Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:16 am

I don't think the current rules are as bad as they are now made out to be, certainly not "confusing and not fit for purpose". I still believe that they are adequate for dealing with the recent events in Jelbania. But I agree that there is (always) room for improvement. Here are some ideas for rules that might have prevented all this.

One of the major problems was a lack of documentation and communication. Some ways to tackle this:
For RP-Laws:
RP-Laws have to be referenced in an appropriately titled bill in the “Bills under debate” section within 4 days (96 hours) of passing. Otherwise they are deemed void.

There exists a comparable rule, adding a clear deadline would help enforcement.
For RP-Treaties:
Treaties agreed on on the Forum have to be replicated by in-game treaties within 2 days (48 hours). Otherwise they are deemed void. Nations that agreed on the Forum are considered to be bound by the treaty for 4 days (96 hours) counting from the posting of the in-game treaty. After that only nations that ratified the in-game treaty are bound by it.

For RP-Events, Option a:
Major ongoing role-play events (e.g. war, secession, occupation) have to be referenced in all involved nations in an appropriately titled bill in the “Bills under debate” section with links to relevant Forum posts/threads.

For RP-Events, Option b:
Players have a responsibility to inform new players joining a nation of major ongoing role-play events involving the nation.

Zanz has given a good example.

Another question concerned consent:
Players joining a nation are considered to implicitly consent to all ongoing role-play involving the nation.


Considering language and names:
Parties with a non-English name have to provide an English translation in either the party name or the party description.

In culturally protected nations names of candidates and RP-characters have to reflect the ethnic make-up of the nation as defined in the CP. Exceptions require substantial RP-justification.

This last one would of course only make explicit what already follows from the rules.

Thoughts, questions, comments, rants, personal attacks?

Regards
Occam
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby Reddy » Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:04 am

Occam wrote:One of the major problems was a lack of documentation and communication. Some ways to tackle this:


Um except this is not very true. I've been looking at this in detail. There were several RP posts and discussions on the forum, Discord and other RP bills. I've only come to remember this now -the most important RP bills were well-documented Someone decided to have them cleared in order to benefit their narrative. Note this player had been in the country for about 5 IG years at the time of this bill clearance giving him ample time to study the contents of that bill and the many RP posts on the forum. It was strange but ultimately his right to demand the clearance of this bill but downright misleading to claim that he was not aware of any major aspects of the RP. In whatever country I play in, I always have an " RP laws and institutions bill" open to inform any newcomers of the state of the country.

Regardless following all this, I've gladly learnt my lesson. My attempt at pushing RP boundaries ended with all this trouble. It's best to keep it safe and vanilla.

As for your proposals I think they might be too rigid. RP is and should remain a largely informal thing as it is in practice governed by a few simple rules. This kind of dispute which is based partially on misrepresentation is very rare in any case. I think the rules already provided adequately for documentation, they could be clearer and less demanding eg I don't see why an RP law has to be "clearly labelled as one". It's not exactly rocket science; identifying an RP law.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:08 pm

Reddy wrote:
Occam wrote:One of the major problems was a lack of documentation and communication. Some ways to tackle this:


Um except this is not very true. I've been looking at this in detail. There were several RP posts and discussions on the forum, Discord and other RP bills. I've only come to remember this now -the most important RP bills were well-documented Someone decided to have them cleared in order to benefit their narrative. Note this player had been in the country for about 5 IG years at the time of this bill clearance giving him ample time to study the contents of that bill and the many RP posts on the forum. It was strange but ultimately his right to demand the clearance of this bill but downright misleading to claim that he was not aware of any major aspects of the RP. In whatever country I play in, I always have an " RP laws and institutions bill" open to inform any newcomers of the state of the country.

Regardless following all this, I've gladly learnt my lesson. My attempt at pushing RP boundaries ended with all this trouble. It's best to keep it safe and vanilla.

As for your proposals I think they might be too rigid. RP is and should remain a largely informal thing as it is in practice governed by a few simple rules. This kind of dispute which is based partially on misrepresentation is very rare in any case. I think the rules already provided adequately for documentation, they could be clearer and less demanding eg I don't see why an RP law has to be "clearly labelled as one". It's not exactly rocket science; identifying an RP law.


TBH I assumed that was fluff because it was old and done by a party that wasn't here anymore. LOADS of fluffy old bills get left behind in this game which I would generally ignore TBH and most other people would too.

You can say I should have researched more and okay but in my defence this game has changed like COMPLETELY since I last played, y'know?

As well even if Jelbania had been occupied I thought this was fixed (even presuming it was legal) by the Re-Unification of Jelbania bill http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=576058. BTW THAT bill was never called "RP Law" and never referenced in debate bills, so I now know it was in fact ILLEGAL but anyway

As I said before when I voted that bill I admit I did not see the last sentence of it.

When I asked for Reddys old bill to be cleared out I did not "demand" or have "agenda" that is a misrepresentative. When I told the Mod the info in that bill was out of date he AGREED viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363&start=3010#p137229

I maintain I was not proparly told what was being done in Jelbania for a long time & even THEN they couldnt at all justify the BLATANT fucking with game mechanics either thru either the rules or spirit of the game & fairplay.

If it HAD been PROPARLY EXPLANED to me at the beginning of course I would have thought what they were doing was bad but of course I would never have wasted my time staying in Jelbania, I'd have gone somewhere better.

But by the time I saw Jelbania was complecated I was unhappy but still didnt want to leave as I'd been there a long while already and done LOTS of works making lots of bills. C7779 was shutting me out of seats for 2 weeks so why should my patience be for nothing? I waited all that damned time and I felt earned my right to be a party in Jelbania

Reddy & c7779 no disrespect but I believe when I was the winner in Jelbania and the only party my wish should come first. You want to control Jelbania thats fine by me but actually COME to Jelbania and BE THERE and win control honestly, y'know?

I am owed a serious apology for what was done but there has been nothing.
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:51 pm

House Spencer wrote:
Reddy wrote:
Occam wrote:One of the major problems was a lack of documentation and communication. Some ways to tackle this:


Um except this is not very true. I've been looking at this in detail. There were several RP posts and discussions on the forum, Discord and other RP bills. I've only come to remember this now -the most important RP bills were well-documented Someone decided to have them cleared in order to benefit their narrative. Note this player had been in the country for about 5 IG years at the time of this bill clearance giving him ample time to study the contents of that bill and the many RP posts on the forum. It was strange but ultimately his right to demand the clearance of this bill but downright misleading to claim that he was not aware of any major aspects of the RP. In whatever country I play in, I always have an " RP laws and institutions bill" open to inform any newcomers of the state of the country.

Regardless following all this, I've gladly learnt my lesson. My attempt at pushing RP boundaries ended with all this trouble. It's best to keep it safe and vanilla.

As for your proposals I think they might be too rigid. RP is and should remain a largely informal thing as it is in practice governed by a few simple rules. This kind of dispute which is based partially on misrepresentation is very rare in any case. I think the rules already provided adequately for documentation, they could be clearer and less demanding eg I don't see why an RP law has to be "clearly labelled as one". It's not exactly rocket science; identifying an RP law.


TBH I assumed that was fluff because it was old and done by a party that wasn't here anymore. LOADS of fluffy old bills get left behind in this game which I would generally ignore TBH and most other people would too.

You can say I should have researched more and okay but in my defence this game has changed like COMPLETELY since I last played, y'know?

As well even if Jelbania had been occupied I thought this was fixed (even presuming it was legal) by the Re-Unification of Jelbania bill http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=576058. BTW THAT bill was never called "RP Law" and never referenced in debate bills, so I now know it was in fact ILLEGAL but anyway

As I said before when I voted that bill I admit I did not see the last sentence of it.

When I asked for Reddys old bill to be cleared out I did not "demand" or have "agenda" that is a misrepresentative. When I told the Mod the info in that bill was out of date he AGREED viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363&start=3010#p137229

I maintain I was not proparly told what was being done in Jelbania for a long time & even THEN they couldnt at all justify the BLATANT fucking with game mechanics either thru either the rules or spirit of the game & fairplay.

If it HAD been PROPARLY EXPLANED to me at the beginning of course I would have thought what they were doing was bad but of course I would never have wasted my time staying in Jelbania, I'd have gone somewhere better.

But by the time I saw Jelbania was complecated I was unhappy but still didnt want to leave as I'd been there a long while already and done LOTS of works making lots of bills. C7779 was shutting me out of seats for 2 weeks so why should my patience be for nothing? I waited all that damned time and I felt earned my right to be a party in Jelbania

Reddy & c7779 no disrespect but I believe when I was the winner in Jelbania and the only party my wish should come first. You want to control Jelbania thats fine by me but actually COME to Jelbania and BE THERE and win control honestly, y'know?

I am owed a serious apology for what was done but there has been nothing.


Due credit to Reddy and Spencer for the extra information and their different perspectives.

Whilst this is obviously interesting and relevant, it does not fundamentally change my reading of what happened. This is a story of an unfamiliar player inadvertently wandering into a complex situation which was not, in the end, really fair to him.

It remains problematic that there was no direct communication with Spencer for at least his first week or two weeks in Jelbania. Reddy's OOC reference bill did not, just by itself, amount to sufficient communication, given the unusual situation prevailing in Jelbania. Unfamiliar players often do not automatically perceive that these reference bills are "official", particularly when they involve players no longer present in the nation.

The fact that Polites agreed to Spencer's request to clear out the OOC reference bill probably further confirmed his impression it was outdated, as well as obviously removing one of the key technical requirements for any RP laws referenced within that bill to be valid.

In fairness, I feel some amongst us should accept a degree of responsibility for Spencer's travails. This game has three Moderators, including one who was actually present with Spencer in Jelbania at the time. This game also has thirteen RP committee members, including two who were specifically responsible for Majatra, the continent where Spencer was playing and this rather advanced international RP was going on. Should somebody have had a proper conversation with Spencer when he very first joined Jelbania? Was it not entirely unforeseeable that there might be a problem if he suddenly won power in Jelbania, having been under-informed and seat-blocked by a player-Moderator for two frustrating weeks?

This unhappy combination of the poor communication, the undeniable muddles over the rules and their enforcement, and the frustrating seat-blocking by a player-Moderator, surely amounts to a reasonable case for offering Spencer an official apology.

None of this is to say the eventual nation ban was unjustified. I do not know the exact details of that and so it is hard to judge, although as it happens, I trust the Moderators to have acted in good faith.

However, unless we recognise that some things were basically not right here, and that there were aspects to Spencer's experience in Jelbania which were not fair or desirable, then I honestly find it difficult to see how we will be able to move on from this in a positive and constructive way.

Reddy wrote:Regardless following all this, I've gladly learnt my lesson. My attempt at pushing RP boundaries ended with all this trouble. It's best to keep it safe and vanilla.


FWIW, given the nature of what Jelbania is like, I am almost inclined to suggest that ideally it might be preferable if it could be removed as a playable game mechanic nation, and be controlled instead in the same fashion as the Third World countries, which have a single specified player at a time controlling them. I firmly believe some of the recent RP in Jelbania is much more suited to the non-playable nations than playable ones, where unpredictable elections can suddenly transfer effective control from one player or group to another.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:18 pm

House Spencer wrote:When I told the Mod the info in that bill was out of date he AGREED viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363&start=3010#p137229

Obviously he didn't agree with you; he just took your word for it. That was indeed a mistake, albeit a very understandable one. Expecting Moderators to check such claims in detail is more than just a little unreasonable. So yes, Moderation screwed up -- by believing you. I am an adherent of Hanlon's razor ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence.") so I accept your claim that you didn't realize that the bill should not have been deleted. Nevertheless it shouldn't have been deleted.

Regards
Occam
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:59 pm

Occam wrote:
House Spencer wrote:When I told the Mod the info in that bill was out of date he AGREED viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363&start=3010#p137229

Obviously he didn't agree with you; he just took your word for it. That was indeed a mistake, albeit a very understandable one. Expecting Moderators to check such claims in detail is more than just a little unreasonable. So yes, Moderation screwed up -- by believing you. I am an adherent of Hanlon's razor ("Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence.") so I accept your claim that you didn't realize that the bill should not have been deleted. Nevertheless it shouldn't have been deleted.

Regards
Occam


http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=557895

Well C7779 controled Jelbania when that bill was cleered & he never protested or did the bill again
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:07 pm

House Spencer wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=557895

Well C7779 controled Jelbania when that bill was cleered & he never protested or did the bill again

That -- very, very obviously -- doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been deleted.
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:15 pm

Occam wrote:
House Spencer wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=557895

Well C7779 controled Jelbania when that bill was cleered & he never protested or did the bill again

That -- very, very obviously -- doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have been deleted.


You know Occam the thought comes to me you and me are wasting time talking what should and shouldnt be & what the rules mean. In this game what should and shouldnt be is completely arbitrary whatever a Mod is saying at any one time

If theres one think Ive learned its that

We should all give up talking, they will just do whatever the hell they want anyway
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:02 pm

Reddy wrote:Um except this is not very true. I've been looking at this in detail. There were several RP posts and discussions on the forum, Discord and other RP bills. I've only come to remember this now -the most important RP bills were well-documented

Thanks, this information is very helpful for reconstructing what happened and where things went wrong. I'd say that it's unreasonable to expect (new) players to search for information on the forum and especially on discord unless someone points them to it. That leaves the RP-bill overview. That pretty much fulfills the conditions I outlined above (including a very relevant forum link); kudos for that.
Aquinas wrote:Reddy's OOC reference bill did not, just by itself, amount to sufficient communication, given the unusual situation prevailing in Jelbania. Unfamiliar players often do not automatically perceive that these reference bills are "official", particularly when they involve players no longer present in the nation.

It was sufficient insofar as it fulfills the conditions set out by the current rules. It wasn't sufficient insofar as it didn't prevent the misunderstanding. Whether this means that the rules should be stricter is a matter for debate.
Reddy wrote:Someone decided to have them cleared in order to benefit their narrative.

Let's try not to speculate about intentions -- on all sides.
Reddy wrote:Regardless following all this, I've gladly learnt my lesson. My attempt at pushing RP boundaries ended with all this trouble. It's best to keep it safe and vanilla.

I think it would be a shame if these events would put a dampener on future RP. Rather we should make sure that the conditions are clear.
Reddy wrote:As for your proposals I think they might be too rigid. RP is and should remain a largely informal thing as it is in practice governed by a few simple rules.

I'm not saying we should implement these rules. But we should discuss how to prevent similar situations (without more or less abandoning role-play of wars, etc.). Indeed my proposals are on the rigid end of the scale. They are primarily intended as a starting point for discussion. A less rigid, but at the same time less clear possibility would be:
All players in a nation have a responsibility to ensure that new players joining the nation are adequately informed about current RP-Laws and major ongoing role-play (e.g. (civil) war, secession. occupation).

Reddy wrote:I don't see why an RP law has to be "clearly labelled as one". It's not exactly rocket science; identifying an RP law.

Agreed.
House Spencer wrote:Reddy & c7779 no disrespect but I believe when I was the winner in Jelbania and the only party my wish should come first. You want to control Jelbania thats fine by me but actually COME to Jelbania and BE THERE and win control honestly, y'know?

The fact that at times there was no player involved in the RP left in Jelbania is indeed one of the (very euphemistically speaking) "unfortunate" aspects of the whole event. That doesn't mean that the RP should have ended when Spencer won the elections but for the last RP participant to leave was, well, "unfortunate".
House Spencer wrote:Well C7779 controled Jelbania when that bill was cleered & he never protested or did the bill again.

Definitely another "unfortunate" aspect.
House Spencer wrote:In this game what should and shouldnt be is completely arbitrary whatever a Mod is saying at any one time

I disagree as far as this situation is concerned. But trust me many players had their run-ins with different incarnations of Moderation -- including Auditorii, CCP, Aquinas, and myself. I hope you'll stick around and give us another chance.

Regards
Occam
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Previous

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests