Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:04 pm

Maxington, you're confusing two different rules. The rule that a player play in the same nation as the party being inactivated only applies when early inactivation is being requested (i.e. under Section 5.c). The point you're making about parties which haven't been active in seven days or more is irrelevant because those parties are eligible for inactivation under a different rule (Section 5.a). The fact is that the Game Rules say that players can only request the inactivation of another party in their nation under Section 5.c.i, it's not unreasonable to expect Moderation to enforce that. If they feel it is no longer sufficient then they should propose making changes to it.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Maxington » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:09 pm

jamescfm wrote:Maxington, you're confusing two different rules. The rule that a player play in the same nation as the party being inactivated only applies when early inactivation is being requested (i.e. under Section 5.c). The point you're making about parties which haven't been active in seven days or more is irrelevant because those parties are eligible for inactivation under a different rule (Section 5.a). The fact is that the Game Rules say that players can only request the inactivation of another party in their nation under Section 5.c.i, it's not unreasonable to expect Moderation to enforce that. If they feel it is no longer sufficient then they should propose making changes to it.

Hmm... I stand corrected. The more you know.
"The future of the Nation is in the children's school bags" ~ Dr. Eric Williams
President of the Trond Henrichsen Institute for International Affairs.
User avatar
Maxington
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Look Behind you.

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:54 pm

Mr.God wrote:Your second point about Section One. We think it actually is necessary due to some players in the past using the forums to reveal private conversations with moderation or voice a opinion on moderation mistakes before adressing it to moderation themselves. So we believe having these in place is necessary to prevent that in the future. Most of the time a problem can be solved through private conversations with Moderation and we would like to encourage that.

Feels to me as though these comments are a veiled dig at Aquinas to be honest, especially given your subsequent comments in thread. I don't feel such a response is fair and I think that Moderation would benefit from adopting a more transparent approach to sanctions. In an ideal world, matters would be dealt with privately and Moderators should certainly aim to resolve issues directly with players but it's not realistic to expect people not to discuss sanctions at all. Recent examples spring to mind of situations on Discord where players (including myself) have requested that Moderation intervene when other players are using inappropriate language or conducting themselves unacceptably. In situations like this at least, which are by nature public, it seems counterproductive to prevent players from the sanction applied.

Mr.God wrote:And your last point. Before i respond to that i would like to ask you what your opinion is on our current proposal? We would like some feedback on that first so i can compare your idea and opinion to that of moderation and break it down one by one.

I don't really understand what the new system achieves. The idea of cultural protocols expiring is something that I disagree with and the extra burden on Moderation seems unnecessary. The Game Rules should be more specific about the "protected variables" when a cultural protocol exists, too. Many documents contain a history section but, in my view, this should not be enforced by Moderation as these backgrounds are (to be blunt about it) usually shit. With that said, I am glad to see that the maximum percentage change in a cultural protocol update has been removed because this was something which restricted players who wouldn't to improve the overall cultural background of the game in the past.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Aquinas » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:37 pm

Mr.God wrote:Hi Aquinas!

Thank you again for highlighting the many flaws of the moderation team publicly. In the future though it would be very much appreciated if you could do this privately first, since it is not very appropriate to do this in the open like this especially on a public consultation of the first release. Since you are pointing out these issues, i am sure you are happy that Moderation has pledged (several times) to address all of these issues in the 3 rule releases of which release One is the first. In release two. as i stated before. we will be including a reform to the Nation Renaming Guide and in both Two and Three we will be looking to include any other problems with the rules to fix.

Thanks and have a nice christmas!

Mr.God



What your passive-aggressive post indicates, besides further confirming your previously demonstrated poor attitude towards me personally and towards critical feedback generally, is that you have not understood, or do not wish to understand, what my post was actually about. Namely, that there has been a sustained pattern of Moderation failing to follow the existing rules procedures, and that unless Moderation really seriously means us to believe they will follow the new rules procedures more consistently than they have been the current ones, then there is limited value in any of us expending time and energy in giving feedback as to what we think the new rules procedures should be.

Respectfully, this is not and could not be an issue just because of me, or just because of James or anyone else. This is an issue because of Moderation's own performance record. Please appreciate this is a public issue, not a private issue, and that trying to bully people into not raising it as a concern will not change that.

With regards to rules reform, any serious approach to this needs to recognise the realities concerning Moderation's administrative capacity/capability, and this means it is important to try to offload responsibilities from Moderation, whilst also being cautious about doing anything too much to add to them. As examples, it is painfully obvious by now that on a long-term basis, Moderation has been seriously struggling to administer the Cultural Protocols Index and the Nation Renaming Guide, and this means that if the system of cultural protection in Particracy is going to continue, then that system needs to be fundamentally simplified so as to reduce the administration involved.

As you know full well, there have been a veritable multitude of incidents where procedures have been ignored, across a range of issues, not least with the fiasco you personally created over Cildania's Cultural Protocol. As for the Nation Renaming Guide, as you know full well, the concerns I have been expressing have not been about wanting the rules to be changed. My concerns have been about Moderation's abysmal failure to simply implement the current procedures, whereby the Nation Renaming Guide is meant to give protection to cultures in Culturally Protected nations by setting out what language(s) the nation titles should be in.

To give an example, Keymon's Cultural Protocol lists Corsican and English as the major languages, but the languages listed for Keymon in the Nation Renaming Guide are "English, Greek, Latin or Greek/Latin mix". Despite the fact there is no Greek or Latin influence mentioned in Keymon's new Cultural Protocol.

As another example, at present, the Nation Renaming Guide says Telamon's nation title can be in "Any" language, despite the fact it has an Icelandic Cultural Protocol. So presumably, someone could give Telamon a nation title in English, Arabic, German or Persian. The same applies for Barmenistan, which has a Kurdish culture but has an entry reading "Any" in the Nation Renaming Guide, and this same situation also applies for your own nation, Cildania (which is meant to be Maltese).

@Maxington Respectfully, I feel you are confused and out-of-touch with what has been going on. Trust me, I really, really wish this was simply a case of some new Mods needing a little more time to learn the ropes, but this goes deeper than that, unfortunately. There are deep-rooted and long-term issues involved.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:23 pm

For the record. This conversation has been derailing in something that was not the intention. This is a public consultation on proposed rule changes, not a thread to raise concerns about the capabilities of moderation. We already have a thread for that (moderation/GRC Queries). I would therefor like everyone to get back to the rule changes and give suggestions and opinions on that. Thanks!

To respond to you James, since i am currently with my family for christmas celebrations i will have to take a look at everything once im back. Therefor you can expect a full response by thursday. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4224
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Auditorii » Wed Dec 26, 2018 1:13 am

I'd like to echo James' objection to the Cultural Protocols being given a time-limit. Unfortunately that was tried and generally failed, the re-introduction of it seems arbitrary and incredibly backwards when it comes to the general consensus approving of the current CP rule, with some modification. I wholly oppose and would work against such a proposition, following the end of Christmas and the arrival of the New Year I should have some more time to put more effort and thought into reforming whats current been proposed and providing my opinions more comprehensively on the rules.
Image Dorvik | Image Zardugal | Image Ostland (FBC)
Moderator
-- Particracy Game Rules
-- Moderation Requests
-- Game Information
-- Particracy Discord
Auditorii
 
Posts: 6279
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:51 am

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby lewiselder1 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:02 pm

These rules look great to me. Good job!

Regarding players not being able to talk about sanctions, I think that’s just reasonable given that Moderators can’t talk about it without violating privacy. As I’ve said before, Mods aren’t accountable to the player base, there are the proper channels to go through and calm private discussions usually lead to a good conclusion, summoning up a fury isn’t helpful to anyone. This must go through.

Regarding the Aquinas furore, not really getting involved, but I’m not sure this is really relevant to the rules consulatation so I guess just go elsewhere with it is my thoughts
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: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:45 pm

lewiselder1 wrote:Regarding players not being able to talk about sanctions, I think that’s just reasonable given that Moderators can’t talk about it without violating privacy. As I’ve said before, Mods aren’t accountable to the player base, there are the proper channels to go through and calm private discussions usually lead to a good conclusion, summoning up a fury isn’t helpful to anyone.

Where is it stated that Moderators cannot discuss sanctions? One of the first things I did after becoming a Moderator was issue a public sanction and that was by no means a unique incident, it happens regularly. The idea that we should not be allowed to talk about sanctions or warnings, in my view, is nonsensical. If this rule is implemented, would it be a breach of the rules to simply state that you have received a warning or sanction? While I appreciate Moderation is keen to move away from these issues, this proposal doesn't look great in the context of the discussions on this thread.

Some further comments I have regarding the proposed changes. Having been a part of the GRC for a certain period of time now, I am increasingly of the view that it is a fundamentally ineffective body. Repeatedly both as a member and the Chair, I have petitioned Moderation to remove members who are inactive and they have generally refused to do so. If we are not willing to sack people who do not perform their role properly then there is no incentive for people to perform their role at all. Consequently, most recent GRC members have contributed little to nothing to role-play in the game beyond what they would have done anyway as players.

The proposed Section 6.r would be a helpful addition but only if Moderation is willing to allow it to happen. Even so I think that the GRC should probably be disbanded and replaced with an ad hoc committee system. A World Congress and Third World role can probably be retained, as well as perhaps the creation of a "Religious Organisations" role. Otherwise, Moderation should simply appoint an individual or group to compose the rankings shortly before they are due and allow the community a more responsive and extensive feedback period and then allow players to pursue certain specific projects by request.

5.d.iii is still not a necessary provision in my view. Despite previous assertions by Moderation, I am not aware of any situation in which this provision would be beneficial and all it seems to do is disadvantage long-term players who have been active over an extended period of time with the same account. Players like Kubrick (Vanuku) or Doc (Kalistan) could be de facto banned from accessing their accounts in countries which they have basically defined for real-life years.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Aquinas » Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:09 am

At this point, it would be helpful to remind ourselves that any serious approach to rules reform needs to take account not just what we would ideally want, but what the realities are. That means taking account of the realities concerning Moderation's administrative capacity and capability, and also taking account of the reality that no matter what new rules and procedures emerge following this consultation, they will count for little if Moderators adhere to them as inconsistently as they are adhering to the current rules and procedures. This means, in short, that if the current pattern of maladministration is to be addressed, then what desperately needs to happen now is for a significant burden of workload to be offloaded from Moderation.

It is disappointing that individuals with positions of responsibility and status in the community are attempting to derail this consultation by negatively shouting down discussion of these very basic, very important points. With all respect, please understand that it is not in the interests of the game, and very definitely not in the interests of the Moderation Team, for rules reforms to be formulated without bearing these issues very firmly in mind.

By the way, it is most certainly not my intention to be discourteous or hurtful towards anybody, but it is my intention to be honest, and I hope I will not be subjected to further negative personal comments for this, and also that the powers-that-be in this game will show the courage, integrity and foresight to actually be honest with themselves about the situation Particracy Classic is currently in.

Now to make some specific points...

(1) If a system of cultural protection is to continue in Particracy, then it needs to be reformed so as to reduce the administrative burden on Moderation. It has been more than sufficiently demonstrated already that Moderation is not able to accurately maintain the Cultural Protocols Index and the Nation Renaming Guide, which are meant to be amended as appropriate when Cultural Protocols are removed, created or updated.

Respectfully, it is simply not a serious proposition to suggest Moderation should not only continue doing this, but should also - in addition - now start administering another system whereby Cultural Protocols have to be "renewed" if they are to be prevented from "expiring" every 200 in-game years. Please note, by the way, that I am not even commenting here on whether or not I like this idea in principle. What I am simply doing is stating what I genuinely believe from long and close observation to be the practical reality, which is that Moderation simply lacks the administrative capacity/capability to administer a scheme along these proposed lines.

In my view, the only feasible option left is for Moderation to centrally maintain a list of Base Cultural Documents for each nation, specifying the demographics, character naming requirements and renaming requirements for all of the nations. This would be determined in consultation with players, and I would suggest holding consultations on updating the Base Cultural Documents perhaps 2-4 times a year.

This would take away the ability of players to propose updates to their Cultural Protocols whenever they want to, which is far from what I would personally ideally prefer. However, it would remove much of the administration that has to be done (or at least is meant to be done...) at present, and would be much smoother and simpler.

My main concern with any scheme like this is that it should not be hijacked by people with agendas to radically rewrite the cultural backgrounds of nations, regardless of the views of the players who actually play in those nations.

One option would be to allow the players in each nation to decide whether to opt-out of the Base Cultural Documents (ie. in effect, to become Culturally Open). However, perhaps a simpler and more elegant option would be to simply set a small number of nations to being Culturally Open, so there is a guarantee of there always being Culturally Open nations for players to play in.

(2) A consultation should be held on how Particracy's system of cultural protection should be enforced. To give an example of where I am coming from here, there have been incidents where Moderation has allowed players to RP religious parties in nations where that religion does not feature prominently (or in some cases, is not even mentioned in the CPs!) and to do so with little or no RP justification. If the general view of the community is that the religious section of Cultural Protocols should not be enforced, then we should consider whether this should be made clearer in the Game Rules document itself. In fact, it is debatable as to whether religious demographics are even worth being listed in Cultural Protocol documents if they are not going to receive any protection at all.

(3) The repeated fiascos regarding the management of the World Congress, including with bungled Security Council elections and bungled General Assembly President elections, has persuaded me that Security Council elections should be scrapped. The lack of interest in the Security Council elections going on at the moment has confirmed me in this view. One would have hoped that with the vote reset, there would be a renewal of interest, but this has not really materialised. I will confess I feel disappointed by how Moderation and the GRC has not publicised/promoted the current SC election as well as I feel they might have, but even putting this aside, I think the reality is that interest in Security Council elections has generally waned.

My proposal is that the World Congress and the Security Council should be retained, but that the Security Council should consist of perhaps between 3 and 7 members, appointed by the World Congress RP Co-Ordinator. The appointments, I would suggest, might take into account a range of factors, including global power, RP activity levels and general representativeness (eg. trying to pick members from a range of continents, trying to ensure a range of cultures are represented, perhaps including a representative from the Third World...).

Removing the necessity for Security Council elections would, of course, save Moderation a significant amount of time each month.

(4) I agree with James that there is a convincing case for abolishing the GRC in its current form, on the grounds of an ongoing lack of activity. However, some specific posts should remain, for example, volunteers to administer the Third World and the World Congress. Moderation could also appoint players on an ad hoc basis to do certain tasks, such as the rankings.

(5) The poor handling of the last rankings consultation diminished my confidence in the Global RP Accord (GRA) and the GRC, and frankly, my personal preference would be for the GRA to be abolished, and the rankings left as a voluntary guide.

I object to the proposed change which would require players wanting to opt-out of the GRA to provide a reason for opting-out that is "deemed reasonable by moderation". This is quite unnecessary and patronising. If such a clause is to be introduced, then in fairness, it ought to be applied to players wanting to opt-in to the GRA, not just those wanting to opt-out.

It should go without saying that if players are misled into making a decision about the GRA, then Moderation should retain the discretion to delay or turn down the request (whether it is to opt-in or opt-out). However, there is not really any need for a special rule about that. I will also add, BTW, that it is a myth to suggest players are only misled into opting out, and never into opting in. There have been occasions, for example, when it has been suggested to players that if they opt-in to the GRA, their nation will stand a better chance of being reviewed favourably in the rankings (which is not, or at least should not, be the case).

If Moderation is not persuaded by my argument for abolishing the GRA, then my second preference would be to make it compulsory across the game. This would, in my view, be preferable to the messy tangle of rules which Moderation is currently proposing to introduce.

(6) Moderation appears to be following along the path of making the inactivation and reactivation rules ever more complicated, and I am concerned this is going to continue into the future. This situation is becoming too messy. We are seeing cases of players not understanding it, and worse, we are seeing cases involving Moderators seriously messing up by inactivating players when the procedures do not actually authorise them to do so.

What we need here is simplicity, and in my view, the simplest solution is simply to abolish routine reactivations. If players get inactivated and want to start again in a nation, let them start all over again with a new account, and build up their Visibility from scratch. This will stop a lot of the problems players are complaining about re: parties that reactivate, win seats, don't do much and then get inactivated again.

For obvious reasons, this proposal would be initially unpopular and cause frustration, but I do believe it would be respected and understood over time. Introducing this change ought also to make it possible to simplify and shorten the section of the rules on inactivation requests. It will also, of course, significantly reduce the workload on Moderators.

To clarify, under this system, there are a very few circumstances in which I think Moderation would need to make an exception and reactivate an account. For example, when two players are inactivated due to inadvertently sharing an IP address without authorisation to do so. Even here, though, Moderation should only reactivate when reactivation is requested within a short amount of time of the actual inactivation.

(7) The news threads for the in-game nations and Third World nations should simply be renamed to the core names of the nations (eg. "Vanuku", "Baltusia", etc.) and should not be renamed any further. In my view, there is no particular need for national news threads to be renamed, particularly given many players are now in the habit of utilising their own personally designed newspaper headings in their posts anyway. This reform will, in a small way, reduce the burden on Moderation.

(8) I completely agree with James that the proposed blanket ban on the discussion of sanctions is unnecessary and would prove detrimental in practice. As a former Moderator myself, I would also warn the current Moderators that this is very definitely not in their own interests. You know you cannot stop discussions about these things; even if you clamp down on them within the formal boundaries of the game, they will go on elsewhere - particularly now that Discord has become such a phenomenon. When these discussions take place, the generally wiser option is to simply try to ensure that they are civil. And also, in some cases, to ensure that they do not just go on and on. There can sometimes come a time when the discussion has run its course and is going nowhere constructive, and so it will be time to lock the thread or whatever.

I will also add that one of the concerns about this proposal has to be that banning discussions about sanctions will lead, in effect, to banning discussions about what the rules are and how they are interpreted and applied. This is particularly so given that over the last 2 years, there has sadly been a distinctive move in the direction of trying to shout down, pressurise and silence people who are not going along with whatever the establishment view is at the time.

EDIT: Adding some more points...

(9) I am doubtful Moderation is able to keep up with any expectation that they will routinely inactivate all Treaties and Party Organisations which have become inactive. As an example this batch of inactive treaties has not been cleared out in well over a month. In an ideal world, Moderation would find time to keep on top of this stuff, but to be fair, this is far from being the priority at the moment. Therefore, I propose amending the rules to indicate that generally speaking, Moderation will only delete Treaties and Party Organisations when (a) they are inactive (ie. no active members for an organisation, no signatories for a treaty) and (b) the creator of the Treaty or Party Organisation has specifically requested deletion.

(10) The RP law system is in a mess, as we saw most tellingly with the Jelbania fiasco, and as has been confirmed in various incidents since - some of which have involved Moderation not even attempting to make a ruling. There have been cases of players abusing the system and getting away with it. Given the circumstances,it seems difficult to have any confidence in this situation being seriously addressed any time soon. So in all honesty, I think it would make life easier for everybody - players and Moderators included - if at least for the time being, Moderation suspends the enforcement of RP laws and we return to the old "game mechanics first" principle.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:06 pm

Mr.God wrote:To respond to you James, since i am currently with my family for christmas celebrations i will have to take a look at everything once im back. Therefor you can expect a full response by thursday. Sorry for the inconvenience!

Totally understand that this time of year it's difficult to gauge how much free time you will have and that the new game's launch has probably affected things too but do you have any update on when a full response will be provided?

With recent experience of players being allowed to disregard cultural protocols, would Moderation considering altering the rules so that this behaviour is no longer allowed? For real-life comparison, the Ahmadi-Dorvik situation would be like a Hindu party declaring Hinduism as the state religion in the UK.
Last edited by jamescfm on Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5476
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron