Requests: RP Laws [RPC]

Submit your requests on various areas of the game.

Moderator: RP Committee

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Polites » Fri Aug 24, 2018 3:14 pm

House Spencer wrote:
Polites wrote:Added a slight amendment to the Game Rules, making the requirement that a bill be labelled as an RP law recommended but not mandatory, and the same for posting RP laws in the dismissal thread. We're also working on a more thorough redrafting of rules regarding RP laws, just give us some time to come up with something satisfactory.

House Spencer wrote:Question 1: Are players meant to delete RPLaw ref bills when the RP Laws therein are still or could still be valid?

Question 2: Can a RP Law be struck down just by the player who made the RPLaw ref bill deleting it?


In these cases I'd go with "technically still valid but not enforced by Moderation". In PT ignorance of the law does excuse, which is why it is a requirement for things like Cultural Protocols or RP laws to be posted on the debate thread. Players do have a responsibility to keep the reference bill up to date. If the RP Law ref bill is no longer there the RP laws in question are de facto defunct and nobody will be sanctioned for good faith actions that contradict the RP laws. But this does not excuse violating or going against past RP, especially when the player doing that is aware of it.


My little ickle brain is strugling here. Can you explain all this in simple & clearer terms? What does "technically still valid but not enforced by Moderation"actually mean in practise?


As in, nobody will be expected to comply with RP Laws they cannot be reasonably presumed to be aware of, even if those RP Laws were never technically repealed or declared invalid. So they will be defunct if no longer referenced in a bill, but, in theory, if a new reference bill is created, they could once again be enforced.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby lewiselder1 » Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:17 pm

In addition to all Polites has said, I'd just like to add that this game is no place for heated arguments, especially in this thread. You can have disagreements and speak informally without being a dick to one another. Any sort of "invalidating" requests should in future be done privately to avoid this kind of situation developing in future again. It's a game! Chill out! It's not life and death, no need to make things more difficult for everyone by getting heated :)

Probably worth noting that the rule change also applies in retrograde, too.

Again, we're also working on a vast rules redraft covering in part RP laws aiming to make the rules clear across the board and deal with some other issues currently excluded or dealt with using precedence or provisional rules. Hopefully we can get that done as soon as possible :)

Apologies about the delay in responding by the way, we're only human and without cm especially might be somewhat delayed in certain areas (but don't let that emu-loving swine know it.)
I go by Ashley now and use she/her pronouns. This is a really old account, I don’t play now.

I was a mod in classic for a bit, then I helped make Marcapada and WM there for a while. As of 2020 I’m co-ordinating Pachapay’s development.
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:57 pm

So Polites is called out for upholding RP Laws in Selucia that dont conform to the rules. What does he do? Doesnt answer for 2 days then he just changes the rule. Hm.

lewiselder1 wrote:You can have disagreements and speak informally without being a dick to one another.


Its bad enough you enabled your ex-Mod mate to insult me saying I " struggle with reading comprehension". Now your going out publically branding me a "dick". Dont pretend you werent referring to me I know you was because of how you treated me on Discord.

Look you created this situation with your rules & how you run the game. Please get this or there is no hope for you.

lewiselder1 wrote:Any sort of "invalidating" requests should in future be done privately to avoid this kind of situation developing in future again.


Please read from 6eii of your own rules

To query a new RP law’s legality a user should post on the RP Law Query Thread.


If you dont want RP Laws to be publically queried, why do your rules still tell us query them in public here on this thread? Why is this thread even still here???

But do you seriously think less accountability is the way forward? Isnt that the precise opposite of what we've learned here? Twas only because of open discussion that we got anywhere towards recognising what a mess Mods made of the rules & how the game is run.

lewiselder1 wrote:Chill out! It's not life and death, no need to make things more difficult for everyone by getting heated


Based off my recent experience of you you could do with some chilling out yourself sir, putting it very very mildly.

lewiselder1 wrote:Apologies about the delay in responding by the way, we're only human and without cm especially might be somewhat delayed in certain areas (but don't let that emu-loving swine know it.)


You can claim your busy or whatever but with all the messing around Mods do on Discord you have plenty of time on your hands, putting it very very modestly
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:20 pm

Polites wrote:
House Spencer wrote:Question 1: Are players meant to delete RPLaw ref bills when the RP Laws therein are still or could still be valid?

Question 2: Can a RP Law be struck down just by the player who made the RPLaw ref bill deleting it?


In these cases I'd go with "technically still valid but not enforced by Moderation". In PT ignorance of the law does excuse, which is why it is a requirement for things like Cultural Protocols or RP laws to be posted on the debate thread. Players do have a responsibility to keep the reference bill up to date. If the RP Law ref bill is no longer there the RP laws in question are de facto defunct and nobody will be sanctioned for good faith actions that contradict the RP laws. But this does not excuse violating or going against past RP, especially when the player doing that is aware of it.

You should really add a rule to the effect that references to valid laws may not be deleted unless they are overturned. Sure, it's common sense, but apparently not everyone here has common (nor any other kind of) sense.

House Spencer wrote:So Polites is called out for upholding RP Laws in Selucia that dont conform to the rules. What does he do? Doesnt answer for 2 days then he just changes the rule. Hm.

The rule in question was unnecessary and I think recent events (including the bills Spencer pointed out) have shown that it invalidated bills for no good reason. And it has recently been criticized for that very reason. So changing it from requirement to recommendation is the right thing to do. Admittedly the way it happened looks a bit questionable, still it is the right decision.
If we want to keep the rules short -- as most seem to prefer -- it might be a good idea to create a "best practices" document to accompany the rules that lists recommendations like this one.

House Spencer wrote:
lewiselder1 wrote:Any sort of "invalidating" requests should in future be done privately to avoid this kind of situation developing in future again.


Please read from 6eii of your own rules

To query a new RP law’s legality a user should post on the RP Law Query Thread.


If you dont want RP Laws to be publically queried, why do your rules still tell us query them in public here on this thread? Why is this thread even still here???

But do you seriously think less accountability is the way forward? Isnt that the precise opposite of what we've learned here? Twas only because of open discussion that we got anywhere towards recognising what a mess Mods made of the rules & how the game is run.

Moving more and more of this stuff to private messages is a bad idea. It creates the impression that Moderation is trying to hide things. Trust me it's in the best interest of Moderation to deal with things publicly unless privacy issues are concerned. If you want to prevent these discussions from getting problematic you should rather take action when people attack players for daring to ask that the rules be applied.
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:46 pm

I agree with Occam and Spencer that there should be some transparency and accountability, at least insofar as that is reasonably possible. Over the last year or two there has sadly been a discernible drift in the opposite direction, which is not great for the game. As Occam pointed out, excessive secretiveness/over-defensiveness is not ultimately in the interests of Moderators, because that inevitably ends up fostering suspiciousness/resentment.

As a former Moderator myself, I can certainly empathise with how public discussions/disputes can be challenging at times...but please trust me, the game needs open feedback, and ultimately, it is the Moderators who need it most of all. Retreating behind closed doors is a mistake.

@Spencer I feel Lewis's language was regrettable and I can understand how you took it as you did, but from knowing Lewis, I don't think he was meaning to brand you or anyone else as a "dick". I think he was more expressing frustration with how some of the discussion has gone.

Also, Spencer, I realise this might not leave you feeling much better...but do please bear in mind that all of the frustration you went through has not been for nothing. Lessons are being learned from that experience, and as Lewis just said, Moderation is planning a "vast rules redraft", and there is going to be a particular focus on RP laws, which is one of the areas that most concerns you.

In fairness, I genuinely think we can offer Spencer a "thank you" for bringing the issues to light that he has. Okay, so he may not always have raised them in the way many of us would have ideally preferred...but nevertheless, he has raised them, and the game is going to become stronger as a result.

Likewise, I think thanks is also due to the Moderators, who have taken on board the feedback, and who have tried to listen - even at times, I am sure, when doing so has not been entirely easy or comfortable.

In due course, the next step will be a redrafting of the rules. There will, I hope, be a full and free public consultation on this.

Admittedly, rules can be tedious and the discussions around them can become frustrating...but again, we do need rules, and we do need those discussions.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby lewiselder1 » Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:35 am

Numerous points to respond to here.

A) I personally don’t believe that doing this in private would hinder accountability. We’re still accountable to Wouter and ultimately can’t do something unjust without the player having a valid recourse to deal with it. In addition, I don’t believe there is much to be accountable for here — ultimately I believe the need for the rules to be clarified would arise without the arguments and lengthy debate taking place here and that the transparency shown here didn’t achieve much that couldn’t have been eachieved quicker and easier in a calm discussion. I think a private discussion is the best way to do this — regardless the door will always be open for a private discussion about potential invalidations if you’d rather deal with it that way than risk getting in a spat.

The above is just my opinion, not representative of cm or Polites. However, speaking as Moderation, since multiple players have raised concerns, we are willing to continue holding such discussions publicly on the condition that the aggressive atmosphere and harmful remarks seen here in these argumentative debates do not continue. If these discussions happen in public they must be calm and reasonable or the game becomes toxic. In other words we’re giving a blanket warning now that if the kinds of thing that happened here in recent weeks with the hostility return, we will be forced either to apply sanctions or resort to private discussions. Hopefully with that laid down now everyone can have these debates peacefully when they arise again in future without the need to resort to total secrecy.

B) With regards to the accusation that Polites altered the rules to save his own RP, I would like to make it clear that the idea was originally raised by Aquinas, I noted it privately with Polites and Polites agreed and implemented the law. Polites was not acting alone to cover his own back; Moderation agreed as a whole to change the rule due to it being unnecessary and confusing as a short-term solution.

C) As for my use of the word “dick”, I apologise for being unclear. However I was not targeting anyone in particular, more the general ethos of the discussion — “being a dick” was basically just a blanket statement. Again though, that’s on me, should have been more careful.

D) A vast rule redraft is most certainly on the way, and RP Laws clarity is most definitely a high priority added on our list that wasn’t an issue to us before. That’s one positive to come out of this event for sure and Spencer certainly deserves some credit for raising the issues, though we don’t support the way this debate was handled. As is traditional a full consultation will be held. The planned changes affect a great deal of the game and couldn’t possibly be made without consulting everyone on the matter. But this is all still a little further down the lane for now, lots of work to do there!

E) Thanks Aquinas and anyone else for the kind comments — or constructive feedback! — on Moderation :) Always appreciated.

F) Finally, while we prefer not to discuss any details of any ongoing issues with players, I feel it’s necessary to inform you all of two things. First, you will probably notice at some stage that House Spencer has been temporarily banned from the forums. This is unrelated to the valid critiques he has raised. For privacy’s sake we can’t detail anything more except to say that it was not without warning.

Second, I would like to personally discourage anyone from trying to make judgements on the entire situation from an outside perspective. Debating this in the court of public opinion always means you will be debating a case without all of the facts. Moderation cannot and will not sacrifice confidentiality to save face, so while you’re free to argue that Moderation has been unjust, I think it’s generally a bad idea if you don’t know the full situation and don’t have the evidence. I’m not saying Moderation has done nothing wrong, nor that I believe we have acted indecently — I do think we have done the right things and am confident in the decisions we made — but just that there are the proper channels for a player who feels unjustly treated to seek a solution through and debating it here or anywhere else is unlikely to reach any helpful conclusions. Moderation doesn’t always get it right, and we accept that. But there are ways to resolve it and they do not involve trying to dissect the events from an outside perspective. We can’t stop you from doing so or believing we’ve acted unfairly, but I think this needs to be said.

Thanks :) hopefully we can finally put this mess behind us.
I go by Ashley now and use she/her pronouns. This is a really old account, I don’t play now.

I was a mod in classic for a bit, then I helped make Marcapada and WM there for a while. As of 2020 I’m co-ordinating Pachapay’s development.
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby HBulow » Mon Aug 27, 2018 4:25 pm

Hi,

I am a friend of Spencer and a long time occasional player myself since 2009 or 2010.

In the time I have been around the game has changed a lot and it must have changed like drastically recently or over the last year or something because things are going on now I am certain would never never have gone on before.

I am not happy with how Spencer has been treated and by the attitude of the Mods. There is this agenda, and clearly if you get in the way of it, smack. I feel the game we used to play has been taken away from us and the hardcore type players have just taken over and are doing their own thing.

It is cheap for Mods to hide behind "confidentiality" (which Spencer doesn't & has never insisted on) and Wouter. From past experience I can tell you Wouter is at a distance from this game and hardly gets involved. He's not even fixed the rules link on the front page despite it being noticed broken ages ago, so he can hardly be expected to invollve himself in disputes over what the rules are and how they are applied

I had been looking forward to the new game and was reading Wouters blog, but this experience has radically put me off Particracy, either this one or the new one. I very much doubt I would take part again.
HBulow
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:01 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:58 pm

HBulow,

I empathise with how you feel, and also with how Spencer feels as well.

The point I would like to try to impress on you is that for a whole range of reasons, the circumstances in this case were exceptional, and I do not believe they are typical of what players usually experience in this game. To give an example, I am pretty sure that in the entire history of Particracy, we had never previously had a situation where Moderation compelled the sole player in a nation to recognise, against his wishes, that a large part of his nation was controlled by other countries.

As Lewis indicated, lessons are being learned and there is going to be a careful review of the rules, to examine what we can do to avoid this type of debacle happening again.

Please do not give up on Particracy yet. This rules review is coming, and there will be opportunities for us to influence the future direction of the game for the better.

This is still your game. Particracy is nothing without its players. And that includes those who are not "hardcore" forum RP types.

But even if you do decide to give up Particracy Classic, please don't write off the new Particracy just yet. The new game promises to be a very different kettle of fish, with more developed game mechanics which will hopefully avoid some of the frustrations and limitations of the original game.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:02 pm

@Moderators please consider the following suggestions:

1.
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.


Remove the underlined part from the rules or at least change it from a requirement to a recommendation.

2. Amend the OP for the RP Law Query Thread and the OP for the RP Law Dismissal Thread to reflect the recent amendments to the rules.

3. Add some information about RP laws to the "Bills" section of the FAQ.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Wed Aug 29, 2018 4:35 am

Aquinas wrote:@Moderators please consider the following suggestions:

1.
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.


Remove the underlined part from the rules or at least change it from a requirement to a recommendation.

I'd say it should be at least a recommendation. Otherwise we risk debates about whether a bill was really overturned or not. Also, since it's counterintuitive and since there has been some confusion about it recently, it might be helpful to state in the rule that it also applies to constitutional laws.
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests