Requests: General [A]

[Aquinas]

I completely disagree and will be fighting that decision. The current name was accepted by Moderation and has been used before during the great RP of Temrkai's War. It has as such never been a problem before and shouldn't be a problem now. I find it disturbing we have people hunt the game and report things that displeases them without even consulting the actual player.

The title used back then was "Aŭgustana Imperio - Pretoriana Prefektejo de Zardio (Zardugal)". ie. The core name ("Zardugal"/"Zardio") was included in the nation title. However, regardless of whatever was done all that time ago, the fact is the rules now require the core name to be included in the title, so this convention ought to be adhered to. This is quite a reasonable requirement, really, since otherwise we are going to have confusion (possibly to the extent of some players not being able to find the nation they're looking for!).

On the subject of nation renaming, I have just had a browse through the Nation Renaming Guide and noticed there are several erroneous entries. This is far from the first time this has happened, unfortunately. I would really urge both players and Moderators to bear the Nation Renaming Guide in mind whenever a renaming is being proposed, and also to check whether the Nation Renaming Guide needs to be updated when, for example, (a) a Cultural Protocol is altered, (b) a Cultural Protocol is removed and (c) a new Cultural Protocol is installed.

Or if that's too much to ask, then perhaps we should just give up on the Nation Renaming Guide and go back to the original system of letting players have the nation title in whatever language they want.

Anyway, as to the outstanding issues at the moment...

Baltusia's entry should be changed from "Any" to "English", as per its Cultural Protocol.

Barmenia's entry should be changed from "Any" to "Kurdish, Jelbic/Brmek or Aramaic/Syriac", as per its Cultural Protocol.

Kalistan is a more complex case, but I would say the entry should now be changed from "Any" to "English", to reflect the preferences expressed in its current Cultural Protocol ("Party names, national variables and bill titles should be in English"). Please consult the Kalistanis if in any doubt.

Keymon's entry should be changed from "English, Greek, Latin or Greek/Latin mix" to "Any", to reflect the fact it is Culturally Open.

Solentia's entry should be changed from "English" to "Any", to reflect the fact it is Cultural Open.

Telamon's entry should be changed from "Any" to "Icelandic", as per its Cultural Protocol.

You might consider changing Hawu's entry from "Medu Neter" to "English and Medu Neter", given the nation title is currently in English and has, I believe, been in English for much of the time. Medu Neter is not the most accessible language. You could consider consulting with the Hawu players about what they want their entry to be (eg. perhaps they would prefer one or more of the more accessible African languages? I dunno....).

*

On a more minor and nitpicky issue (gotta keep up my reputation ...), a phantom full stop has appeared following Malivia's recent renaming.



It is not the normal convention to put a full stop at the end, and as can be seen from the renaming bill, this was not requested by the players.

[Aquinas]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4361&p=144026#p143997

A further renaming issue...

Dundorf's news thread has been renamed to "The Dundorfian Daily Newspaper", when the instruction in the renaming bill was to rename it to "Die Dundorfer Tageszeitung".

[Luis1p]

http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4361&p=144026#p143997

A further renaming issue...

Dundorf's news thread has been renamed to "The Dundorfian Daily Newspaper", when the instruction in the renaming bill was to rename it to "Die Dundorfer Tageszeitung".

Good Catch

[Aquinas]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=35958



viewtopic.php?f=11&p=144059#p144007



As can be seen from the records, wenig773's account was inactivated before the allotted 72 hours were up.

The rules authorise Moderation to inactivate an account after the user has not logged in for 72 hours, when another player has requested the inactivation.

Moderation will agree, I hope, that when a player's account is to be inactivated, due process should be followed, and that in this case, this means the 72 hour convention ought to have been adhered to.

Part of the reason I am raising this is because there have been multiple occasions over the last year or so when certain "veteran players" have requested an inactivation before the 72 hours have been up, and Moderation has simply gone along with the request, despite the 72 hour requirement not having been met at the time the inactivation was performed. In some of these cases, the period of time involved has been considerably more than a few hours, as was the case here. But nevertheless, whether it is an hour early or 24 hours early is besides the point; the rules say 72 hours, so that is what needs to be adhered to here.

If Moderation wishes to change the period from 72 hours to 69 hours or 60 hours or 48 hours or whatever, then please by all means go ahead and hold a consultation on that. But when it comes to doing something as impacting as inactivating a player's account, for the sake of fairness and due process, please, please stick to the wording of the rules. Thank you.

[jamescfm]

The Nation Renaming Guide states that "[the core names], or a modest alteration of them, should be included in any nation title proposal, even if it is only in brackets". Why was this ignored in the case of Zardugal, which was renamed "Aŭgustana Imperio"?

Just for the record, I raised this issue nine days ago and it has still not been resolved.

[Aquinas]

There is now a backlog of issues which need to be addressed, so I'm a little reluctant to add another one, but...

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=243&p=144111#p144111

In a great militar ceremony, 6 aircraft carriers arrive from Lodamun



The citizens of Deltavaros have witnessed an emotional event that marked history. The navy of the confederation, received this morning 6 aircraft carriers. The ships had been sent to reserve by the naval forces of Lodamun, waiting for some country that wanted to acquire them.

Present at the ceremony were the President Samira Avdeeva, the top generals of the confederation and the ex-commanders of Lodamun who have had the honor of managing these ships. Even some veteran sailors were also invited, who were very excited during this ceremony. "We thank Lodamun for the great cooperation, it is for us, one of the great allies and friends in Seleya and in Terra" said Samira in her speech

The ships were escorted by smaller ships, during the trip to the port, while a symphonic orchestra sang the military marches of these ships.

The new aircraft carriers can be visited the next 7 days at the port of Deltavaros. After that, the rumors say that, at least 3 of them, are reconverted in the future class of joint support ships that the Navy hopes to complete in 6 years.

Would any of this be considered an issue in terms of the Global Roleplay Accord (see 6k of the Game Rules and associated rankings)?

See also the associated RP in Lodamun (read the news thread from here).

I feel we would also benefit from an explanation of what the process is in terms of following up on suspected breaches of the GRA. Who is responsible for dealing with these cases? Moderation? The GRC collectively? A specific GRC member? Moderation and the GRC working together? Moderation working with a specific GRC member or members?...

[Luis1p]

We're actually discussing this right now.

The GRC are responsible for identifying Role Play that could be deemed as "unrealistic" in regards to the GRA.

Moderation has the power to judge whether these cases are clear breaches of the GRA brought up by the GRC.

GRC members message the player involved. Moderation will do so as well but only if the player 'ignores' the GRC.

In this case, since the role play is based with Lodamun and New Endralon, The CRCs for Keris/Macon and Seleya are responsible for messaging the players.

[Aquinas]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewuser.php?userid=35958



viewtopic.php?f=11&p=144059#p144007



As can be seen from the records, wenig773's account was inactivated before the allotted 72 hours were up.

The rules authorise Moderation to inactivate an account after the user has not logged in for 72 hours, when another player has requested the inactivation.

Moderation will agree, I hope, that when a player's account is to be inactivated, due process should be followed, and that in this case, this means the 72 hour convention ought to have been adhered to.

Part of the reason I am raising this is because there have been multiple occasions over the last year or so when certain "veteran players" have requested an inactivation before the 72 hours have been up, and Moderation has simply gone along with the request, despite the 72 hour requirement not having been met at the time the inactivation was performed. In some of these cases, the period of time involved has been considerably more than a few hours, as was the case here. But nevertheless, whether it is an hour early or 24 hours early is besides the point; the rules say 72 hours, so that is what needs to be adhered to here.

If Moderation wishes to change the period from 72 hours to 69 hours or 60 hours or 48 hours or whatever, then please by all means go ahead and hold a consultation on that. But when it comes to doing something as impacting as inactivating a player's account, for the sake of fairness and due process, please, please stick to the wording of the rules. Thank you.

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4447&p=144149#p144146

http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty.php?partyid=36154

72 hours, below is for the records of those keeping a tab on “veteran players” and their actions in-game despite having zero authority or cause to do so.

Last activity: 21:32:17, December 09, 2018 CET
Server time: 22:55:20, December 12, 2018 CET (as of posting this inactivation request)

Please address this incident as well, please. GRC members should not behave aggressively towards players for calling out breaches of rules procedure, particularly when they have been committed as many times as is the case here.

[cm9777]

So obviously this was a mistaken early inactivation things like this happen, we are 3 volunteers (often busy with other commitments) so mistakes can happen. We can obviously in the future keep a closer look at the dates and so forth however any sort of idea that this is some sort of veteran thing (also we'd have to define what a veteran is) without really any substantiation will only invite trouble. Not going to defend what Farsun said here however based on what was said yet, I'm not surprised that it invited such a response. Farsun's response was certainly not helpful or productive and the same can be said for what you said on Veteran things. Ultimately if there are these multiple incidents, if they were not pointed out then they will probably end up being missed and also, the current mod team has only been around since November or so (so I doubt any such issue would be connected to the current mods).

I'd invite all parties to look at something from face value and not attempt to make connections to other things.

[Aquinas]

So obviously this was a mistaken early inactivation things like this happen, we are 3 volunteers (often busy with other commitments) so mistakes can happen. We can obviously in the future keep a closer look at the dates and so forth however any sort of idea that this is some sort of veteran thing (also we'd have to define what a veteran is) without really any substantiation will only invite trouble. Not going to defend what Farsun said here however based on what was said yet, I'm not surprised that it invited such a response. Farsun's response was certainly not helpful or productive and the same can be said for what you said on Veteran things. Ultimately if there are these multiple incidents, if they were not pointed out then they will probably end up being missed and also, the current mod team has only been around since November or so (so I doubt any such issue would be connected to the current mods).

I'd invite all parties to look at something from face value and not attempt to make connections to other things.

As I outlined previously, there has been a long-term pattern of Moderators following the requests of certain well-established players to inactivate players before the usual time period has elapsed.This issue has previously been raised with Moderators, including with you personally. I will shortly be pm'ing the 3 Mods with further details.

As a respectful reminder, the query James raised on Dec 2 about Zardugal's renaming has not yet been responded to. Similarly, nor has the query I made at the beginning of the week about the Nation Renaming Guide:

On the subject of nation renaming, I have just had a browse through the Nation Renaming Guide and noticed there are several erroneous entries. This is far from the first time this has happened, unfortunately. I would really urge both players and Moderators to bear the Nation Renaming Guide in mind whenever a renaming is being proposed, and also to check whether the Nation Renaming Guide needs to be updated when, for example, (a) a Cultural Protocol is altered, (b) a Cultural Protocol is removed and (c) a new Cultural Protocol is installed.

Or if that's too much to ask, then perhaps we should just give up on the Nation Renaming Guide and go back to the original system of letting players have the nation title in whatever language they want.

Anyway, as to the outstanding issues at the moment...

Baltusia's entry should be changed from "Any" to "English", as per its Cultural Protocol.

Barmenia's entry should be changed from "Any" to "Kurdish, Jelbic/Brmek or Aramaic/Syriac", as per its Cultural Protocol.

Kalistan is a more complex case, but I would say the entry should now be changed from "Any" to "English", to reflect the preferences expressed in its current Cultural Protocol ("Party names, national variables and bill titles should be in English"). Please consult the Kalistanis if in any doubt.

Keymon's entry should be changed from "English, Greek, Latin or Greek/Latin mix" to "Any", to reflect the fact it is Culturally Open.

Solentia's entry should be changed from "English" to "Any", to reflect the fact it is Cultural Open.

Telamon's entry should be changed from "Any" to "Icelandic", as per its Cultural Protocol.

You might consider changing Hawu's entry from "Medu Neter" to "English and Medu Neter", given the nation title is currently in English and has, I believe, been in English for much of the time. Medu Neter is not the most accessible language. You could consider consulting with the Hawu players about what they want their entry to be (eg. perhaps they would prefer one or more of the more accessible African languages? I dunno....).

BTW Keymon has just adopted a Cultural Protocol, so presumably its entry should be changed from ""English, Greek, Latin or Greek/Latin mix" (which it still is now...) to "English and Corsican".