OOC/Planning Thread

An archive of previous sessions of both the General Assembly and Security Council as well as various ad hoc consultations and meetings.

Moderator: RP Committee

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby CCP » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:36 pm

Eugene19872 wrote:That being said for a World Council to be "fleshed out" you have to have a governing charter and declaration to mandate what power the WC has, what it's purpose is, what procedure is and so on.


I think this is absolutely right and I think we should do that deliberately and not in the rushed fashion we're conducting this discussion in.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby jamescfm » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:45 pm

CCP wrote:So that means if a R29 motion is posted somewhere (presumably in the GA), that you want the GS to count the "will" of the 58 game system nations? How would I as GS controller count their will? And how would I distinguish the 58 game system nations' "will" from the wills of everyone else who posts in the GA? Do I have to request credentials from the GA participants who claim to represent a game system government? Do I have to confirm their credentials with the 58 heads of government? And what is their "will?" Is it a vote? Do I count their "wills" as votes?

In a similar way to the manner in which you count votes in the Security Council, a person recognised as the representative has to speak on behalf of the nation.
CCP wrote:I think this is absolutely right and I think we should do that deliberately and not in the rushed fashion we're conducting this discussion in.

Perhaps but the issues in this discussion need addressing immediately so we that's why I may appear to be rushing. Nothing can realistically be done in the SC until the status of the 3 resolutions is sorted.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Axxell » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:47 pm

The message of CCP was clear and complete. Thank you.

I think that he raised interesting points, especially on the partecipation of the players to the GA.
He perfectly explained is nature and it was used in this sense and we also saw also parties from the same nations debate between them on opposite positions or we saw representative from organizations of any kind intervene into the GA (and I think is understendable why was chosen this form for the GA).
And furthermore I already wrote into the SC thread that I had some OOC concern about the "new power" which would have the GA, simply saying that with also the vote of very few players who "find the time to vote", a SC member could be stamped out.
And I think CCP clearly explained the contradiction with the mechanic into the game of the vote for the SC.
And why, for example, a party which maybe had no seats, should be able to express a vote? for example, Arapaima made a statement into the GA acting as the representative of a new party in Cildania (it was Cildania?). Can we consider such representative authorized? And if into a nation two or more party or other characters express oppoaite vote? So, at least only the Governments should be authorized, and so their foreign ministers/HoS/HoG, to express such a vote. But it remain the same problems: how many of the 58 Governments should vote? Considering only the ones who posted their vote, usually a considerable minority of them, I think would be unfair in bot OOC and IC and could be used with ideological basis in IC or to act against a player or some players in OOC.
And we can say the same for the Resolution 30. It is clear that in IC a party without seats or which doesn't play a central role into its nation at the moment of the vote have no right to approve or oppose a Resolution by a Nation elected by more than 20 Governments.
However, I agree with the Resolution which authorize the substitution of an inactive nation on the side of the RP on the forum, maybe with the second one most voted, but to be frankly, I find some contradictions also introducing such a rule as showed by CPP. So, for any move in this sense the mods should be called to request such a thing: I think that it is not suitable an IC resolution to solve an OOC problems (do you really think that in IC a nation would not benefits of its position into the SC? It is simply unrealistic!).
So, personally I find myself inclined to agree with the remarks made by CCP.
And I think that it is also more interesting to "oblige" this or that nation to "suffer" the presence into the SC of one or more Nation with which there are contrast or competition.
In the SC of the real world UN, USA had and have to bear URSS or Russia or Cina as well as the latters had and have to bear USA, for example.
Maybe this could represent an interesting challed for the SC members: wprk through their diplomacies to discourage other nations to support this or that nation for the SC.

Finally, about the caos generated by the intervention of the "DGS" on the side of the RP developed until now, I'm sorry but it is condivisible the disappointment of Zanz and Auditorii, because I have to say that CCP had to intervene at the moment when the first resolution with issues was presented.
I think that the RP Team and the Mods should costantly ascertain that any members can cover the role. Not for issue related to the conduct obviously, but simply related to the time which they can find to play and act also intot he role IC and OOC of RP Team members. Of course, this is not an accusation, this is a game, anyone has his own affairs and problems in IRL, it is just a suggestion, given the fact also that, at least to me, seems that in the last time the presence of the the RP Team into the WC has been really limited. But then, simpky CCP after long reflection realized that the Resolution had these issue only later. But for this reason I think that a fast check to any Resolution when is presented could be useful to avoid in future contraddiction in this sense. And i understand why should be some rules in this sense, because to make cohesist the RP with the Game Mechanics, as I realized finally, there must be unpleasent compromise and we should accept some limits.
I think that contradiction or disappointing OOC behavior will always be present on the game. Look for example to the Badaran Civil War: the communist player deactivated and now the coalition gained the war. Immagine if the Governement would have gained the war and then inactivated with the defeated then at the power. It is the game and often we have to accept also to abandon an intere RP for the OOC behavior of this or that player or for game mechanics contradictions.
Alleanza Radicale (Radical Alliance) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby CCP » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:52 pm

jamescfm wrote:In a similar way to the manner in which you count votes in the Security Council, a person recognised as the representative has to speak on behalf of the nation.


Okay. In that case, here're my requests. Zanz needs to change R29's language from "will" to "vote." Any R29 motions need to be made in a dedicated thread separate from the GA thread. And it must be made clear in that thread that only representatives of the 58 game system governments appointed by their heads of government may post and vote there. Zanz also needs to change his R29 language from "World Congress" to "58 Nation States" or "58 Electors" or something like that so that it's indisputably clear who gets to vote on R29 motions.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby CCP » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:09 pm

Axxell wrote:But then, simpky CCP after long reflection realized that the Resolution had these issue only later. But for this reason I think that a fast check to any Resolution when is presented could be useful to avoid in future contraddiction in this sense. And i understand why should be some rules in this sense, because to make cohesist the RP with the Game Mechanics, as I realized finally, there must be unpleasent compromise and we should accept some limits.


I agree with this and it was for this reason that I and the mods have watched the progress of these resolutions closely since they were posted and have been in contact regarding them multiple times. I do understand players wanting warning that something they've worked on might not be permitted in-game, but because of the fast pace of the game and high volume of RP, it isn't always possible to contact every player who might deserve a courteous heads-up. So instead of picking and choosing which players to contact, I decided to contact no one, out of fairness, and address everyone publicly at the same time. James is emphasizing that this is somehow holding up the security council. I still don't understand how, since 28 resolutions have been debated and the security council operated for a year and half or so without the existence of 29-31, and nothing is stopping players from proposing new resolutions now. But James and I will discuss that in private if necessary. What is important to emphasize is that players can help the kind of problem Axxell and Zanz pointed out by proactively contacting RP Team members and the mods to pre-clear any in-game action that might implicate the game rules or change the fundamental structure of some parts of the game.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Axxell » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:22 pm

CCP wrote: What is important to emphasize is that players can help the kind of problem Axxell and Zanz pointed out by proactively contacting RP Team members and the mods to pre-clear any in-game action that might implicate the game rules or change the fundamental structure of some parts of the game.


Yes, I think it is a reasonable and necessary passage to avoid the development of RP which then should be "dumped".

Instead, this: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=7482&start=40#p119702

I think it could be a good compromise also if I think it is better to not involve the IC into an OOC problems.
In fact, now I think: what if into a nation excluded from the SC arrives a party which want partecipate to the Global RP and demand that its nation will be readmitted to the SC?
If you want maintain this mixed IC/OOC Resolution, maybe should be taken in account also such a eventuality and find a solution.
Doesn't seems too fair when the game mechanics clearly indicate that your nation gained but it was then excluded.
Alleanza Radicale (Radical Alliance) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Arapaima13 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:29 pm

I agree that a party that does not represent the government of the country should not be allowed to vote. In response to Axxell, I would not vote were I not in power, and I hope that I made it clear IC that I was not representing the view of my government. It was Cildania by the way.

In my opinion those who are active but are in opposition should take it upon themselves of getting authorisation from their government to participate within international affairs. I am not sure about the inviolability of Particracy Messages, but one solution of getting authorisation could be that the player from the opposition must be required to present a screenshot to the General Security / RP Team Member / Security Council Member of the authorising message for them for them to be allowed to vote at that time.
"Sometimes the people you think you hate actually turn out to be alright."
Federal Democratic Party: Dolgava, Since 4350
RP Team / General RP Coordinator
User avatar
Arapaima13
 
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:39 pm
Location: Kalopia

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby CCP » Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:32 pm

Axxell wrote:In fact, now I think: what if into a nation excluded from the SC arrives a party which want partecipate to the Global RP and demand that its nation will be readmitted to the SC?
If you want maintain this mixed IC/OOC Resolution, maybe should be taken in account also such a eventuality and find a solution.
Doesn't seems too fair when the game mechanics clearly indicate that your nation gained but it was then excluded.


Exactly. The resolutions are not fully thought-through and they are poorly worded, which is why rushing this process will only contribute to future problems. It still isn't clear to me what big problem Luthori's inactivity causes. Only 3 votes are required to transact security council business. Axxell, Auditorii, and Zanz have been active recently which is enough votes to get anything done.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby Auditorii » Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:45 pm

CCP wrote:
Axxell wrote:In fact, now I think: what if into a nation excluded from the SC arrives a party which want partecipate to the Global RP and demand that its nation will be readmitted to the SC?
If you want maintain this mixed IC/OOC Resolution, maybe should be taken in account also such a eventuality and find a solution.
Doesn't seems too fair when the game mechanics clearly indicate that your nation gained but it was then excluded.


Exactly. The resolutions are not fully thought-through and they are poorly worded, which is why rushing this process will only contribute to future problems. It still isn't clear to me what big problem Luthori's inactivity causes. Only 3 votes are required to transact security council business. Axxell, Auditorii, and Zanz have been active recently which is enough votes to get anything done.


Because the premise of the organization isn't 3 members with 2 inactive. That isn't how it was designed. It was designed for 5. Not 3. If you want you can down size it to 3 and I'll be glad. Instead I'd prefer we work to make the organization functional and have a wider range of opinions and idea. The World congress isn't a game mechanic. It's an RP opportunity. Right now those opportunities aren't being fulfilled.

I think being in charge of the WC you'd be interested in it's success, that doesn't quite appear to be the case. It rather appears you're content with the status quo and not advancing and building the organization.
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: OOC/Planning Thread

Postby CCP » Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:08 am

Auditorii wrote:I think being in charge of the WC you'd be interested in it's success, that doesn't quite appear to be the case. It rather appears you're content with the status quo and not advancing and building the organization.


There you go casting aspersions again and attributing motive. You've responded directly to precisely two of the many substantive issues raised in this thread. You've told baldfaced lies about me, members of the roleplay team, and the moderators. You cut your snide, childish bullshit out, or I have nothing else to say to you out of character for any reason.

Regarding your point about the security council being designed for five members instead of three, it's a dumb, shallow point that has no significant impact on gameplay. If you were truly concerned about Luthori's activity, which has been an issue practically since the moment they were elected to the security council, you would've campaigned to get them voted out months ago.

James and Reddy, I've had it with this little asshole. Rein his bullshit in, or he'll get more like-for-like from me.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sessions Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests