Requests: General [A]

Submit your requests on various areas of the game.

Moderator: RP Committee

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Siggon Kristov » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:04 pm

Can Beluzia's HoS election system be conditionally-maintained by moderation under the subsections of article 5.3.8 of the Pax Cynica?

5.3.8 A Roleplay is only valid if all players involved consent to it and continue to do so throughout the duration.

5.3.8.1 By consenting to a roleplay, you accept the consequences of cause, effect and common sense as agreed between the players on EVERY point.

5.3.8.2 Moderation may be summoned to arbitrate or contribute to RP in order to ensure that this is maintained.


The condition, on which I suggest the system be maintained, is that a treaty is still signed by the nation with the system outlined in it. For example: The 3440 Revision of the Port Tackstov Charter, which all players had agreed to.

The treaty simply ensures that the laws don't contradict the system. The description also contains IC information that the players had agreed to. If players wish to abolish the system, they can simply pass a treaty withdrawal bill (which only needs >50% of the legislature).

One such treaty was signed before, to regulate the unique election system we designed.

The North Beluz HoS was elected by an electoral college consisting of all the members of the top party in each state. It was a simple calculation done, using election results, which we couldn't alter and it never put any party at an advantage or disadvantage. It worked, and the players had continued to recognise the system, even when they lost. For example, the Stantons and the Dataks were usually the ones competing for the North Beluz Presidency. They both had to chance to stop each other from getting it by blocking the 2/3 supermajority bill needed to change the HoS title, but they accepted defeat. Instead of accepting defeat, they could have simply declared that they no longer consent to the roleplay.
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=367194
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=367330
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=367832

The rules, that we made up for our own system, are pre-stated (they were read and seen before the instances in which they take effect) and a player can't simply alter them at any random point. They don't give any player any advantage. What I fear is that a new player may come, support the system at first in a case where he/she wins the elections through the custom system, then withdraw consent as soon as someone else wins. When they withdraw consent, they may block the HoS-title bill from passing (if they have enough seats) and it would be unfair that they only consent to the system in the specific instances where they benefit.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Valdštejn » Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:04 pm

That would indeed be an interesting case. The problem is obviously that the Pax Cynica contradicts itself - it says in 5.3.8 that an RP is only valid if all players consent to it and continue to do so throughout the duration - implying that players can withdraw their consent throughout the duration, making the RP invalid. And contrary to that it says in 5.2.8.1 that by consenting, you accept the consequences of cause, effect and common sense as agreed between the players on EVERY point - implying that once you've consented, you have to accept these consequences as agreed between the players, which means that you can't back out on stuff you've already agreed on.

Unless this text is revised (which might happen in the future), this will be interpreted in the following way:

If an RP is done by the players posting actions of their parties or countries, and the other players reacting to that, then the consequences of cause, effect and common sense aren't agreed between the players beforehand, but have to be agreed on every time a new post/other kind of manifested action is made, which is usually done implicitly by not protesting what the other player has done or claimed before, and which means that if an agreement isn't reached, consent can be withdrawn.
However, if the consequences of cause effect and common sense are agreed on every point between the players - which means that it has to be clear to all how the RP is going to work - consent can't be withdrawn, as this would contradict 5.3.8.1 Pax Cynica.

What does this mean for the game?

Simply this - when RP is done in the way most RPs are done, that is, if players post articles on the forums and other players react to that without having agreed on all the details beforehand - and all the turns the RP makes - they can withdraw consent at any time.
But if the RP and the way it works is clear to all, as is the case with the Beluzian election system, if consent has been given, it can't be withdrawn as long as nothing changes within the system.

So, in this case - if a player comes to Beluzia, accepts the RP, but withdraws his consent once his party has a HoS, he would act against the rules, and would be reprimanded by moderation. The only way a player can go against the RP is by coming to Beluzia and stating that he doesn't consent to it right away (or when first faced by it's consequences, if he has kept quiet until then).
Valdštejn
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Siggon Kristov » Sun Feb 24, 2013 12:58 pm

Thank you very much for your response.

--

What if a player comes and disagrees with the system instantly?

Let's say this player gets 34% of the seats, and all the other players consent to the system except him. He doesn't have a majority to be able to withdraw from the treaty, but he has enough seats to block the bill that would appoint a new High Count. Would all the other players be obligated to withdraw from the treaty and stop the system, thereby converting it to a normal Particracy system?

Note:
- Our system doesn't give anyone any advantages, and uses seat share in each region election results (which are controlled by the game, not us).
- It could be a new player or it could be a nation invader (player moving from another nation who may just be trying to upset us).
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Valdštejn » Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:18 pm

Siggon Kristov wrote:Thank you very much for your response.

--

What if a player comes and disagrees with the system instantly?

Let's say this player gets 34% of the seats, and all the other players consent to the system except him. He doesn't have a majority to be able to withdraw from the treaty, but he has enough seats to block the bill that would appoint a new High Count. Would all the other players be obligated to withdraw from the treaty and stop the system, thereby converting it to a normal Particracy system?

Note:
- Our system doesn't give anyone any advantages, and uses seat share in each region election results (which are controlled by the game, not us).
- It could be a new player or it could be a nation invader (player moving from another nation who may just be trying to upset us).



If that happened, nobody would have to withdraw from the treaty (that can't be enforced by any circumstance). But that player could very well boycott the new system, and it wouldn't be against the rules. In that case, you'd either have to stop the RP (for the time that player interrupts it), or to incorporate that into your RP (make something about the players party boycotting the system, or of the High Count still in place as unwilling to relinquish his post. Or, especially if the player does boycott the system because he's either completely ignorant and/or an asshole deliberatley trying to ruin it for you - ignore him. In game mechanic terms, the only thing that happens is that the wrong name is listed under HoS, so you'd just have to explain that by some RP machination (like a clerical error listing the wrong person), and continue your RP by pretending that the right person is the one actually in charge.

The way the rules are now, though, there's nothing that can be done against the boycotting player. However, I could see a Pax Cynica revision stating that when people are acting out of malice (that is, if there's no RP by the party to explain their actions, or if it's not just a beginner's ignorance) when not consenting to RP already in place when they enter a nation, they can be (if possible without disrupting the RP) ignored, or forced to leave the nation. However, before making that revision, I'd like to know what the community thinks about that.
Valdštejn
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Siggon Kristov » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:10 pm

Valdštejn wrote:I'd like to know what the community thinks about that.

I think there should be a subforum opened (like the "Creating the Law" one for IC affairs) for players to submit threads about their own Pax Cynica Review suggestions.
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby catparty » Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:19 am

Valdštejn wrote:However, I could see a Pax Cynica revision stating that when people are acting out of malice (that is, if there's no RP by the party to explain their actions, or if it's not just a beginner's ignorance) when not consenting to RP already in place when they enter a nation, they can be (if possible without disrupting the RP) ignored, or forced to leave the nation. However, before making that revision, I'd like to know what the community thinks about that.


I would be supportive of such a revision. It would have helped the Feline Homeland out a while back when a troll maliciously renamed our national animal to a Grizzly Bear and ignored our Felinist nature.
Libertarian Alliance of Cats
Feline Homeland of Barmenia

Progressive Party
Realms of Luthori
catparty
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby terrojasangel » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:19 pm

My brother wants to play this game as well, but I already play it. We both share an IP. Is there any way we can make some sort of arrangement so that we're not flagged as having a multi, since it's two separate people playing?
terrojasangel
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Siggon Kristov » Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:29 pm

terrojasangel wrote:My brother wants to play this game as well, but I already play it. We both share an IP. Is there any way we can make some sort of arrangement so that we're not flagged as having a multi, since it's two separate people playing?

I had a similar issue before: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4542
I think you will still be allowed to play, but not in the same nation.
Moderation usually asks you to fill out this form and send it to them, privately:

Player 1
Name (Real Name):
E-mail:
Nation/Party:
Access Point:

Player 2
Name (Real Name):
E-mail:
Nation/Party:
Access Point:
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Valdštejn » Tue Apr 09, 2013 6:45 pm

J94CK wrote:Following a discussion and a poll in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5251 about populations, those who participated would like to know whether populations could be cut/raised in the future and if so would moderation permit it?


I don't think it would be against the rules, but as far as I know, only Wouter would be able to do that. I think populations can be cut or raised, and might be in the future, but it's not really in our power to do anything about it (apart from contacting Wouter, of course).
Valdštejn
 
Posts: 1361
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:30 pm

Re: Questions & Requests

Postby Siggon Kristov » Tue Apr 09, 2013 7:01 pm

Valdštejn wrote:
J94CK wrote:Following a discussion and a poll in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5251 about populations, those who participated would like to know whether populations could be cut/raised in the future and if so would moderation permit it?

I don't think it would be against the rules, but as far as I know, only Wouter would be able to do that. I think populations can be cut or raised, and might be in the future, but it's not really in our power to do anything about it (apart from contacting Wouter, of course).

Could you kindly contact Wouter for us, and show him the thread?
Check out my latest Particracy project, and feel free to discuss it in the forums.
Siggon Kristov
 
Posts: 3206
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron