanz finds (part of) the rules confusing, there is definitely a need for revisions.

Given the muddle we have here, honestly, I'm beginning to seriously wonder whether abolishing the provisions in the rules for RP laws might not be the worst of all of the possible ways forward.

There was a time when the guiding principle of the game was "System Comes First", or "Game Mechanics" first. That had it's limitations, but it had simplicity and other advantages as well.

It's not that I oppose RP laws or that I don't think they can be made to work, more that right now it's clearly not working and frankly I'm not confident that it is going to be fixed, or even that there is a recognition of the problems. The rules in this area are flawed, and that was extremely obvious to myself and some others when they were introduced rather too hurriedly earlier this year. But the problem seems to go beyond that, extending to the way situations are handled and the culture that has developed.

I am particularly concerned by RP schemes that severely contradict the game mechanics, like having a region of one nation controlled by another nation. During my Mod tenure, that would not have been encouraged on anything like a prolonged basis, and if it was clear there were players in the nation who objected to that, then that situation would be expected to go back to normal within a clear and short timescale.

These kind of RPs are great for the Third World nations, which can be adopted and controlled by a single player. But seriously, they are potentially so much more challenging and complicated when it comes to playable Particracy nations with multiple players where random players (with all their different types of preferences and levels of experience...) can join and leave at any time, and unpredictable elections can transfer political leadership from one player or group to another.

[Auditorii]

RP Laws have worked out great; we’ve had some of the best RP in years here. I don’t think you’re the authority on rules and I believe that this concerted effort against Moderation is nothing more than another self-righteous crusade. Can the rules provided be a little more clear? I guess but we don’t need a compendium or laws and sermons on what we can and cannot do.

As a former Moderator myself, Aquinas, it’s time to let go and stop you’re systematic sustain for anything you haven’t branded. Seriously. It’s getting old and tiresome. PT dies without RP and very few if any have objected besides this “random” player who showed up and decided on a country that very few if any other players have chosen before. You can say whatever you want but this whole thing smells of another “people’s champion” thing you’re so well known for.

Can it be? Maybe. Can it not be? Maybe. At the end of the day RP rules should conform to several things but primarily that they are realistic, if they’re a constitutional RP law they have 2/3 majority voting for it (with seats) and if it isn’t, a simple majority.

The age old “game mechanics come first” is precisely why this game experienced veteran RPers leaving en masse. I’m sure you’re going to give another sermon but honestly save it and maybe just maybe give it a break.

[House Spencer]

RP Laws have worked out great; we’ve had some of the best RP in years here. I don’t think you’re the authority on rules and I believe that this concerted effort against Moderation is nothing more than another self-righteous crusade. Can the rules provided be a little more clear? I guess but we don’t need a compendium or laws and sermons on what we can and cannot do.

As a former Moderator myself, Aquinas, it’s time to let go and stop you’re systematic sustain for anything you haven’t branded. Seriously. It’s getting old and tiresome. PT dies without RP and very few if any have objected besides this “random” player who showed up and decided on a country that very few if any other players have chosen before. You can say whatever you want but this whole thing smells of another “people’s champion” thing you’re so well known for.

Can it be? Maybe. Can it not be? Maybe. At the end of the day RP rules should conform to several things but primarily that they are realistic, if they’re a constitutional RP law they have 2/3 majority voting for it (with seats) and if it isn’t, a simple majority.

The age old “game mechanics come first” is precisely why this game experienced veteran RPers leaving en masse. I’m sure you’re going to give another sermon but honestly save it and maybe just maybe give it a break.

Who is being "self-righteous"? You are the one demanding he censore himself just because you disagree with him.

BTW anyone remember this

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8106

No, he is not. But as I suspect he is a returning player and likely a former Moderator who regardless of his position has quite some wisdom as do the players posting in this thread, Moderator or Not. It would be behoove of you to listen.

Twould be behoove of you to listen yourself now, bud.

[Zanz]

FWIW I changed the requirement in the constitution that Occam pointed out from 2/3rds to overturn to 50%+1, and am moving forward with it.

[lewiselder1]

Hey, putting up a message on behalf of all of us in moderation here. We’d previously elected to avoid interfering and letting any debate happen naturally and anger fizzle out but it looks like this isn’t going to happen...

Firstly I’d just like to call for calm here. There’s a lot of anger and snidey comments and such going on and frankly it’s silly; ultimately, it’s a game. One we all care about a lot, obviously, but ultimately not something to be getting infuriated about. Points should be expressed calmly and nothing should be said against another’s person; if anybody starts getting pissed about all of this and stops acting rationally moderation will have no choice but to intervene with sanctions.

Second, Zanz probably should overturn the previous law just to clear any confusion. The current RP law will be recognised however. We’re happy to answer any questions about game mechanics etc missed in the debate, so please let us know if we haven’t responded to anything. Apologies for that. There’s been a good amount of questions from Aquinas, Zanz, Occam, so on and so forth; we’ll answer them and clarify them to the best of our ability but obviously there’s a lot to comb through here so the best path is to give us a nudge again and we’ll answer

Obviously it’s becoming clear that RP rules are confusing and not fit for purpose. We’ll be looking into changing that to make it clearer in our upcoming rules changes; we’re also looking into a solution towards RP becoming confusing for newer players by creating specific nations for introducing new players to the game. You may have heard CCP talking about it on the discord; while it likely won’t be exactly the same system, it’s an idea we’re definitely looking into implementing in some form, or at least some system to help ensure this type of thing doesn’t happen again!

Now there’s been a lot of debate about House Spencer’s RP and while I don’t wish to go into private specifics for the sake of confidentiality, it’s worth clarifying a few things. Namely, why Spencer’s RP was invalidated; we found the RP to be unrealistic, but more importantly it conflicted with previous RP that had been deemed legal and which had been consented to before Spencer’s arrival (I.e., his consent for the RP is therefore no longer needed because he joined after the fact.) Additionally he had acknowledged the RP in previous posts.

This also is not a debate thread about Spencer’s nation ban and based on what we have seen and on reviewing events we stand by our decision. Our reasoning has been made clear in private to Spencer and, while it could have been faster, it was not without a good amount of assistance and explanation regarding the rules and the situation from moderation and other experienced players before the nation ban was implemented. No warning is required for a sanction of this sort. Ultimately, there are a multitude of reasons involved relating to conduct, RP, and other things.

Regardless, as I said, this isn’t something that should be debated in public and certainly not debated upon in an open forum. If a player has an issue with a decision made by moderation after appeal they are always free to contact Wouter on the matter. The court of public opinion can never reach a good conclusion without all the evidence, and moderation obviously will not be able to provide specific details on any case. I would much prefer it if frankly we could just do our jobs and any issues can be dealth with through the proper, private channels.

We would like to note finally that this is a temporary nation ban; Spencer is free to play elsewhere or return once the ban expires.

With regards to Farsun’s message to Aquinas, as I said, please refrain from personal attacks and send messages calmly. Frankly there is no need to post anything like that and it isn’t helpful. You can make your point in ways that aren’t provocative and problematic; if we see this happening again we will be forced to apply sanctions.

Finally, we all need to turn over a new leaf and move on. This whole affair hasn’t been quite absurd and it’s about time it ended. Hopefully we can put the whole thing behind us and keep no grudges. As I said, we’ve definitely missed questions and points in here, give us a nudge on here or in private and we’ll get back to you. If I have time I’ll also try and take a look in a day or two and answer any questions I see. Sorry we couldn’t get back to you earlier

Lewis
On behalf of Moderation

[Aquinas]

Obviously it’s becoming clear that RP rules are confusing and not fit for purpose.

This is progress and an important admission.

Noone spoke to me ANYTHING AT ALL a single word what they were doing to Jelbania until after 10 days and that was because I was noticing things and ASKED, not because they could be bothered to go out of there way to tell me

Not a single pm from C7779, not "hello" not nothing. Wasnt until over a week before I even knew what his party name was which he gave no transl for & was in a totally madeup language. & that was only because I ASKED not because he bothered to go out of his way to tell me.

He fixed the system to block me out of seats for 2 weeks to try to make me leave but I was strong.

Okay, so I purposely delayed replying to this because I wanted to allow cm9997 a fair chance to respond. But since he has not disputed this account, and since there has been no sign so far of of him wanting to address this at all...

That cm deployed seat-blocking tactics against Spencer is indisputable; we can see that for ourselves in the game. These tactics fall into the category of "legal-but-controversial". It is inevitable that players are sometimes antagonised when they come against this, as it can seem selfish and ungentlemanly. The specific devices cm used were nevertheless legal under the rules. Whether they were wise or considerate for him to use in this situation is another matter.

Without wanting to suggest Spencer is not telling the truth, obviously I do not have access to see whatever private communication (if there was any) went on between Spencer, cm and others, or exactly when it happened and what was said etc. However, along with CCP, I would say on the basis of what we have seen that it rather looks very much like there was a serious lack of communication with Spencer, going on for at least a week or two weeks after he joined Jelbania. I have certainly not noticed either cm or anyone else seeking to deny this interpretation of events.

Given the complex situation in Jelbania, obviously this was not great. Clearly, on joining Jelbania, Spencer needed to be fully engaged with at the earliest possible opportunity. It may have been he would have come properly on board with the RP. It may be he would have weighed up his options and joined one of the other nations instead. I don't know. But there should have been an attempt at proper dialogue with him. He really should not have been simply ignored, deliberately seat-blocked and left waiting in a frustrated and under-informed limbo for all that time. As it was, there was not so much as an OOC information bill in Jelbania to tell him what the situation was there.

If you seat-block an unfamiliar player for two whole weeks whilst telling them nothing about the major and complex RP that is going on, you can hardly reasonably be massively surprised if they react negatively once their patience finally pays off and they win power, and then are coming to the sudden and unexpected revelation that the intuitive game mechanics they trusted have been turned upside down, with two-fifths of their country controlled by foreign powers and their government only setting domestic laws for a fifth of the country. You can hardly be too surprised, either, when they are disconcerted to find they are unable to easily reverse this game mechanics breaking situation, despite the fact they have won the election and are the only party in the nation. This is particularly so given that, as Spencer himself pointed out, the text of the Game Rules suggests "as a general rule, the game mechanics always come first" (6a) and that "An RP Law must not contradict game mechanics" (6eiii).

cm9997, I feel some accountability and transparency would he helpful here. Are you happy with all of the aspects to how you handled this situation as a player-Moderator? Is there anything which, in retrospect, you wish you had done differently? Is there anything for which you feel you could reasonably offer Spencer an apology - or at least offer a degree of empathy?

Unfortunately there are a few people who enjoy misrepresentation, so I want to make doubly clear these questions are not "personal attacks" or an "anti-Moderation crusade". They are simply reasonable, legitimate questions I am asking because I genuinely feel they deserve to be asked.

To be clear as well, I am not taking sides in the dispute between Moderation and Spencer about Spencer's eventual nation ban and whether or not that was ultimately justified. Not least of all, because I do not have access to all of the details. One cannot help but note, though, that the rules which Spencer was disputing over and which were apparently used against him have now been officially declared by Moderation to be "confusing and not fit for purpose". Whatever the exact details of Spencer's actions were, they were surely not the only element to this situation that was at fault.