Requests: General [A]

[Auditorii]

(1) It is relatively common for players with an active second account to apply for another while both are active, not sure why that’s even a topic of discussion. I’ve done it before and I’ve known several other players who have done it.

(2) I see no provision in the rules prohibiting the amount of applications for a second account nor do I believe one such exist especially with the dwindling player base of the game.

[Aquinas]

http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8442&p=171137#p171137

First account: TheColorByzantine - Zardugal (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=39734)
Second account: YugoAudit - Kundrati (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=42233)

League of the South will represent the Croatian and Slovenian minorities in Kundrati, the overall plan is to expand on the Southern Slavs in Kundrati as a whole ethnic group. I’m not sure the ideological direct I want to take yet, perhaps left-wing, perhaps right-wing. I’m not entirely sure.

Please note that Auditorii already has two active accounts operating at the present time, the one in Zardugal and also one in Kirlawa.

Also note this is his third second account application in a week.

As a further point, please note the party description for the proposed account in Kundrati:

A coalition of Zergonian (Slovenian) and Hungalonian (Croatian) parties seeking to develop their communities on a national level.

Hungalonian - Liga Juga
Zergonian - Južna liga

Bear in mind that under Kundrati's Cultural Protocol, these minority groups only make up 4% of Kundrati's population. In order to be realistic and comply with the Cultural Protocol, I would suggest a party in Kundrati needs more than just the Zergonese and Hugalonese communities as its support base.

[Rogue]

Let me just start by saying: i missed the nostalgia. Yes. The nostalgia. In contrast to others in the community i cant pretend to know the thoughts of most players. Nor do i want to pretend i know. What i do know is how i personally view the attitude of certain players, and ive made myself clear on my opinion regarding this in the past. From my observation, not speaking for them but speaking out of my own experience and observations, i think the vast majority of PT classic players want to just play. Not endlessly bicker and complain about every single thing there is to complain about. Idk about others but i am getting tired of the endless tirades about absolutely nothing. The fact is that it is the same group of people that drive these "crusades" whether it be against the moderation team or specific players.

The people currently playing PT classic are dedicated and just want to do one thing: play. Objections and queries should always be raised but not in the manner that they have been on occasions. Be constructive and have a actual damn complaint instead of talking about floaty things like "transparancy". Dont talk for other players in the community if you only get your information from a select group of people. PT Classic should be a enjoyable gaming experience and from what i can gather, a vast majority of players currently enjoy playing the game with their heart. Thats all.

[colonelvesica]

As Aquinas, you did write me a rather beefy wall of text, I figured I should do you the courtesy of answering each point directly.

Well, I cannot compel the Moderators to be transparent about their decision to retcon the RP in Badara, but what I will point out is that this offence of "Meta-Gaming" is not defined or even mentioned in the Game Rules. It is potentially a rather slippery slope to start penalising players for taking advantage of OOC knowledge in order to plan IC actions. Everybody knows that in practice, this is something that goes on all the time. Players regularly OOCly discuss RP plans together, sometimes publicly, such as on the official Discord server or on the forum, and sometimes privately. So-called "power-gaming", where individuals OOCly plan their RP in such a way as to boost their nation's economic, military and strategic power, is well-known to this community.

I fully support the concept of planning Role Play in advance, 99% of all Role Play is planned in advance, much like the stories we weave. The Meta-Game charge didn't come from planning, as clearly the Post would have had to have been planned. However, as the players have been spoken to, they have both agreed to the discussions that went on, and it is against Game Rules to discuss Sanctions anywhere within Particracy, I shall not be discussing the matter any further, unless it is with the players in question.

A number of leading players, including recent and current Moderators, have "power-gamed" to a greater or lesser extent during their time in Particracy. Vesica has been involved in military RP a number of times over the years, and admitted on Discord yesterday that he cannot recall a single occasion when his nation came off worst in a military tangle. I am not trying to pick on him here, but my point should be clear. Unless this "Meta-Gaming" offence is appropriately defined and applied with consistency and transparency, then the whole exercise of penalising players for "Meta-Gaming" is going to start to look very subjective, or indeed even like thought policing.

Frankly Aquinas I think we can be honest with each other and state that you are picking me out specifically for that comment. It should be noted, that if anyone has actually looked at my Role Play, one of the reasons for my successes in military Role Play was the fact I've spent most of my time in PT focusing on military based Role Play, and commanded generally considered some of the most powerful militaries in the game from my dedication to military RP. Further to the point it is no secret that I regularly pull in my real life training, combat experience and tactical know how directly into these Role Plays. I am a fully trained military tactician by trade, I served for a number in the Army for a number of years, including in parts of the world I would rather not discuss anymore, honing my craft, and went to school specifically for tactics and strategy. I can say, without false modesty, I understand war and combat better then most of the players of this game simply from my life experience.

However leaving part of my life story aside, let's look at the Major Military Role Plays I was involved in and we can decide as a community whether or not I was power playing or not as you are very clearly accusing me of.

The Great Terran War - This was a heavily planned out Role Play and the war itself I fought was against Maxington, to which we both went all out. I would invite Maxington here to decide whether or not I was power playing against him or not, or with the 13 other players that actively participated in that Role Play, which is widely considered one of the best executed war role plays performed in PT.
The Wolfsheim War - This was a major military intervention against Hulstria which also involved it being attacked by 10 other nations, including, under the rankings as they had been firmly established by that point, most of the "Great and Regional" Powers at the time. Would you argue that it was power playing that 10 nations, including four of the most powerful at the time, beat Hulstria?
The Dovani War - This was the war between the Northern Council and the Dovani Union. As we are focusing on Hutori specifically, Hutori's participatition involved supporting New Alduria in beating Temania. Temania was at the time still a widely undeveloped understrength former colonial nation, that faced off against one of the, again acknowledged by the rankings, most powerful nations in the game. Was the result of that conflict a matter of power playing?
The Macon War - The most recent military Role Play I was involved in, for which we can bring in Augustus and he can ask if he felt I power played against him, or whether or not I fought well, and he was fighting a nation that was wealthier, six times his nations size, and ultimately supported by Telamon and Dorvik throughout the war.

Now based on that record, was I power playing? I'm honestly interested in whether or not you believed I was power playing, or you took my statement out of context that I had been successful in all Military Role Plays I was involved in, without bothering to see the combat Role Play I was actually involved in.

Changing the subject, but continuing with the theme of transparency, I would like to propose that in future there should be a minimum waiting time of perhaps 24 or 48 hours between when a player applies for a second account and when the Moderators can give permission. Just like there is a similar procedure in place for Cultural Protocol update requests. The reason for this is to allow community members an opportunity to raise questions or concerns when a second account is applied for. I also feel we generally need more Moderation transparency about this aspect of the game.

You have a point and I will certainly discuss this with Chitin moving forward.

Some recent second account decisions which have issues for me:

On March 12th, Auditorii's application for a second account in Indrala was denied on the grounds that Indrala was already RP active. This suggests Moderation attaches more value to players RPing one party nations than taking part in multi-party nations, which I feel is the wrong position to be taking. Speaking for myself, if I was to apply for a second account, it would almost certainly be in a multi-party nation. The reason being I enjoy both being the only party in a nation, and I also enjoy playing in a nation with other players, so given Malivia is only me, with a second account I would want to go somewhere with others. Presumably though this option is now closed for me?

Auditorii's application was rejected on the basis of the why he was going to Yingdala; to a Role Play active nation that was already heavily involved in foreign affairs. As PT currently had, at my last count, 7 empty nations and over a dozen single Party states, Chitin and I felt it more appropiate to focus on the states that are empty and RP inactive, as has been fairly standard in most Moderation decisions regarding Second Accounts for months.

On March 15th Vesica applied for permission to run a second account in Luthori, and was granted it 23 minutes later. This is despite the fact Luthori is a multi-party nation, and Auditorii's Indrala application had earlier been denied on these grounds. There was also the issue that, in his application, Vesica stated an intention to bring back the monarchy in Luthori. I am aware some players feel there should have been an opportunity to at least discuss this, given the royal family of Hutori (Vesica's main nation) has previously reigned in Luthori, and an impression was given that there might be potential conflicts of interest in terms of him wanting to co-ordinate the RP of Luthori and Hutori together.

Again mildly correcting you; Auditorii's application was rejected because it was a Role Play active and heavy nation, where as Luthori's Role Play on the forum is, as you can see, essentially non-existent. However, outside of that, I was not involved in the decision of my application to Luthori and can't offer further comment. If other players would like to discuss publicly that they feel there should have been a chance to discuss and have reservations about my presence in Luthori, I invite them to come forward, I am nothing if not open to discussions.

Today, Rogue/Mr God applied for a second account in Deltaria, and was granted it only a few hours later. Speaking for myself, I felt there should at least have been the possibility of a discussion before this decision was taken. Deltaria is a key ally for Malivia, the nation I currently have RP control of. And Narikaton-Darnussia, where Rogue has his first account, is in the middle of a stand-off with Malivia. So there is a little potential awkwardness here with my nation's ally and my nation's rival both being under the influence/control of the same person. To be clear, I am by no means necessarily opposed to this, but as I say, I do really feel there should have been an opportunity for discussion before the decision to approve the second account was taken.

A fair point, and I'll ask, have you reached out to Rogue to discuss these concerns of yours?

[Aquinas]

I fully support the concept of planning Role Play in advance, 99% of all Role Play is planned in advance, much like the stories we weave. The Meta-Game charge didn't come from planning, as clearly the Post would have had to have been planned. However, as the players have been spoken to, they have both agreed to the discussions that went on, and it is against Game Rules to discuss Sanctions anywhere within Particracy, I shall not be discussing the matter any further, unless it is with the players in question.

For this catch-all offence of (alleged) "Meta-Gaming", which does not exist in any form in the Game Rules and has not been formally defined and circumscribed in any way, you have forcibly retconned a seemingly innocuous RP about one nation buying oil from the other and you have sanctioned a player. You have refused to discuss any of this and you have also forbidden the players involved from publicly discussing it. This is hardly a healthy way of managing a game and a community like this one.

If you want a rule about "Meta-Gaming", then introduce one, preferably following community consultation, and be transparent about how it is enforced. That way, even if we don't all like every decision that gets made, we will be able to see there is at least some kind of basis for it and be able to see for ourselves how it was made.

As for the rule about not discussing sanctions, this is an unfortunate innovation which has only been introduced in recent years, and it is not remotely suitable for a small, politically-themed community like this one where discussion about the game is normal and transparency needs to be maintained as much as reasonably possible. James and a number of others have spoken about this as well.

Frankly Aquinas I think we can be honest with each other and state that you are picking me out specifically for that comment. It should be noted, that if anyone has actually looked at my Role Play, one of the reasons for my successes in military Role Play was the fact I've spent most of my time in PT focusing on military based Role Play, and commanded generally considered some of the most powerful militaries in the game from my dedication to military RP. Further to the point it is no secret that I regularly pull in my real life training, combat experience and tactical know how directly into these Role Plays. I am a fully trained military tactician by trade, I served for a number in the Army for a number of years, including in parts of the world I would rather not discuss anymore, honing my craft, and went to school specifically for tactics and strategy. I can say, without false modesty, I understand war and combat better then most of the players of this game simply from my life experience.

However leaving part of my life story aside, let's look at the Major Military Role Plays I was involved in and we can decide as a community whether or not I was power playing or not as you are very clearly accusing me of.

The Great Terran War - This was a heavily planned out Role Play and the war itself I fought was against Maxington, to which we both went all out. I would invite Maxington here to decide whether or not I was power playing against him or not, or with the 13 other players that actively participated in that Role Play, which is widely considered one of the best executed war role plays performed in PT.
The Wolfsheim War - This was a major military intervention against Hulstria which also involved it being attacked by 10 other nations, including, under the rankings as they had been firmly established by that point, most of the "Great and Regional" Powers at the time. Would you argue that it was power playing that 10 nations, including four of the most powerful at the time, beat Hulstria?
The Dovani War - This was the war between the Northern Council and the Dovani Union. As we are focusing on Hutori specifically, Hutori's participatition involved supporting New Alduria in beating Temania. Temania was at the time still a widely undeveloped understrength former colonial nation, that faced off against one of the, again acknowledged by the rankings, most powerful nations in the game. Was the result of that conflict a matter of power playing?
The Macon War - The most recent military Role Play I was involved in, for which we can bring in Augustus and he can ask if he felt I power played against him, or whether or not I fought well, and he was fighting a nation that was wealthier, six times his nations size, and ultimately supported by Telamon and Dorvik throughout the war.

Now based on that record, was I power playing? I'm honestly interested in whether or not you believed I was power playing, or you took my statement out of context that I had been successful in all Military Role Plays I was involved in, without bothering to see the combat Role Play I was actually involved in.

Okay... <deep breath>... so I swallowed on my coffee whilst I was reading this extraordinary chunk of text, because it is just so off on so many levels...

Clearly when you refer to your "successes in military Role Play", what you mean is you feel you beat the other guy on the other side. This attitude is actually a long-standing problem with the game, by which I mean the attitude that whether your nation "wins" or "loses" in a military RP is a reflection on the RP ability and "status" of you as a player. Nothing could be further from the truth. Has it occurred to you that a military setback could in fact be RPed just as skilfully and beautifully as a military triumph? Does it not occur to you that the fact you boast about having been involved in loads of military RPs but not to have seen your nation come off worse in any of them comes across as just a little bit sus?

You take military RP really, really, really seriously, more seriously, to be honest, than is suitable for a small political RPing community like this one which is not primarily even about military wargaming. Frankly, much of that stuff does not interest me, so I do not follow all of the finer details. What does very much get my attention, though, is the sight of you throwing your weight around during military RP discussions, often boasting about your claimed personal real-life military experiences in an effort to cajole others in to deferring to you. That is something I have witnessed from you many times over the years. At times you become controlling about economic and other RP, as well.

The fact you are calling upon Maxington, of all people, to "defend" you is a further indication, at least to me, of detachment from reality. Maxington, we now know, besides having certain powerplaying tendencies, was a profligate plagiariser. You, having RPed so closely with him, must surely have had some indication of what was going on, but never raised any alarm. Probably because most of the time it all benefitted you. And then there is the whole Northern Alliance thing, the machinations with the economic and political rankings and the GRC... need I go on?

To cut to the chase, though, the idea that you have never engaged in "power playing" in your career as a Particracy player, that you have never thrown your weight around OOCly to try to achieve IC objectives... respectfully, that is simply not credible and I am somewhat surprised you would seriously try to pretend otherwise.

Auditorii's application was rejected on the basis of the why he was going to Yingdala; to a Role Play active nation that was already heavily involved in foreign affairs. As PT currently had, at my last count, 7 empty nations and over a dozen single Party states, Chitin and I felt it more appropiate to focus on the states that are empty and RP inactive, as has been fairly standard in most Moderation decisions regarding Second Accounts for months.

Thank you for the explanation. I do strongly disagree though with the idea that Moderation should be specifically denying second account requests in order to prevent active RPers from RPing in the same nation together. International RP and military RP is not the be-all-and-end-all. As I said previously, I am currently RPing a single party state (Malivia), and if I wanted to adopt a second account, my ideal choice would be a lively multi-party democracy, because that's something I like to experience too. So right now I'm feeling kind of shut out by the second accounts scheme.

A fair point, and I'll ask, have you reached out to Rogue to discuss these concerns of yours?

As you witnessed above on this very thread, Rogue responded to my mild suggestion that there should have been a discussion before his second account was granted by launching a troll post, followed up by another troll post shortly afterwards on the official Discord server, essentially attempting to bully me out of this community and incite others to do likewise. And without a word from Moderators, I assume because the behaviour suited you.

Rogue has proposed having Malivia taken over by communists and turned in to a vassal state of Deltaria, which kind of tells you everything you need to know. He has also messaged the Hobrazian player, telling him that unless Hobrazia votes for Deltaria in the Security Council election, he will reopen Deltaria's military base in Malivia, leading to this being posted. All of this despite the fact there have been no discussions whatsoever between me/Malivia and Rogue/Deltaria about doing this. Quite honestly, I feel I am up against clumsy and insensitive powerplaying here, and that that your decision to grant Rogue a second account in Deltaria is having an impact on my ability to RP with my first (and sole) account in Malivia.

[Rogue]

Would have to kindly object to your last comments about me somehow proposing Malivia becoming a vassal state of Deltaria. I suggested a possible RP where a communist coup occurs yes, which i have proposed to multiple people including Chitin in order to launch a certain RP arch. I never mentioned vassal states at any point. Furthermore the dialogue between my IC government and that of Hobrazia was a clear case of Deltaria responding to a insult by Hobrazia. Threatening to reopen a base is different from actually doing it. Its also a admission from me that the base is defunct, which isnt a clear cut case but decided upon anyway for realism sake.

Im gonna repeat my earlier remarks in a different thread just because you decide to drag me in here again. The only trol posts currently circulating the forum originate from you. These entire threads full of tirades, vague accusations and weird assumptions cant honestly be taken seriously. Vesica responded to you, kindly i might add, to which you quoted his response in the "memorable quotes" section before taking the time to respond here. As has been demonstrated the moderation team is perfectly capable of handling requests and feedback and have so far been open to any and all of it. Your arch enemy Farsun has left the moderation team and Chitin has been learning and improving every day since he got installed.

Maybe its time to stop the endless essays and start to actually, properly play. You were/are doing great in Malivia but for the love of god dont fall back into old patterns.

[colonelvesica]

For this catch-all offence of (alleged) "Meta-Gaming", which does not exist in any form in the Game Rules and has not been formally defined and circumscribed in any way, you have forcibly retconned a seemingly innocuous RP about one nation buying oil from the other and you have sanctioned a player. You have refused to discuss any of this and you have also forbidden the players involved from publicly discussing it. This is hardly a healthy way of managing a game and a community like this one.

If you want a rule about "Meta-Gaming", then introduce one, preferably following community consultation, and be transparent about how it is enforced. That way, even if we don't all like every decision that gets made, we will be able to see there is at least some kind of basis for it and be able to see for ourselves how it was made.

As for the rule about not discussing sanctions, this is an unfortunate innovation which has only been introduced in recent years, and it is not remotely suitable for a small, politically-themed community like this one where discussion about the game is normal and transparency needs to be maintained as much as reasonably possible. James and a number of others have spoken about this as well.

I thank you for the feedback and I'll be sure to take it into consideration as Chitin and I were about to engage in a series of public consultations about reforming several of the rules. I look forward to hearing your feedback on these Consultations.

Okay... <deep breath>... so I swallowed on my coffee whilst I was reading this extraordinary chunk of text, because it is just so off on so many levels...

Clearly when you refer to your "successes in military Role Play", what you mean is you feel you beat the other guy on the other side. This attitude is actually a long-standing problem with the game, by which I mean the attitude that whether your nation "wins" or "loses" in a military RP is a reflection on the RP ability and "status" of you as a player. Nothing could be further from the truth. Has it occurred to you that a military setback could in fact be RPed just as skilfully and beautifully as a military triumph? Does it not occur to you that the fact you boast about having been involved in loads of military RPs but not to have seen your nation come off worse in any of them comes across as just a little bit sus?

You take military RP really, really, really seriously, more seriously, to be honest, than is suitable for a small political RPing community like this one which is not primarily even about military wargaming. Frankly, much of that stuff does not interest me, so I do not follow all of the finer details. What does very much get my attention, though, is the sight of you throwing your weight around during military RP discussions, often boasting about your claimed personal real-life military experiences in an effort to cajole others in to deferring to you. That is something I have witnessed from you many times over the years. At times you become controlling about economic and other RP, as well.

The fact you are calling upon Maxington, of all people, to "defend" you is a further indication, at least to me, of detachment from reality. Maxington, we now know, besides having certain powerplaying tendencies, was a profligate plagiariser. You, having RPed so closely with him, must surely have had some indication of what was going on, but never raised any alarm. Probably because most of the time it all benefitted you. And then there is the whole Northern Alliance thing, the machinations with the economic and political rankings and the GRC... need I go on?

To cut to the chase, though, the idea that you have never engaged in "power playing" in your career as a Particracy player, that you have never thrown your weight around OOCly to try to achieve IC objectives... respectfully, that is simply not credible and I am somewhat surprised you would seriously try to pretend otherwise.

Again if players of this community have issues with my Role Play, I encourage them to come forward and have a discussion with me. I'm more then happy to have those conversations.

If I may "your claimed personal real-life military experience" this comment I personally find rather insulting, though I suppose in fairness, we are all faceless people to each other. There is no way to confirm that I had a life in the military prior to playing this game. Now if you have further feedback to offer me as a Role Player I invite you to do so now as I am always open to it.

Thank you for the explanation. I do strongly disagree though with the idea that Moderation should be specifically denying second account requests in order to prevent active RPers from RPing in the same nation together. International RP and military RP is not the be-all-and-end-all. As I said previously, I am currently RPing a single party state (Malivia), and if I wanted to adopt a second account, my ideal choice would be a lively multi-party democracy, because that's something I like to experience too. So right now I'm feeling kind of shut out by the second accounts scheme.

If so I invite you to make your primary account in one of these lively multi-party democracies and have your Secondary Account in Malivia which is completely allowed within the confines of the game rules.

As you witnessed above on this very thread, Rogue responded to my mild suggestion that there should have been a discussion before his second account was granted by launching a troll post, followed up by another troll post shortly afterwards on the official Discord server, essentially attempting to bully me out of this community and incite others to do likewise. And without a word from Moderators, I assume because the behaviour suited you.

Rogue has proposed having Malivia taken over by communists and turned in to a vassal state of Deltaria, which kind of tells you everything you need to know. He has also messaged the Hobrazian player, telling him that unless Hobrazia votes for Deltaria in the Security Council election, he will reopen Deltaria's military base in Malivia, leading to this being posted. All of this despite the fact there have been no discussions whatsoever between me/Malivia and Rogue/Deltaria about doing this. Quite honestly, I feel I am up against clumsy and insensitive powerplaying here, and that that your decision to grant Rogue a second account in Deltaria is having an impact on my ability to RP with my first (and sole) account in Malivia.

If you feel that way, I would invite you to reach out to Rogue, as the primary player in Deltaria to see if you can diffuse this situation so your experience and Role Play in Malivia isn't impacted as harshly. If you're feeling targeted or bullied on the Discord I invite you to bring these issues to myself, Chitin or Luis as the Discord Moderator, so that we may investigate and take action if we feel it is necessary.

[colonelvesica]

Would have to kindly object to your last comments about me somehow proposing Malivia becoming a vassal state of Deltaria. I suggested a possible RP where a communist coup occurs yes, which i have proposed to multiple people including Chitin in order to launch a certain RP arch. I never mentioned vassal states at any point. Furthermore the dialogue between my IC government and that of Hobrazia was a clear case of Deltaria responding to a insult by Hobrazia. Threatening to reopen a base is different from actually doing it. Its also a admission from me that the base is defunct, which isnt a clear cut case but decided upon anyway for realism sake.

Im gonna repeat my earlier remarks in a different thread just because you decide to drag me in here again. The only trol posts currently circulating the forum originate from you. These entire threads full of tirades, vague accusations and weird assumptions cant honestly be taken seriously. Vesica responded to you, kindly i might add, to which you quoted his response in the "memorable quotes" section before taking the time to respond here. As has been demonstrated the moderation team is perfectly capable of handling requests and feedback and have so far been open to any and all of it. Your arch enemy Farsun has left the moderation team and Chitin has been learning and improving every day since he got installed.

Maybe its time to stop the endless essays and start to actually, properly play. You were/are doing great in Malivia but for the love of god dont fall back into old patterns.

With respect, I don't mind Aquinas speaking up. Everyone should have the write to speak their mind, otherwise we risk ending up in an echo chamber. I advise the both of you to have a frank conversation with each other privately, or elsewhere about the issues with Role Play in regards to Deltaria and Malivia.

If Aquinas has further comments or feedback I invite him to offer it, and anyone else for that matter.

[jellybean]

I suggest that Rogue's creation of the Deltarian-hosted Balgrad Conference is inappropriate given his significant involvement in the Malivian event through his primary account in Narikaton & Darnussia. If this conference is allowed, then he will be participating in the RP through two nations.

[Rogue]

To note. After the SPA was forced out of government i have not been involved in the Malivian situation through my first N&D account. All communications between ND and Deltaria have been going through the current government of ND, specifically Nucleargandi as player.