Political Protocols Society

Political Protocols Society

Postby CCP » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:07 pm

Welcome to the Political Protocols Society.

PolPro Society is a group of deep Role Players. We work together to protect and build on other players' RPs instead of ignoring and retconning it.

Longterm, we believe Political Protocols should be implemented in the game to prevent nation raiders from easily knocking down long-developed roleplay (of which is over a few months or a year) in merely a few hours and we appeal to moderation and the GRC to look over the linked draft and consider its implementation. (A more detailed outline of the PolPros concept can be found here).

In the meantime, we as members of PolPro Society abide by the spirit and meaning of Political Protocols in the countries we play in. We do this by deciding what should be Politically Protected in each country and we abide by that when playing in each country.

If you'd like to join, click here.

=======================================================================================================================

CURRENT COUNTRIES, MAIN PLAYERS, AND PROPOSED PPs

Cildania::Mr.God_2::n/a
Hawu Mumenhes::CCP::LINK
Hutori::RIS::n/a
Indrala::WuHán::n/a
Jelbania::Reddy::n/a
Kalistan::Doc::n/a
Kazulia::Maxington::n/a
Lourenne::Luis::n/a
Luthori::SkinnerBenn::n/a
Malivia::Corvo_Attano::n/a
Trigunia::Chloe::n/a
Valruzia::Chloe:n/a
Last edited by CCP on Sat Jun 23, 2018 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
CCP
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby Occam » Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:13 am

I agree with the general idea. However, concerning the implementation I have a lot of reservations. Could you explain why you see less problems with this than with the GRA? You seemed to be very decidedly against that (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=563771).

Regards,
Occam
"Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it." Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

Progressive Party Pontesi (4405-4414)
Progressive Party Telamon (4414-present)
Occam
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby Martinulus » Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:42 am

I'm not quite sure we should be in the business of locking down precise governmental forms (especially those expressed in long names) by protocol. That seems like a recipe for players to freeze their preferred governmental settlement for infinity. It reminds me, in fact, of the infamous "Luthori is a Monarchy and any party that even wants to change it can have its leaders executed for treason" bills. There were quite a few countries who had that, and they all exhibited "why don't you go to another country if you don't want to play the way we want" tendencies.

In practice, a single determined player willing to explain the reasonable nature of deep RP (like the 1st United Imperial Crownlands) to other players and ask them to play ball can do a lot of good. I was able to preserve the heritage of H&GS for about 300 years, after which it was about right that it came to an end. The point is that crises during which, for example, Communists were successful, led to natural reactions on behalf of the defenders of Septembrism which evolved the backstory of the country and led, in this instance, to the ban on anti-democratic parties enforced by RP law.

I guess what I'm saying is: no amount of protocolling can be a substitute for good-naturedly asking players to observe some good manners and best practices in roleplaying, including that guideline that says "always say yes and...", meaning you should respect the premises of those you RP with and those who RPed before you. Any attempt to lock it down, in my well-informed opinion, will almost certainly lead to animosity.
Image
Hosianisch-Demokratisches Verbund - Hulstria and Gao-Soto

Notable previous parties:
Folkepartiet (People's Party) - Kazulia
User avatar
Martinulus
 
Posts: 941
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 11:53 am

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby Doc » Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:47 pm

OOC: Oh, Hell Yeah, Dawg. I'm in. I totally agree with political protocols, and actually lobbied for these years ago, but the community was like "No, Kalistan's political culture is not what we are thinking of when we talk about 'cultural protocols...'

I'm TOTALLY for political protocols.
Primary: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), Old School Since 2591

Inactive: Parti des Frères Lourenne, Since 4109
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Primary: Kalistan/ Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK); Inactive in Lourenne and Telamon

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby Doc » Fri Jun 22, 2018 6:12 pm

Martinulus wrote:...

In practice, a single determined player willing to explain the reasonable nature of deep RP (like the 1st United Imperial Crownlands) to other players and ask them to play ball can do a lot of good. I was able to preserve the heritage of H&GS for about 300 years, after which it was about right that it came to an end. The point is that crises during which, for example, Communists were successful, led to natural reactions on behalf of the defenders of Septembrism which evolved the backstory of the country and led, in this instance, to the ban on anti-democratic parties enforced by RP law.

I guess what I'm saying is: no amount of protocolling can be a substitute for good-naturedly asking players to observe some good manners and best practices in roleplaying, including that guideline that says "always say yes and...", meaning you should respect the premises of those you RP with and those who RPed before you. Any attempt to lock it down, in my well-informed opinion, will almost certainly lead to animosity.


To this comment:

My experience in Kalistan is very illustrative. I have been playing in Kalistan off and on since 2591. Since then, many of the institutions of the country have been created and enforced. In fact, while I may not "own" Kalistan, so to speak, I have written a lion's share of its history. Whenever I leave, or many times while I am still there, the country, (which is generally left-wing in orientation and rewards leftist policies at the polls, ESPECIALLY, it seems when they are being enacted by Parties that are RPing a Right Wing Party, but voting leftwing,) is visited by fascists and libertarians, who arrive, immediately declare that Kalistan is irrevocably corrupted and broken, that our economy is falling off a cliff, and that it is the fault of socialists. They decide to undo everything, and proceed to do so, then eventually leave, and it is up to the SP to REDO everything all over again, until the next time Kalistan's nationalization draws the attention of players who decide we need YET another wave of fascism and libertarianism. Like, they just decide this. When I point out that Kalistan's institutions should be used, I am informed that it is "time to change" that Kalistan's economy and society is on the skids. And they proceed to gain tiny majorities and then vote institutions that are hundreds of years old out of existence.

They play as if Kalistan has no history, when it seems to me that a party who just forms and is raised in a society with a school system whose curriculum is controlled by the (until then) Socialist-Dominated Government, and who all went through the National Service Program, and who have been exposed to basically free recreational drugs from an early age and so on and so forth, would not all of a sudden find ANYONE in the society to vote for fascism, let alone to form a majority legislative coalition around opposing all those things as fiercely as they do. Especially without any RP whatsoever to build any sort of reactionary movement in society first.

The flip side of the argument presented by Martinulus is that if new players ACTUALLY had to RP their rise, it wouldn't feel like they are just taking advantage of a game mechanic, which we will all agree is not perfect, and is not completed, to completely retcon a country and ignore the RP that took literally years in real time to build. And it leads people like myself to periodically raise problems with 'sandcastling.'

So I ask those who would be opposed to political protocols to offer an alternative that satisfies both long term players who have participated in world building for years, which is a bit more enforceable than simple "polite asking" of new players to go along with established Role Play. Because I can see that, especially in a country like Kalistan, politely asking a Party bent on playing a fascist, police state Right-wing Party in a country with thousands of years of left-libertarian history will not produce the desired outcome of protecting the country's political institutions, which have been ubiquitous in the "lives" of the "people" of Kalistan and are as fundamental as the language and national identity, and therefore, preclude the rise of fascist ideology, organically at least, all together.

How should we deal with this in a way which doesn't automatically dis-incentivize hard work and RP?
Primary: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), Old School Since 2591

Inactive: Parti des Frères Lourenne, Since 4109
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Primary: Kalistan/ Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK); Inactive in Lourenne and Telamon

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby RIS » Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:50 pm

Martinulus wrote:I'm not quite sure we should be in the business of locking down precise governmental forms (especially those expressed in long names) by protocol. That seems like a recipe for players to freeze their preferred governmental settlement for infinity. It reminds me, in fact, of the infamous "Luthori is a Monarchy and any party that even wants to change it can have its leaders executed for treason" bills. There were quite a few countries who had that, and they all exhibited "why don't you go to another country if you don't want to play the way we want" tendencies.


I don't think that is what this is like at all, governmental forms fall under parameters which can be changed. It only be the base name that would be locked. For instance "Hutori" as nation name would be a political fact whereas "Commonwealth" would fall under a Political Parameter and could be changed through RP and in game legislation. In my view these Political Protocols would only serve to promote RP and respect for a cultural/national identity.

Doc wrote:They play as if Kalistan has no history, when it seems to me that a party who just forms and is raised in a society with a school system whose curriculum is controlled by the (until then) Socialist-Dominated Government, and who all went through the National Service Program, and who have been exposed to basically free recreational drugs from an early age and so on and so forth, would not all of a sudden find ANYONE in the society to vote for fascism, let alone to form a majority legislative coalition around opposing all those things as fiercely as they do. Especially without any RP whatsoever to build any sort of reactionary movement in society first.


I understand being frustrated by new players coming in and completely revamping a nation with no regard to its history or culture. Especially when I as a longer term player (I've been in Hutori since 3705) try to explain the history and or culture and they still disregard it. However, I do feel like this paints an inaccurate picture, people often are reactionary whether it to a left-wing state or to a right-wing state and a lot of times these reactions cause great political upheaval in a relatively small amount of time. Though I do agree that if there was an RP build up to such a transition or revolution would at least to me be a bit more acceptable.
Global RP Team Economist

Active Parties:
Hutori- Federalist Party

Inactive Parties:
Klavia- Palatinus Evimería Factio
User avatar
RIS
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:04 pm
Location: Bekenial, Hutori

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby Doc » Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:17 pm

RIS wrote:Though I do agree that if there was an RP build up to such a transition or revolution would at least to me be a bit more acceptable.


I think requiring, and somehow the ability to enforce an RP buildup to radical changes would certainly be a good way to start.

I think of my old associate James, who left a couple months before I came back. When he wanted to return to Kalistan after being in Kizenia, he RP'd on an inactive account for a little while before activating, so he could RP the building of a party and the building of the requisite support in the country necessary to run successfully for national office. That was the way to do it. And it focused on RP, rather than just an exploitation of the game mechanic the way most of these new and ephemeral parties do.

I understand the desire for the game to include new people, but god, not at the expense of the old players. Surely retention should have more or a priority. And since the game is actually so incomplete, surely RP should have a higher place in moderator enforcement than it currently does.
Primary: Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), Old School Since 2591

Inactive: Parti des Frères Lourenne, Since 4109
User avatar
Doc
 
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:29 pm
Location: Primary: Kalistan/ Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK); Inactive in Lourenne and Telamon

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby RIS » Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:11 pm

Doc wrote:I understand the desire for the game to include new people, but god, not at the expense of the old players. Surely retention should have more or a priority. And since the game is actually so incomplete, surely RP should have a higher place in moderator enforcement than it currently does.


I 100% agree.
Global RP Team Economist

Active Parties:
Hutori- Federalist Party

Inactive Parties:
Klavia- Palatinus Evimería Factio
User avatar
RIS
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 11:04 pm
Location: Bekenial, Hutori

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby EdmundS » Fri Jun 22, 2018 11:19 pm

Martinulus wrote:Luthori is a Monarchy and any party that even wants to change it can have its leaders executed for treason

alright I'm in
User avatar
EdmundS
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:14 pm
Location: Luthori

Re: Political Protocols Society

Postby CCP » Sat Jun 23, 2018 4:49 am

Thanks everyone for your interest in the PolPros Society. But just to clarify: this is not a consultation about whether PPs should be implemented. While some of us who are members of this group do hope that Moderation will one day implement Political Protocols in-game, Political Protocols Society is a party organization of players who've already expressed support for the idea. We accept that this style of playing isn't everyone's cup of tea. That's why we've decided to work with like-minded players to increase our enjoyment of the game without infringing on others' gameplay. We simply ask the same in return.

Occam wrote:Could you explain why you see less problems with this than with the GRA? You seemed to be very decidedly against that (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=563771).

Regards,
Occam


As I said, this thread isn't for debating the merits or demerits of Political Protocols. But we do appreciate your interest in the group and so I will answer your questions since it may help you decide if you'd like to join. The GRA and PolPros are not analogous. The GRA has always been a Moderation-driven project that imposes certain gameplay values onto players. Those impositions are not arrived at by player initiative or consensus, they are determined by a group of Moderation-selected RP Masters. I have experience both on the short end of the stick of GRA rulings and as a member of the RP Team/Committee myself. And therefore I can say with certainty that GRA Rankings and Rulings are essentially arbitrary and primarily depend on who happens to be on the RP Team/Committee at the time. For me, that is no way to treat players' RPs. But until Moderation and the Global RP Committee are willing to commit to publicly-known and publicly-developed standards for ranking nations, it's not a system I'm willing to participate with in terms of gameplay.

Under my proposal (linked in the OP), Political Protocols would be very different. Firstly, they would be driven by players in the concerned nation every step of the way. Players would choose to develop Political Protocols in the same way players currently choose to develop Cultural Protocols. Such PPs would have to pass a supermajority vote in the concerned nation. Importantly however, such vote could only begin after at least one player has played in the country for a long period of time (I don't remember if it's 1, 2, or 3 months). This is to ensure that any Political Protocol proposal represents the consensus and chosen play style of the players in the nation. After the long approval process inside the nation, the players would then have to present their proposed Political Protocol to a weeks-long Public Consultation where all players in the game would be able to scrutinize, discuss, object to, and request changes to the proposed PP. This would be to ensure that no single player is able to lock-in any RP or game mechanics elements for personal benefit alone. Finally, the GRC would have to approve the proposed PP before it could be made official. As part of their approval process, the GRC would be required to certify that a high degree of in-depth RP has been produced by the players requesting the PP prior to submitting their request. This is to ensure that players are not simply trying to lockout unpopular players and play styles from their country. PPs are intended to enrich the entire game and gameworld of Particracy not just a single group of players or a single country. Therefore any players wishing to have PPs in their country must work hard to create them and work hard to keep them. In exchange for such hard work, Moderation, the GRC, and the community at large would all agree to support and protect certain agreed upon RP elements for a certain span of time. Finally, the PP would only be enforced for a specific number of months before it would automatically sunset, meaning that no country would be allowed to remain locked-down forever.

I hope that answers your question as to why I would support PPs but do not support the GRA in its current form.

Martinulus wrote:I'm not quite sure we should be in the business of locking down precise governmental forms (especially those expressed in long names) by protocol. That seems like a recipe for players to freeze their preferred governmental settlement for infinity. It reminds me, in fact, of the infamous "Luthori is a Monarchy and any party that even wants to change it can have its leaders executed for treason" bills. There were quite a few countries who had that, and they all exhibited "why don't you go to another country if you don't want to play the way we want" tendencies.

In practice, a single determined player willing to explain the reasonable nature of deep RP (like the 1st United Imperial Crownlands) to other players and ask them to play ball can do a lot of good. I was able to preserve the heritage of H&GS for about 300 years, after which it was about right that it came to an end. The point is that crises during which, for example, Communists were successful, led to natural reactions on behalf of the defenders of Septembrism which evolved the backstory of the country and led, in this instance, to the ban on anti-democratic parties enforced by RP law.

I guess what I'm saying is: no amount of protocolling can be a substitute for good-naturedly asking players to observe some good manners and best practices in roleplaying, including that guideline that says "always say yes and...", meaning you should respect the premises of those you RP with and those who RPed before you. Any attempt to lock it down, in my well-informed opinion, will almost certainly lead to animosity.


Again, this thread isn't to debate the wisdom of PPs. However, since that seems not to have been made sufficiently clear, hopefully this last reply will assuage others' concerns in addition to your own.

First, a Political Protocol if implemented as I have proposed would not lock-down a country for infinity. As I said in reply to Occam, in addition to an automatic sunset (6 months if I remember correctly), a months-long process of review, approval, consultation, and amendment would be required before any PP could be passed.

I personally share your revulsion at the style of gameplay which harangues new players with 'why don't you just go to another country!' I have always preferred to integrate new players into the gameplay culture of a country rather than seeking to hound them out. However, as Doc discussed, the situation being addressed here is not that of unwitting new players. It's plainly more insidious. There is a class of player in Particracy who deliberately activates in a country with the often express purpose of dismantling and deconstructing the stories (not the game mechanics so much) of prior players. Certainly the game mechanics allow for this style of play. But Particracy is not the game it was in 2005. More than 10 years of effort has been put into encouraging, maintaining, increasing, and protecting Role Play. Cultural Protocols and the GRA are both obvious elements in that long effort. The problem that I have with allowing the nation raiders and vandalizers to go unchecked is the glaring contradiction it engenders. Specifically, Moderation not only encourages players to produce copious amounts of RP, but a few months ago Moderation decided to REQUIRE every nation to abide by Role Play dictates determined by a Moderation-selected committee of RP Masters. One of the dictates the Moderators have established for GRAed nations is that they cannot be RPed contrary to Rankings determined for them by the GRC. Recently, the contradiction this engenders was tested. A group of OOC/offline friends decided to begin their summer recess by raiding Talmoria. Why Talmoria? Well, they've done it several times before, always 5 to 8 of them, and when they first did it, Talmoria was Culturally Open; so I think they just got used to raiding that country and after doing it over multiple real-life years decided that Talmoria was theirs. The problem is, as Doc discussed above, these players never had any intention of sticking around. All they wanted to do was make radical changes that gratified and entertained them for the few weeks or few months they chose to log-in to the game. Their most recent raid deliberately disrupted and halted months of plans and content produced by Talmoria players and involving Talmoria's RP allies and opponents. A months-long war RP across Dovani was abruptly halted when the raiding players decided to turn Talmoria into an isolationist backwater. You might guess that this was simple ignorance on the part of these players. But you would be wrong. These players not only reached out to Talmoria's main opponent in the war, but they deliberately refused to reach out to the main Talmorian player who had written all Talmoria's war RP (and who has played Talmoria for more than 1,000 game years besides). I'm currently a member of the GRC, so I have ready access to lines of communication with the Moderators. When I approached them about this problem, their response was lukewarm. To their credit, I don't think they fully grasped what precisely was occurring, which is understandable if you haven't followed Talmorian history closely -- I of course have followed Talmorian history closely because Talmoria is a close ally of my main country. However, the Moderators did seek to create a process that would at least allow some mediation of such issues. The mediation went nowhere and produced nothing. By the time I and the main Talmorian player began discussing how to appeal to the CRC responsible to take more action on the matter . . . lo and behold . . . the raiders deactivated. And just like that the problem was over. But not before several months of headaches and wasted time were created. And for what? So these kids can click law variables?

So the contradiction I'm referring to is that: prior to the raid, the GRC Rankings had just been released. In the Rankings, Talmoria had been promoted to a Middle Power. As a member of the GRC, I can tell you this was done for two reasons: first, Talmoria's RPs had been ignored during Rankings processes for several real-life years. Second, Talmoria's prominent and high-quality role in the Medina War warranted recognition and reward. However, the aggressive isolationism and fabricated RP assertions pushed by the raiding players were diametrically opposed to the GRC's Ranking of Talmoria. Now, how can it be the case that the Moderators 1) require every nation to participate in the GRA (as Occam pointed out, I am aware nations can opt-out, but witness the slight-of-hand Moderators pulled on Dankuk players when they tried to leave), 2) require that all players RP their nations in accordance with GRA Rankings, but 3) allow random groups of players to play diametrically opposite to the GRA Rankings?

That of course makes no sense. For the last ten years, a veritable generation of Moderators and players have gone to some lengths to push this game to be a Role Play game modified and impacted by elections rather than an election game modified by RP. That push has resulted in tens of thousands of pages of stories which build on eachother. Those stories collectively have created a contained universe with its own unique physics. If we allow players to aggressively attack the underpinnings of those stories, we would be saying in effect that our stories and our nations do not exist in the same universe, but rather that new universes are fabricated out of thin air anytime a player chooses to turn back everything prior players have built.

The reason I advocate for Political Protocols is because I do not believe the latter can be sustained given the game's current gameplay culture as developed over a decade and enforced by Game Moderators. Political Protocols in my view would allow the community to affirmatively protect those elements of Terra's story deemed indispensable, while allowing players uninterested in RP to continue playing undisturbed.
CCP
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Next

Return to Organizations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest