Requests: General [A]

[Aquinas]

Game Rules

d. Treaties will be eligible for deletion if they are more than 50 in-game years old, and have no ramifications. These should be reported to Moderation on the Treaty Clearout Request Thread.

Presumably this is a typo, and "ramifications" should be "ratifications".

Yep

The OP for the Treaty Clearout Requests thread also needs fixing.

[cm9777]

Done

[Aquinas]

<sigh>

The Cultural Protocols Index needs to be updated to reflect Cultural Protocol updates from Kalistan and Selucia.

As I have pointed out previously (for example, here) there has been a long-running pattern of Moderators failing to properly process Cultural Protocol update requests. This is a significant cause for concern, and obviously raises questions over whether Moderation has the administrative capacity to cope with any new schemes, such as the proposed "Political Protocols" and "Authorised Active Second Accounts".

One prays the two newly-appointed Moderators will prove more efficient administrators than their recent predecessors. Good luck, guys.

[Luis1p]

<sigh>

The Cultural Protocols Index needs to be updated to reflect Cultural Protocol updates from Kalistan and Selucia.

As I have pointed out previously (for example, here) there has been a long-running pattern of Moderators failing to properly process Cultural Protocol update requests. This is a significant cause for concern, and obviously raises questions over whether Moderation has the administrative capacity to cope with any new schemes, such as the proposed "Political Protocols" and "Authorised Active Second Accounts".

One prays the two newly-appointed Moderators will prove more efficient administrators than their recent predecessors. Good luck, guys.

Should be updated now. Thanks for pointing that out.

[jamescfm]

Unsure whether this is an issue for Moderation or the Global Role-Play Committee but I believe the Third World Information Thread is outdated at this point. Rather than bastardising the existing thread, I'd suggest Moderation produce a similar thread with updated information, particularly regarding the system of control for the Third World, and without information on the political system of the nation because this is going to change frequently now that players can control ex-colonies.

[Luis1p]

Unsure whether this is an issue for Moderation or the Global Role-Play Committee but I believe the Third World Information Thread is outdated at this point. Rather than bastardising the existing thread, I'd suggest Moderation produce a similar thread with updated information, particularly regarding the system of control for the Third World, and without information on the political system of the nation because this is going to change frequently now that players can control ex-colonies.

I'll talk this over with the GRC and Moderation for an update.

[Luis1p]

Unsure whether this is an issue for Moderation or the Global Role-Play Committee but I believe the Third World Information Thread is outdated at this point. Rather than bastardising the existing thread, I'd suggest Moderation produce a similar thread with updated information, particularly regarding the system of control for the Third World, and without information on the political system of the nation because this is going to change frequently now that players can control ex-colonies.

I'll talk this over with the GRC and Moderation for an update.

[Axxell]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewvaria ... 20SEAT%20B

Could anyone add once again the option "Istalia" among the options of the "Nomination for the Security Council Seat B" legislation?

I didn't understand very well if the new rankings are now officially in force or not. It is not really clear all this situation....

Thank you

[Aquinas]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=SECURITY%20COUNCIL%20SEAT%20B

Could anyone add once again the option "Istalia" among the options of the "Nomination for the Security Council Seat B" legislation?

I raised this whole issue surrounding the changing of the permanent members during the rankings consultation, and am disappointed we still do not have clarity on what the situation is. This should have been more carefully thought through and organised.

I didn't understand very well if the new rankings are now officially in force or not. It is not really clear all this situation....

Thank you

You are not the one one. I have spoken to at least two others who are confused as to whether the new rankings are in force yet, and even as to what they actually are.

This confusion is not surprising due to the disorganised way in which this has been handled. Specifically:

(a) The consultation thread has been locked but the final rankings were not formally announced there.

(b) The rankings which I presume are the ones intended to be the final official rankings appear to be listed on the OP of the rankings thread. However, in this post, they are preceded by a message describing them only as "draft rankings". Obviously, this is likely to lead people to believe they are not in fact the final official rankings.

(c) The previous set of rankings have exceeded their official expiry date, but are still pinned in the General Discussion sub-forum, which is likely to confuse people into assuming they are still binding.

(d) The rankings link at the General Information Board links directly to the previous rankings, which again, is likely to confuse people into believing they are still binding.

I raised these issues days ago with Moderation on Discord, but they failed to follow through.

At present, the communication of the rankings to the community is so insufficient, it is questionable as to whether it would be reasonable to even consider them enforceable.

The handling of the rankings consultation was problematic enough by itself, with the GRC refusing to answer important questions raised by players. Frankly, the follow-through following the closure of the consultation has, unfortunately, further undermined my general confidence in the capacity of GRC/Moderation to competently administer the rankings and the Global Roleplay Accord.

On a final point, as I have suggested previously, it would be a good idea to merge this thread with the Moderation/GRC Queries thread. There is little point in having two stickied threads devoted to queries.

[Auditorii]

Thank you for your question. Yes those rankings are current and they are final and binding. As always with any changes the community is going to have some positive and negative feedback, mostly in form of where they “fall” on the rankings. We had some internal discussions regarding them as well and have taken feedback and are seeing what can be done for the next rankings.

With that being said we’ll be sure to update the threads ASAP. As I can note the GRC Team is always on flux with members and ideas!