Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Threads from before the Dec 15, 2023 migration.

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Auditorii » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:10 am

As a player, I have provided some updates and recommendation to Moderation:

Section 1 - Player Conduct and Out-of-Game Interactions
1. All players, moderators and players alike, should be treated with respect at all times and likewise should reciprocate that respect;
2. Players should be aware of IC (In-Character) and OOC (Out of character) distinctions and are advised to use such such tags when interacting if there are issues of communication;
3. The discussion of sanctions, warnings or other actions taken by a Moderation towards a player are forbidden throughout Particracy. All requests or questions regarding such actions are to be made in private to Moderation or Wouter, if absolutely necessary;
4. "Doxxing" or other breaches of user privacy are strictly forbidden, users caught breaking this rule or knowingly circulating information regarding another player will be permanently banned;
5. Users caught impersonating moderators, implying they are moderation or other Particracy staff or team members will have action taken against their account;
6. Moderation generally uses the warn, final warn, inactivation and then banning as the hierarchy of sanctions on users; however they are not bound by chronological order of sanctions;
7. Moderation (and ultimately Wouter) reserves the right to determine sanctions, warnings or other actions necessary for rule or guideline violations.


Cultural Protocols
Cultural Protocols are a set cultural background for a respective nation within the game. There are two status' that a nation may have: Culturally Protected (meaning a Cultural Protocol was approved by Moderation and the players within the respective nation) and Culturally Open (meaning that the nation has no defined culture). Cultural Protocols are enforced by Moderation and players are obligated to respect them when playing in Culturally Protected nations. A nation may determine its culture via Cultural Protocols. These Cultural Protocols defined in detail the ethnic, religious and linguistic makeup of the respective nation.

1. Cultural Protocols can be implemented or updated by players passing a bill entitled "CP: Cultural Protocols of NATION - DATE" wth the support of 2/3 (two-thirds) majority of players with seats and then post a link to the passed Cultural Protocols Approval thread located HERE;
2. Cultural Protocols that are implemented or updated will be reviewed by Moderation and left open for 48 hours for any community member to raise objection to the proposed cultural protocols. Moderation will also review the proposed cultural protocol for accuracy and continuity;
3. Moderators will approve after 48 hours and any answers to reasonable questions provided, once approved players are required to leave a copy of the cultural protocols in the "Bill under debate" section of their nation, including a link to the original bill where the CP was passed;
4. Proposals for new cultural protocols (not updated cultural protocols) must have the support (voting "yes") of one party that has been continuously active (i.e: no inactivations) within the respective nation for 15 days;
5. Updated cultural protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification;
6. Cultural Protocols cannot directly contravene long-standing or historically significant role-play or cultural groups within a nation. Cultural Protocols are meant to enhance the cultural and role-play experience within a nation;
6. Moderation reserves the right and discretion to approve or deny any submissions for Cultural Protocol approvals;


Culturally Open Status
1. Players within any nation can request that an existing cultural protocol be overridden and the nation set to "Culturally Open" status. The thread for these requests is located HERE;
2. When players request for culturally open status they must provide a brief synopsis on what their plans are and provide the new proposed cultural protocols for the nation;
3. Requests for "Culturally Open" status must be passed by a 2/3 (two-thirds) majority of active players in the nation. Players requesting Culturally Open status must have been present in the nation for 30 days continuously active (no inactivations, etc.);
4. Culturally Open status requests must be reasonable and take in account any significant changes that would interrupt continuity of other nations connected or around the new potentially culturally open nation;
5. All culturally open requests are subject to Moderation approval. Moderation reserves the right to approve, deny or edit the proposed cultural protocols as necessary.


