by 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)