Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Sat Dec 29, 2018 8:38 am

jamescfm wrote: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.


Hi James.
Ofcourse, sorry for the late response.

The intention of the new system is to deal with the problem of culturally open nations and nation raiding. As you can see in 6.iv we are trying to implement a system where players that have been in the nation for some time need to approve new cultural protocols. We want to avoid situations where total random players can enter a empty nation and make it culturally open with just a few steps. With this new system you will not be able to make your nation culturally open unless the CP expires which is hard on itself since anyone that has played in the nation for 30 days in total can request its renewal even if they do not play in that nation at that time.

The system for changing cultural protocols will remain the same with one more provision, that being the 30 day requirement listed in 6.iv as stated before.

This system should (in theory) be less intensive then the current system. I do understand what you are saying though with the possible workload etc. we are still of the opinion that the system we outlined is the best solution. But we are open to more suggestions!
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:15 am

Aquinas wrote:(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.


Btw Aquinas, ill be responding to your full message soon. Have to examine and read it properly before i can make a full response
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:46 am

Mr.God wrote:The intention of the new system is to deal with the problem of culturally open nations and nation raiding. As you can see in 6.iv we are trying to implement a system where players that have been in the nation for some time need to approve new cultural protocols. We want to avoid situations where total random players can enter a empty nation and make it culturally open with just a few steps.

The problem you're describing here is real and a recent example can be seen in the case of Endralon but it can be prevented without further complicating a Cultural Protocol system which is already confusing and difficult to enforce. All Moderation has to do is insert a line into the rules which says "Moderation must approve all requests for Culturally Open status". The primary reason that I feel your proposal is not as effective is because it would negatively impact players who have a legitimate or genuine desire to remove a Cultural Protocol, either to implement a superior one or to remove it entirely.

Moderation has at various times in this consultation tried to dismiss the relevance of the ongoing problems with administering Cultural Protocols to the changes being proposed here, I would suggest that many of those issues (e.g. the Nation Renaming Guide and the Cultural Protocol Index) would cease to be a problem if Moderation removed the player-controlled aspect of Cultural Protocols. The "Base Cultural Documents" system, even if not accompanied by any changes to cultural background, would directly improve the way in which culture is managed in the game.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Aquinas » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:28 am

Picking up on another issue, I would prefer for the proposed 6h not to be implemented:

As a collective the GRC shares responsibility for world RP as a whole. Because of their nature as a committee, information shared with one member of the GRC, such as private messages to a GRC Member on a contentious issue, are considered to be shared with the GRC as a whole by default: as such members of the GRC are entitled to certain necessary and relevant confidential information, and sharing such information outside of the GRC will result in a permanent ban from Particracy.


My concern is this would create an expectation that GRC members would be permanently banned over incidents which perhaps involved indiscretions, but which could not fairly be considered to involve offences so bad as to merit a permanent ban from the game.

Discretion on the part of game officials, where appropriate, is of course important, and I am not attempting to diminish that one bit. However, if indiscretions occur, they should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not on the basis of "Hey, you were indiscreet, sorry that means you're automatically banned from Particracy forever, goodbye and don't come back".

I do worry a little about what the mindset is behind a rule proposal like this, particularly when examined in conjunction with the other proposed rule about banning the discussion of sanctions.

If Moderation does insist in implementing this proposal, then to make it fairer, I would suggest it should be applied not just to GRC members, but to Moderators as well. It is not fair to demand discretion from GRC members on pain of permanent exclusion from the game, but not to hold Moderators to the same standard. (And Moderators are sometimes indiscreet, BTW, as I have discovered at various points over the last 2 years).

On further thought, if this rule is to be introduced, it ought probably to be extended to the Particracy Discord admins as well, since they can also, at times, come into contact with sensitive information.

But as I say, my strong personal preference and advice is to ditch this proposal altogether.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby thefalloutfan101 » Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:02 am

After skimming through this thread and reading the draft, I agree with pretty much everything except slapping a time limit on a cultural protocol. I consider myself an occasional nation hopper and that sometimes means leaving a nation where others will probably remain there longer than I did, but aren't as well versed in the rules, or possibly haven't read them in their entirety. If the time limit is implemented, then these players could have their nation be declared culturally open without even having known of the procedures. I strongly feel that the moderation team should naturally take the comments against such into consideration and delete the time limit from the redraft.

Tl;dr- I agree with most people on this thread that implementing a time limit onto cultural protocols is ridiculous, and really, unnecessary.
Active in: New Verham (Primary Controller)

Current Member of the Roleplay Committee

"One may become a demagogue out of sheer political innocence." - Vladimir Lenin
User avatar
thefalloutfan101
 
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:56 pm
Location: Baatrynsentii, New Verham (IC) Florida, United States (OOC)

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:58 am

thefalloutfan101 wrote:After skimming through this thread and reading the draft, I agree with pretty much everything except slapping a time limit on a cultural protocol. I consider myself an occasional nation hopper and that sometimes means leaving a nation where others will probably remain there longer than I did, but aren't as well versed in the rules, or possibly haven't read them in their entirety. If the time limit is implemented, then these players could have their nation be declared culturally open without even having known of the procedures. I strongly feel that the moderation team should naturally take the comments against such into consideration and delete the time limit from the redraft.

Tl;dr- I agree with most people on this thread that implementing a time limit onto cultural protocols is ridiculous, and really, unnecessary.


As a reponse to both you, James and Aquinas i think you are all making valid points regarding the plan for the cultural protocols. As said before moderation has been trying to look for a way to fix the nationraiding and culturally open nation problems for some time now and thought about the plan proposed in the draft.
After seeing the points made on this thread i think James hands us a good solution by itself. Adding a section in the rules that says "Moderation must approve all requests for Culturally Open status" would be a good solution indeed and i would like the opinions of all of you on that proposal.

This would remove the current proposal for culturally open nations and replace it with "Moderation must approve all requests for Culturally Open status"

Let me know what you think
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Doc » Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:42 am

As I read through this thread, I think of an analogy.

Today, while data entering at my data entry job, the program started acting all kinds of stupid. Numbers were randomly missing, error codes were popping up. I have no idea what I did to CAUSE that outbreak of stupidity in the program. I did nothing unusual.

My suspicion is that there is a latent problem in the software, and when one set of instructions is called for by the program over and over, it starts conflicting with another set of instructions from an earlier version, that the developers of the new version forgot that they included in the earlier version, because the earlier version came out years ago.

They write new shit to fix old shit, but don't clean up the old shit, because while they are fixing shit, they are also trying to improve functionality, AND trying to make the program comply with the regulations of the industry it is for. Consequently, by build 73.xx.xx, the developers have added so many layers on layers on layers of functional, but just barely code on top of one another, that occasionally, a rusty nail from an earlier build sticks through and the program gets lockjaw, seemingly at random.

That is this whole thing about cultural protocols. How many of the people who are debating it now were around when they were initially designed? I know I wasn't, and I didn't understand them when I was told I had to have them. Meanwhile, people keep tinkering with it here, amending it there, and over time, the initial purpose is lost. The document gets corrupted, as they say in the word processing world, becasue so much meta data which nobody sees is layered on top of other meta data and eventually the thing stops working.

I don't know how to recode and clean up the software I am current;y forced to use. It sucks. But in word processing, what I would do is I would copy and paste the content from an old, corrupt document, and paste it into a new, clean document with no meta data on which is properly formatted. Then I would proceed to format the document correctly, cleanly, and aiming to make a functioning document that will serve me long into the future.

It seems to me that this is what should be done, metaphorically with the cultural protocols. And probably the whole rule set. And don't do it by committee. Democracy doesn't always produce the best outcomes.

My two cents.

And a penny's worth more of indulgence, I beg, Political Protocols are, in my opinion, far better tools to prevent nation raiding than cultural protocols.

Anyhow.
Primary: Institutionalist Party of Kalistan (IPoK), 5146-

Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-
Hizb Al'Sultan حزب السلطان 4543-4551
Parti des Frères Lourenne, 4109-4132
Gaduri Brethrenist Movement (MHdG), 4481-4485
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1962
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Kaliburg, Kalistan

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:17 am

Thank you for your contribution Doc. It is certainly an interesting concept. But we will have to take a closer look at it in the future.

I would also like to announce that we will extend the length of the public consultation by 6 days meaning that they will end on the 17th of january

The reason for the extention is that we would like some more opinions on the rule changes and we are planning some big changes to it ourselves that we want opinions on. More on that later
Playing in:

Istapali
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4218
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:51 pm

Activity and engagement in this consultation seems to have dropped since it was first opened, though I welcome the decision of Moderation to extend the consultation. I think I might have requested this earlier in the thread but I would like to ask about it once again, would Moderation be willing to separate some of these proposals out to make queries and discussion easier? Personally, I find it hard to properly consider and discuss so many different but complicated topics at the same time. My recommendation would be separate threads each for 1) Cultural Protocols reforms 2) Global Role-Play Committee reforms 3) in/reactivations and 4) other changes.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby jamescfm » Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:27 pm

A few notes that I have about the role and structure of the Global Role-Play Committee. My first is that I don't think Pragma and Aethan going to do anything in their roles, not because I think they are bad role-players but because their role is vague and there is zero incentive to actually fulfil duties of any form. The one role that CRCs had under the continental system was to deal with queries/issues from players in their region, even that seems to have disappeared with this change. We should recognise that outside of some very specific roles (World Congress and Third World) most members of the GRC in the past few months have contributed literally nothing to the forward direction of the game. The body is frankly just a game of musical chairs involving long term members of the game, serving only to confuse.

As a perfect example, this post from Fin lists five members of the GRC. The GRC Register lists four members (including me, despite the fact I resigned over a week ago). The forum usergroup has six members (including Mr.God who left the body months ago). Fin also does not have a "burgundy" name despite the rules saying that is the method for identifying GRC members. Not to mention of course that (much as I love him), I can't find a role-play post from Fin since January 2018. I think it's about time Moderation admitted that this is a body which is not operating effectively and scratched the whole thing. Perhaps we should also consider whether the disappearance of numerous active, long-term players from the community has anything to do with the way the game is being administered? Something tells me there might be a causal link somewhere in there.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
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