Cultural Protocol Violations
1. Players who violate cultural protocols are subject to a three-tier warning and punishment system to be carried out and enforced by Moderation;
2. Players can report cultural protocol violations HERE;
3. Players who violate cultural protocols for the first time within a respective nation are to be notified via in-game communication explaining the violation and linking the respective nations cultural protocols;
4. Players who violate cultural protocols for the second time within a respective nation are to be notified again via in-game communication explaining the violation, linking the respective nations cultural protocols and are issued a final warning that continued violations will result in account/party inactivation;
5. Players who violate cultural protocols for the third time within a respective nation are to be notified for a final time via in-game communication explaining the violation, linking the respective nations cultural protocols and will have their account/party inactivated;
6. Players who wish to reactivate may do so via the Reactivation Request thread; further violations of cultural protocols within the same nation may result in a permanent or temporary nation ban or continued action may result in a permanent ban from the game;
7. Players who repeatedly violate cultural protocols across numerous nations are subject to a final warning and inactivation, skipping the first warning at Moderation discretion;
8. Moderation will take every effort to warn and inactivate as soon as reasonably possible, Moderation will allow reasonable time for the player to respond and correct their violation.
Last edited by Auditorii on Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Auditorii » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:23 am

6.
a. Role Play is a large part of Particracy, however it is not compulsory and as a general rule the game mechanics always “come first.”

b. If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.

c. Users should always make a conscious effort to keep Roleplay realistic and reasonable.

d. Players should make an effort to keep to their word and not back out of RP which they originally consented to by RP post or otherwise.

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.


f. RP between multiple nations (ie. more than one) follow the same rules as internal RP.

Section 6 - Role-Play Rules and the Global Role-Play Accord
1. Role-play is a significant part of Particracy, it comes in many forms and ways but at its core, Particracy is a political simulator with certain mechanics. Generally, "game mechanics" come first though there are exceptions;

2. Large scale RP planning (such as wars, regional/continental conflicts, economic collapse, etc.) should be planned (as best as it can be) and should have consent of a majority of players involved. It is possible to RP smaller events without the consent of all players or others;

3. Players are reminded that Particracy is loosely based on the real world, RP must be kept with that in mind. RP must be realistic, grounded in real life and not in fantasy or "futuristic" technologies and other items;

4. Players are reminded that going back on established RP ("retcon", "retconning") is generally unaccepted and the Global Roleplay Committee and Moderation will be involved in the event of significant retcons/retconning, especially when there are OOC issues surrounding RP. The GRC and Moderation reserve the right to approve or deny retcons/retconning as they see reasonable and realistic;

5. Role-play Laws "RP Laws" are permitted to be created as secondary laws to in-game law variables. RP Laws that require a party to vote or act in a specific way (exemptions are bills that set procedures for speaking within the legislature such as "Mr./Mrs. Speaker", etc) are prohibited and will not be enforced by Moderation or the Global Roleplay Committee;
-- 5a. RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats;
-- 5b. RP laws passed must be listed within the "Bills Under Debate" section under a bill entitled: "RP Laws of COUNTRYNAME" and must include a brief synopsis of the RP law and a link to its original passage;
-- 5c. RP laws are generally prohibited from banning specific political parties and ideological groups; however with appropriate background RP and justification, a country may ban specific political parties and ideological groups. Nations that do this must follow the procedure for normally passing a constitutional law and then will have to have the RP law approved by posting it HERE alongside appropriate posts, justification and facts to support the banning. RP laws that create a one-party state follow similar rules to the ones stated above;
-- 5d. RP laws that grant extraordinary powers, ban specific parties or ideologies, create one-party states, grant or allow powers that might not be granted by normal game mechanics or otherwise authorize dictatorial or executive authority must be posted HERE for review by Moderation and the Global Roleplay Committee. Please note that RP law approvals may take sometime and Moderation and the GRC will respond as promptly as possible;
-- 5e. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. Moderation and the GRC reserve the right to declare RP laws invalid with reasonable and justifiable cause.
Last edited by Auditorii on Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 jamescfm » Tue Jan 15, 2019 7:21 pm

Any idea when we might get a response here?
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:03 am

jamescfm wrote:Any idea when we might get a response here?


Will do soon. even when the consultation ends ill make sure to respond to that still. schedule is tight this week
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 » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:16 am

jamescfm wrote: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.


While i understand your points and agree with some of them i think the GRC is everything but innefective. In fact we are now actively propping up the GRC in both members and activity and i am working closely together with its members to look for ways in making it a body that can really contribute to RP in a meaningfull way. I must also state that the fact Fin hasnt posted a RP post in over a year doesnt mean he cannot commit to his job. He knows the ins and outs of the GRC and has experience as a moderator, both essential for the job he is now trying to fullfill.

I can make the pledge that the GRC will become a active, valued and effective body as it was intended to be. Some time is needed to achieve this but we will certainly get there!
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 » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:22 am

To comment on Farsun his suggestions i will be talking with him privately in looking for the best proposals in his suggestions and may implement them when necessary.

The public consultations have officially ENDED and moderation will take all suggestions into account before making a decision on what to implement and what not. I thank you all for your contributions and look forward to working with all of you further!
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 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:30 pm

I appreciate that the consultation is supposed to have ended but I hope Moderation will understand that the conduct in the latter stages of it were not really up to scratch. The comments I made a week ago received no proper response from a Moderator until after the consultation period had concluded and that raises the question: why bother asking for feedback in the first place if you're not going to address it? Additionally, surely Moderators will recognise that holding a public consultation in which you don't respond to feedback and then saying at the end you're going to work privately with a single player (even if that single player is somebody with knowledge and experience) is a bit of a slap in the face to those who contributed?

I will repeat my suggestion that Moderation opens up separate consultations on issues of significance (in my opinion, the most important is Cultural Protocols) and that they utilise these consultations as actual opportunities to receive feedback from players and improve their proposals rather than simply as a token gesture.

Mr.God wrote:While i understand your points and agree with some of them i think the GRC is everything but innefective. In fact we are now actively propping up the GRC in both members and activity and i am working closely together with its members to look for ways in making it a body that can really contribute to RP in a meaningfull way. I must also state that the fact Fin hasnt posted a RP post in over a year doesnt mean he cannot commit to his job. He knows the ins and outs of the GRC and has experience as a moderator, both essential for the job he is now trying to fullfill.

I can make the pledge that the GRC will become a active, valued and effective body as it was intended to be. Some time is needed to achieve this but we will certainly get there!

Some of these claims need substantiating I think. It isn't enough to assert that the GRC isn't ineffective when that's the feedback that you are receiving from almost all who have been involved with it. Honestly, I don't understand what the commitment to this particular body is. Wouldn't it be better for Moderation to utilise the comments they have received to develop a better system of administration than to simply persist with structures that have repeatedly been shown as ineffective? A small point of clarification as well: the rules state that any individual appointed to the GRC "should have an active account in game and on the forums", was this the case when Fin was appointed?
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Rogue » Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:03 pm

jamescfm wrote:I appreciate that the consultation is supposed to have ended but I hope Moderation will understand that the conduct in the latter stages of it were not really up to scratch. The comments I made a week ago received no proper response from a Moderator until after the consultation period had concluded and that raises the question: why bother asking for feedback in the first place if you're not going to address it? Additionally, surely Moderators will recognise that holding a public consultation in which you don't respond to feedback and then saying at the end you're going to work privately with a single player (even if that single player is somebody with knowledge and experience) is a bit of a slap in the face to those who contributed?

I will repeat my suggestion that Moderation opens up separate consultations on issues of significance (in my opinion, the most important is Cultural Protocols) and that they utilise these consultations as actual opportunities to receive feedback from players and improve their proposals rather than simply as a token gesture.

Mr.God wrote:While i understand your points and agree with some of them i think the GRC is everything but innefective. In fact we are now actively propping up the GRC in both members and activity and i am working closely together with its members to look for ways in making it a body that can really contribute to RP in a meaningfull way. I must also state that the fact Fin hasnt posted a RP post in over a year doesnt mean he cannot commit to his job. He knows the ins and outs of the GRC and has experience as a moderator, both essential for the job he is now trying to fullfill.

I can make the pledge that the GRC will become a active, valued and effective body as it was intended to be. Some time is needed to achieve this but we will certainly get there!

Some of these claims need substantiating I think. It isn't enough to assert that the GRC isn't ineffective when that's the feedback that you are receiving from almost all who have been involved with it. Honestly, I don't understand what the commitment to this particular body is. Wouldn't it be better for Moderation to utilise the comments they have received to develop a better system of administration than to simply persist with structures that have repeatedly been shown as ineffective? A small point of clarification as well: the rules state that any individual appointed to the GRC "should have an active account in game and on the forums", was this the case when Fin was appointed?


In my post of ending the consultation i clearly stated that we would take all suggestions into consideration when deciding on what to implement/amend or remove from the release. We are not only discussing things with Farsun. We are however discussing Farsun his proposals with him in detail which is fair in my opinion. The reason that we extended the consultation in the first place was because we felt like it was only fair for people that while we werent fully active on the thread in the last weeks people could still voice their critique and opinions to be taken and examined by us when making a decision on what to implement and what not

We will not split several issues in several consultations. I understand your point of view however we have had a very lengthy consultation already and to split them up and discuss them seperately is, in our mind, not effective and so will not be done.

To move onto the GRC we clearly have a very different opinion on the matter. Yes, the GRC in the past months has clearly been very inactive and innefective. This doesnt take away the fact that i am 100% certain that those problems can and will be fixed with some minor changes.
The reason for the appointment of Fin is pretty clear. The GRC was paralyzed, and in the effort to revitalize the organization we appointed Fin as he is experienced and in our opinion has what it takes to get the GRC back on track together with Farsun and the other remaining GRC members.

To remove the GRC and create a completely new system or organization will:
1. bring even more bureaucracy to Particracy which we DONT need and 2. doesnt give us a guarentee that system actually works.

Personally i think it is about appointing the right people to the right positions and, as moderation, put in the energy and effort into assisting the GRC in succeeding rather then the entire system being flawed.
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 » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:21 pm

Mr.God wrote:In my post of ending the consultation i clearly stated that we would take all suggestions into consideration when deciding on what to implement/amend or remove from the release. We are not only discussing things with Farsun. We are however discussing Farsun his proposals with him in detail which is fair in my opinion. The reason that we extended the consultation in the first place was because we felt like it was only fair for people that while we werent fully active on the thread in the last weeks people could still voice their critique and opinions to be taken and examined by us when making a decision on what to implement and what not

First let me reiterate that I don't have any issue with whatever Farsun might propose. Based on his outline here and having worked with him on numerous occasions, I trust that his proposals and insight will be useful and productive. My objection is based on the process that seems to have been followed: 1) Moderation deliberated between them and developed these proposed changes 2) Moderation presented these changes for public consultation 3) Moderation ended the consultation and stated that they would be working privately with a single player to finalise rule changes. The process doesn't seem logical, fair or beneficial to achieving outcomes that actually push the game forward.

Mr.God wrote:We will not split several issues in several consultations. I understand your point of view however we have had a very lengthy consultation already and to split them up and discuss them seperately is, in our mind, not effective and so will not be done.

The problem with such a broad consultation is that nothing can properly be discussed, there's no opportunity for anybody to focus and articulate ideas because there are multiple issues being discussed all at the same time. It is not clear to me what the position of these proposals are: whether they are still being considered, whether they have been implemented or whether entirely new changes are now being thought up. With that said, I think it's rather silly to characterise the current process as having been "effective".

Mr.God wrote:To move onto the GRC we clearly have a very different opinion on the matter. Yes, the GRC in the past months has clearly been very inactive and innefective. This doesnt take away the fact that i am 100% certain that those problems can and will be fixed with some minor changes.
The reason for the appointment of Fin is pretty clear. The GRC was paralyzed, and in the effort to revitalize the organization we appointed Fin as he is experienced and in our opinion has what it takes to get the GRC back on track together with Farsun and the other remaining GRC members.

To remove the GRC and create a completely new system or organization will:
1. bring even more bureaucracy to Particracy which we DONT need and 2. doesnt give us a guarentee that system actually works.

I have multiple, fundamental differences of opinion with this section so apologies if this section is lengthy. The first thing to note is that this "ineffectiveness" is not limited to the GRC over the past few months, it has been a feature of every body of its kind over the history of the game. The RP Team in its various incarnations was never an effective organisation and to suggest that some minor tweaks can fix this problem demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the problem is. My understanding is that for any role in this community to function properly it has to have two features: a) clear and well-understood roles and duties and b) an outside force which will hold the individual to account. In the case of most RP Team and GRC members across the history of the game, this has simply not been the case. The facts of the matter are that nobody knows what the GRC are supposed to do and nobody holds them to account if they don't do it.

If I might develop this point, the two roles I think are beneficial to have are the Third World and World Congress positions. In both cases, there is a fundamental function being performed by the office holders and it is easy to hold them to account if they are unfulfilled (i.e. if I request control of a TW Nation and receive no response after three weeks then perhaps we should be asking questions of Reddy). The same is true of Moderation in this respect, if nobody is having their requests fulfilled in the request threads then people begin to wonder about Moderation's ability to do their jobs.

Linking back to my original point, it doesn't matter then that Fin is someone with experience (I agree with you that he is) because it is the body itself, rather than its membership that is the fundamental problem. My point about whether he had "an active account in game and on the forums" wasn't a case of suggesting he isn't deserving of the role. I would like to repeat my request in this regard, though, did Fin have an active in-game account when he was appointed or did Moderation ignore the Game Rules in appointing him?

In response to your suggestion that "a new system would bring bureaucracy" it should be noted that I have repeatedly advocated for the abolition of the entire project. If removal of bureaucracy is the priority then just scrap the Committee altogether. I would argue though that recent "anti-bureaucracy" warriors have left us with a Game Rules document that is far inferior in terms of its completeness to the so-called bureaucratic nightmare document that we had in the past, which was in fact extremely comprehensive and effective.

Mr.God wrote:Personally i think it is about appointing the right people to the right positions and, as moderation, put in the energy and effort into assisting the GRC in succeeding rather then the entire system being flawed.

If it is the personnel and not the system then are you suggesting that the members of the GRC over the past few months were the problem? If this is the case then why did Moderation refuse to remove inactive members like CCP despite repeated requests from me and other players? Even after CCP was removed and when I had been appointed GRC Chair, I urged Moderation to remove inactive members but again this didn't happen and I had a team which was (aside from a couple of members) totally uninterested in doing anything in the game. Even if we accept this idea that it's the GRC membership that is the problem, every current GRC member has previously been a part of the body. What makes you think that they are suddenly going to be able spark life into it when the evidence shows that simply isn't going to happen? I suppose it comes back to the point I made earlier, why is Moderation so averse to admitting to the failure of the GRC?
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Rules Release One Draft Public Consultation

Postby Auditorii » Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:50 pm

To James' point about the GRC. James and I have shared similar thoughts on the GRC system and despite some different ideas on how to fix it, I think him and I generally agree that the system itself was kinda vague and that left a bad taste. I blame Moderation (and prior Moderation teams) and the GRC for their collective failure in cultivating something successful. As we've discussed behind closed doors, the role of the GRC has kind of been ambiguous and I hope this post will clear some of that up.

Classic has largely become an RP game with a political simulator to back it up as development has effectively stopped and we're kind of left to our own devices. I think that we should press forward with this mentality and continue to develop it to basically...see where it goes. My vision for the GRC that I believe my fellow GRC members (Fin and Reddy) share is that the GRC is collection of veteran players (in a variety of different ways) that assist in building and fostering RP. Essentially our role would be to examine, review and judge RP when the questions regarding it come up. Alongside that role, we've got the ability to update and build some of the background to the PT world such as building the Third World, assisting in the operations of the World Congress and trying to get people involved in RP between new and old players.

Going forward I think the GRC will focus more on assisting Moderation on the RP aspect of the game, working to continually update rankings, the Third World and generally foster cooperation and development of RP as a whole. How will we do that? I don't foresee massive RP's being conducted by the GRC outside of perhaps a few here and there, as that failed the last time the GRC had tried that. I foresee that GRC managing the RP laws, judging RP laws that are presented and RP laws that are brought up, welcoming new players to the game and working with them to have fun and engage with each other and the forums as a whole. The Third World, as I think James had really showed during his tenure, will be the place for a lot of RP to take place and as things come up in the "Player world" we'll continue to work with them and build with them.

I think a smaller, more dedicated team can really build something thats useful, at least in my eyes. We have 2 open RP Coordinator spots that eventually I'd like to divy up the world and assign areas of responsibility, similar to the old CRC system. That's something that we are working to discuss and build on. I hope that this answers some of your GRC-related questions and I indeed share your critique of the system and I hope that with some direction and player feedback, we'll be able to make something good.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests