Changes to the roleplay rules

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby Aquinas » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:38 pm

As many here will be aware, there has recently been fairly extensive debate about the situation regarding RP rules and RP laws in particular. Much of this can be seen at the following locations of the forum:

RP Law Query Thread

Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Moderation/GRC Queries

Moderation has conceded that "Obviously it’s becoming clear that RP rules are confusing and not fit for purpose" (Lewiselder1) and promised a review of these rules and a full player consultation. All good stuff.

I was therefore surprised to discover this morning that Moderation has decided to change the rules, but without actually announcing the changes on the forum. There was an announcement on Discord (see below), but even that did not actually explain what the actual details of the change are. BTW, the link in Lewis's message is just the standard Game Rules link.

Image

I point out also that not everybody is on Discord, and even amongst those who are there, not everybody keeps up with all of the multiple "channels" and all of the fast-flowing conversation there. I am not quite sure as to whether I myself would have noticed this announcement if it had not been pointed out privately to me.

To repeat a point I have made in the past, I do feel it is important that game announcements should be made on the forum, not just on Discord. There have been similar incidents to this. As an example, around a year ago a new in-game law was added without it being announced or even discussed on the forum.

Now, as for the rewording of the rules, from what I can establish by myself, the changes are as follows...

Section 6e previously read:

6. e. It is possible to create RP laws which act as secondary rules which players are required to follow in character only, laws that require players to act or vote in a specific way are not permitted. They are laws which are only referenced in the bill description and not enforced by the game mechanics.

i.To create an RP law you must: pass it through your nation's legislature with either a simple majority of seats if it is a regular law or a ⅔ majority of seats if it is a constitutional law and reference it clearly in your nation’s “Bills under debate” section. To query a new RP law’s legality a user should post on the RP Law Query Thread. It is recommended though not required for an RP Law to be clearly labelled as such.
ii.To overturn or abolish an RP law you must pass a bill with a simple majority which explicitly mentions which law you are scrapping and provides a link to the original law. It is recommended though not required to post a link to the bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread.
iii.An RP law must not contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Additionally they cannot ban types of parties (without considerable RP justification) or users. RP Laws must also not force users to vote in a particular way.
iv.Moderation reserves the right to declare any RP law invalid in exceptional circumstances.


Whereas now it reads:

6. e. It is possible to create RP laws which act as secondary rules which players are required to follow in character only, laws that require players to act or vote in a specific way are not permitted. They are laws which are only referenced in the bill description and not enforced by the game mechanics.

i.To create an RP law you must: pass it through your nation's legislature with either a simple majority of seats if it is a regular law or a ⅔ majority of seats if it is a constitutional law and reference it clearly in your nation’s “Bills under debate” section. To query a new RP law’s legality a user should post on the RP Law Query Thread. It is recommended though not required for an RP Law to be clearly labelled as such.
ii.To overturn or abolish an RP law you must pass a bill with a simple majority which explicitly mentions which law you are scrapping and provides a link to the original law. It is recommended though not required to post a link to the bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread.
iii.An RP law generally must not severely contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Moderation has the right to decide what fits into this definition and what does not: exceptions can be made in various scenarios, especially when the conflict is minor (please contact a Moderator for advice). Additionally they cannot ban types of parties (without considerable RP justification) or users. RP Laws must also not force users to vote in a particular way.
iv.Moderation reserves the right to declare any RP law invalid in exceptional circumstances.


As you can see, there has been a shift in emphasis. Whereas before, it said RP laws "must not contradict game mechanics", now it says RP laws "must not severely contradict game mechanics". Clearly this change must be of some significance, because otherwise surely Moderation would have seen no need for the rewording.

To try to keep things as simple and concise as possible, I would like to put a few questions or points to Moderation, and would be grateful if they could try to respond - even if its only to some of them.

1. Could Moderation explain the significance of the difference between "contradict game mechanics" and "severely contradict game mechanics"? What exactly are RP laws now able to do and not able to do?

2. Is this rewording a substitute for the rules review and the consultation we were originally promised, or is this more of a temporary "stop-gap" measure?

3. Does Moderation agree with my concern that changes to the game should be fully detailed and announced here on the forum?

4. House Spencer, who is apparently currently under a forum ban, has asked me to state he feels strongly that Moderation has retrospectively changed the rules in order to retroactively justify a situation in Jelbania which he feels broke the game mechanics and unfairly penalised him. He also feels Moderation has deliberately tried to "slip out" the announcement in the hope nobody would notice or comment. Whilst I do not personally share his interpretation of events, I am not without empathy for why it is seeming this way to him, and I do feel it would be fair comment to say there has been a lack of sensitivity in terms of both how this rules announcement has been made, and how that situation in Jelbania was handled generally.

5. Could Moderation confirm whether I have correctly identified all of the rules changes that have just been introduced? If I have not done so, please present the full changes in detail.

5. The OP for the RP Law Query Thread has not yet been updated to reflect the rule changes.

6. To repeat another point I have made previously: the "Random Facts" which run along the bottom of the game screen continue to relay information which is now out-of-date, including on RP and RP laws. I do hope this will be addressed, because this has almost certainly been a source of confusion.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby lewiselder1 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:05 pm

Aquinas wrote:As many here will be aware, there has recently been fairly extensive debate about the situation regarding RP rules and RP laws in particular. Much of this can be seen at the following locations of the forum:

RP Law Query Thread

Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread

Moderation/GRC Queries

Moderation has conceded that "Obviously it’s becoming clear that RP rules are confusing and not fit for purpose" (Lewiselder1) and promised a review of these rules and a full player consultation. All good stuff.

I was therefore surprised to discover this morning that Moderation has decided to change the rules, but without actually announcing the changes on the forum. There was an announcement on Discord (see below), but even that did not actually explain what the actual details of the change are. BTW, the link in Lewis's message is just the standard Game Rules link.

Image

I point out also that not everybody is on Discord, and even amongst those who are there, not everybody keeps up with all of the multiple "channels" and all of the fast-flowing conversation there. I am not quite sure as to whether I myself would have noticed this announcement if it had not been pointed out privately to me.

To repeat a point I have made in the past, I do feel it is important that game announcements should be made on the forum, not just on Discord. There have been similar incidents to this. As an example, around a year ago a new in-game law was added without it being announced or even discussed on the forum.

Now, as for the rewording of the rules, from what I can establish by myself, the changes are as follows...

Section 6e previously read:

6. e. It is possible to create RP laws which act as secondary rules which players are required to follow in character only, laws that require players to act or vote in a specific way are not permitted. They are laws which are only referenced in the bill description and not enforced by the game mechanics.

i.To create an RP law you must: pass it through your nation's legislature with either a simple majority of seats if it is a regular law or a ⅔ majority of seats if it is a constitutional law and reference it clearly in your nation’s “Bills under debate” section. To query a new RP law’s legality a user should post on the RP Law Query Thread. It is recommended though not required for an RP Law to be clearly labelled as such.
ii.To overturn or abolish an RP law you must pass a bill with a simple majority which explicitly mentions which law you are scrapping and provides a link to the original law. It is recommended though not required to post a link to the bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread.
iii.An RP law must not contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Additionally they cannot ban types of parties (without considerable RP justification) or users. RP Laws must also not force users to vote in a particular way.
iv.Moderation reserves the right to declare any RP law invalid in exceptional circumstances.


Whereas now it reads:

6. e. It is possible to create RP laws which act as secondary rules which players are required to follow in character only, laws that require players to act or vote in a specific way are not permitted. They are laws which are only referenced in the bill description and not enforced by the game mechanics.

i.To create an RP law you must: pass it through your nation's legislature with either a simple majority of seats if it is a regular law or a ⅔ majority of seats if it is a constitutional law and reference it clearly in your nation’s “Bills under debate” section. To query a new RP law’s legality a user should post on the RP Law Query Thread. It is recommended though not required for an RP Law to be clearly labelled as such.
ii.To overturn or abolish an RP law you must pass a bill with a simple majority which explicitly mentions which law you are scrapping and provides a link to the original law. It is recommended though not required to post a link to the bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread.
iii.An RP law generally must not severely contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Moderation has the right to decide what fits into this definition and what does not: exceptions can be made in various scenarios, especially when the conflict is minor (please contact a Moderator for advice). Additionally they cannot ban types of parties (without considerable RP justification) or users. RP Laws must also not force users to vote in a particular way.
iv.Moderation reserves the right to declare any RP law invalid in exceptional circumstances.


As you can see, there has been a shift in emphasis. Whereas before, it said RP laws "must not contradict game mechanics", now it says RP laws "must not severely contradict game mechanics". Clearly this change must be of some significance, because otherwise surely Moderation would have seen no need for the rewording.

To try to keep things as simple and concise as possible, I would like to put a few questions or points to Moderation, and would be grateful if they could try to respond - even if its only to some of them.

1. Could Moderation explain the significance of the difference between "contradict game mechanics" and "severely contradict game mechanics"? What exactly are RP laws now able to do and not able to do?

2. Is this rewording a substitute for the rules review and the consultation we were originally promised, or is this more of a temporary "stop-gap" measure?

3. Does Moderation agree with my concern that changes to the game should be fully detailed and announced here on the forum?

4. House Spencer, who is apparently currently under a forum ban, has asked me to state he feels strongly that Moderation has retrospectively changed the rules in order to retroactively justify a situation in Jelbania which he feels broke the game mechanics and unfairly penalised him. He also feels Moderation has deliberately tried to "slip out" the announcement in the hope nobody would notice or comment. Whilst I do not personally share his interpretation of events, I am not without empathy for why it is seeming this way to him, and I do feel it would be fair comment to say there has been a lack of sensitivity in terms of both how this rules announcement has been made, and how that situation in Jelbania was handled generally.

5. Could Moderation confirm whether I have correctly identified all of the rules changes that have just been introduced? If I have not done so, please present the full changes in detail.

5. The OP for the RP Law Query Thread has not yet been updated to reflect the rule changes.

6. To repeat another point I have made previously: the "Random Facts" which run along the bottom of the game screen continue to relay information which is now out-of-date, including on RP and RP laws. I do hope this will be addressed, because this has almost certainly been a source of confusion.


You’ve made some valid points here. Let me know if I miss any going down the list now...

Firstly, yes. That change you have pointed out in quotation marks is the correct one — apologies for not making this clearer earlier.

1. There is no difference in practice. But we know there has been some confusion elsewhere in the game so felt it was necessary to make this change — our decisions ultimately will be exactly the same, with minor transgressions against game mechanics being allowed, and just kind of judging it situationally instead of with a blanket statement. The intention was to make it more clear that we don’t treat this as a hard and fast rule and don’t believe that was the intended interpretation either; our rewording wasn’t given a consultation because we view it as a clarification of the rules and not an actual change to how the rules function. By making it more obviously vague and situational, it should hopefully lessen the confusion regarding the resm inmplementation.

2. Nope, this is just a clarification — our rules redraft will contain a more vast redrafting of the rules for both clarity and functionality, this is very much a stop-gap measure. We’re hoping to detail our plans for the rules redraft and how they will be released very shortly.

3. Yep, fair point. Honestly it’s just something I’ve had on my to-do list for a while and just quickly did it when I was hopping into bed last night. I’m happy to make a more formal announcement later today.

4. I’m afraid I also disagree with Spencer’s interpretation but I would like to assure him that we made no attempt to ‘slip out’ the adjustment (else why would we announce it on the discord?) nor was it related directly to the situation in Jelbania.

5. Good point, will update it at a later date.

6. Fair point, we shall review them on a larger scale later down the line. Hopefully it doesn’t cause too much confusion, but I think there’s more important areas to focus on for the time being. Doesn’t lessen your point though, I agree.

Thanks, feel free to let me know if I haven’t responded to something or you want further clarification etc. :)
I go by Ashley now and use she/her pronouns. This is a really old account, I don’t play now.

I was a mod in classic for a bit, then I helped make Marcapada and WM there for a while. As of 2020 I’m co-ordinating Pachapay’s development.
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby lewiselder1 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:17 pm

I go by Ashley now and use she/her pronouns. This is a really old account, I don’t play now.

I was a mod in classic for a bit, then I helped make Marcapada and WM there for a while. As of 2020 I’m co-ordinating Pachapay’s development.
User avatar
lewiselder1
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu May 04, 2017 8:35 pm

Re: Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby Aquinas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:41 am

As some here will recall, earlier in the year there was controversy surrounding a situation in Jelbania, where Moderation required the Jelbania player (the only player in Jelbania at the time), against his will, to recognise the legality in RP terms of Jelbania being split into 3 parts, with one part controlled by Deltaria, one part by Vanuku and one part by Jelbania.

At the time, some of us, myself included, had objections to the way that situation was handled, and one of our objections (not the only one...) was that it violated the rules by contradicting game mechanics. Particracy game mechanics, as most here will know, do not really facilitate the dividing up of nations.

For anyone interested in reviewing the discussions which took place at the time, I would particularly suggest reading the RP Law Query Thread from this post onwards and checking out the Split from (Jelbania Discussion) RP Law Query Thread.

In the aftermath of this situation, Moderation changed a part of section 6ei of the Game Rules from "An RP law must not contradict game mechanics or the game rules" to the more flexible (if possibly vague)...

An RP law generally must not severely contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Moderation has the right to decide what fits into this definition and what does not: exceptions can be made in various scenarios, especially when the conflict is minor (please contact a Moderator for advice).


This change in the rules appeared at the time to further confirm that it was now possible to split nations, despite the contradiction to game mechanics. Or at least, at any rate, to make it possible in certain circumstances and with Moderation's approval.

Yesterday on the #discussion channel of the official Particracy server there was a conversation about plans by the players in Kazulia to RP their nation splitting. Given what had taken place previously, I was surprised and confused by the fact that the two Moderators present came down very hard on this, indicating it would not be allowed. I raised some points in response, although those points were not responded to at the time. (Not that I'm blaming the Mods for that, BTW, it was a fast-moving discussion on that channel, and I didn't actually tag them). After thinking about it a little more, I do think there is a need to clarify what the situation is with regards to nation splitting, and I hope Moderation will take the opportunity to address this now.

I have cited below the short conversation which took place on Discord.

Image

Image

To give my personal view on nation splitting, I feel that kind of RP is inevitably somewhat awkward, and that if it is to work well, probably (a) the course of that RP should be carefully planned in advance, with all of the relevant players consenting and (b) the RP should have the continuing consent of players through this period, and the period itself should ideally be reasonably short. My suggestion to Moderators would be not to immediately strike down nation splitting scenarios as soon as they emerge, but to urge realistic caution on players, and to be prepared to strike down the nation splitting RP if it becomes clear consent for it has broken down.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby Reddy » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:31 am

Ugh the Jelbania split RP.

First of all, Jelbania was never actually (formally) split into three countries. There was always a recognised central government in the Free Republic of Jelbania. It just failed to control its territory completely (a RP that has been done dozens of times here) Only Deltaria and Vanuku recognised the rebel areas. The two superpowers occupied rather than ruled the two rebel areas. It was unfortunate that a motley alliance of trolls and Aquinas jumped on the RP to try and discredit Moderation (their daily biznis) CM in particular. Thus the RP never actually contradicted game mechanics or any Game Rules or traditions. There were several precedents of civil wars splitting countries in PT - Kalopia-Wantuni for one, Jelbania itself in the past. None of these were ever ruled to be illegal.

As for being forced to recognise valid RP which take place before you move to a country, there's no question there - everyone has to do it. There was however nothing preventing that troll from negotiating an exit from the RP appropriately as has been done several times in the past (I did it myself with Axxell and Maxington while in Kalopia-Wantuni)
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby Aquinas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:44 pm

Reddy wrote:Ugh the Jelbania split RP.

First of all, Jelbania was never actually (formally) split into three countries. There was always a recognised central government in the Free Republic of Jelbania. It just failed to control its territory completely (a RP that has been done dozens of times here) Only Deltaria and Vanuku recognised the rebel areas. The two superpowers occupied rather than ruled the two rebel areas. It was unfortunate that a motley alliance of trolls and Aquinas jumped on the RP to try and discredit Moderation (their daily biznis) CM in particular. Thus the RP never actually contradicted game mechanics or any Game Rules or traditions. There were several precedents of civil wars splitting countries in PT - Kalopia-Wantuni for one, Jelbania itself in the past. None of these were ever ruled to be illegal.

As for being forced to recognise valid RP which take place before you move to a country, there's no question there - everyone has to do it. There was however nothing preventing that troll from negotiating an exit from the RP appropriately as has been done several times in the past (I did it myself with Axxell and Maxington while in Kalopia-Wantuni)


Jelbania was split and that situation did contradict game mechanics, because the central government was only able to set laws for 1 of the 5 regions, and 2 of the regions were effectively controlled by other countries (Vanuku and Deltaria). You are correct that there have been previous cases involving RPs where nations have been temporarily split, but in those cases, everybody involved consented. The Jelbania incident was so unusual because the player who controlled Jelbania objected to the splitting, and yet that RP was still imposed on him, and it was imposed on him even after CM left the nation (ie. leaving him as the only player in Jelbania). There was literally nobody in Jelbania who actually wanted to continue with that RP!

Spencer, the Jelbania player involved, was new to Particracy forum RP, and quite understandably, frankly, was somewhat thrown off balance by the situation, which for a host of reasons, had become quite complicated, frustrating and overwhelming for him.

From what I understand, at the time his Jelbania account was inactivated by Moderation, he was negotiating a solution with the Vanuku player (Sisyphus), although he was having less progress with CM (by this time, CM was the Deltaria player, having moved to Deltaria after losing the Jelbania election to Spencer).

I would agree with you some of Spencer's behaviour was unwise and wrong, and I spoke to him about that at the time. Indeed, I recall him saying he felt I gave him a tougher ride in that respect than the Moderators did, because I was clear and specific about the issues, whereas he found the Moderators involved tended to be vague, confusing and deflective.

However, to caricature Spencer as "that troll" and to make negative insinuations about people who raised legitimate concerns about that whole situation, shows a lack of understanding and is in fact really quite derogatory. This is particularly so given Spencer is not here at the moment to defend himself (in fact, I don't even know whether or not he is still banned from the forum). A number of big issues surrounding the rules and the administration of the game emerged from that whole situation and the discussion surrounding it, as anyone will see who takes the time to carefully review the threads I linked in my previous post.

In any case, the reason I created this thread is to seek clarification on the Game Rules, not to offer a platform for unfair, negative personal comments. If we can stick to the real issues, that would be nice. If you want to continue this line of discussion, I sense it might be better to do that in private, rather than clogging up the debate here.

@Mods an acknowledgement of the issues raised, whenever you're ready, would be nice. A reform of the rules surrounding RP laws is scheduled for the second phase of the rules review, and I'm hoping you will be agreeing with me that this is one of the more challenging areas of the game that needs some careful attention. The whole nation splitting thing is something that particularly needs to be thought about.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby cm9777 » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:51 am

I do not agree with the version of events put forward here however I acknowledge that things can be made clearer in the future especially for the playerbase of the community and so that trolls cannot as easily jump on something of this sort.
cm9777
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:05 pm

Re: Changes to the roleplay rules

Postby Aquinas » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:45 pm

The entry for "Reverse Trolling" at Urban Dictionary is not written the way I would prefer, but nevertheless touches on important truths.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK


Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests