CULTURAL MAP DEBATE THREAD

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Re: GAME RULES REDRAFT CONSULTATION

Postby Elf » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:19 pm

Phil Piratin wrote:If you want to join in the the tired old completely unconstructive moaning about Presidents and Prime Ministers, there is a whole thread dedicated to that elsewhere.
Oh boy! A thread from 2012! When I was still in High School. Now I'm feeling a bit nostalgic... <3 :D

Phil Piratin wrote:My concern, which I feel is a legitimate concern, is that we have a large number of players who prefer playing in English-themed nations. Their "playing space" has been squeezed already, and I am not convinced it is either fair or beneficial to squeeze it too much further. You play your game, and let them play theirs. That's all I'm asking, and I don't think that's unfair.
Hmmm... seems like the numbers tell a different story. 67 out of 279 players are in the countries James mentioned. They have a total of (if I can trust my maths skillz around midnight that is... :lol: ) 30 seats available (one of them have 9 players). So it seems like there's no shortage...

Anyway... what I really wanted to say is, the map is a delight because I know it will be a great tool in the hands of, in particular, Polites - who happens to be the community's expert on this kind of stuff! :mrgreen:
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
User avatar
Elf
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:01 am
Location: Kali Yuga

Re: GAME RULES REDRAFT CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:48 am

Elf wrote:
Phil Piratin wrote:My concern, which I feel is a legitimate concern, is that we have a large number of players who prefer playing in English-themed nations. Their "playing space" has been squeezed already, and I am not convinced it is either fair or beneficial to squeeze it too much further. You play your game, and let them play theirs. That's all I'm asking, and I don't think that's unfair.
Hmmm... seems like the numbers tell a different story. 67 out of 279 players are in the countries James mentioned. They have a total of (if I can trust my maths skillz around midnight that is... :lol: ) 30 seats available (one of them have 9 players). So it seems like there's no shortage...

Anyway... what I really wanted to say is, the map is a delight because I know it will be a great tool in the hands of, in particular, Polites - who happens to be the community's expert on this kind of stuff! :mrgreen:


Lets try to look at this seriously...at the moment, there are 8 Culturally Protected nations which are English-themed:

Hutori
Kalistan
Kirlawa
Likatonia
Luthori

Malivia (actually Indian/Afro-Caribbean actually, but generously including here as allows English names etc...)
Mordusia
Rutania

There are also 15 Culturally Open nations, where there are no rules against English character names etc.:

Baltusia
Beluzia
Darnussia:
Cildania:
Dolgava/Dolgaria

Davostan
Gaduridos
Hobrazia
Kanjor:
Lodamun

Pontesi:
Solentia
Talmoria
Telamon
Vorona

So with 8 English-themed Culturally Protected nations, and 15 Culturally Open nations, we can fairly say that at the moment, broadly speaking, we have 23 "English-friendly" nations.

Now, going by the Cultural Map which Moderation have released, the English themed nations will be as follows:

Aloria
Hutori
Kirlawa
Likatonia
Luthori

Rutania
Beluzia

This amounts to a reduction from 23 "English-friendly" nations to just 7. That is just 7 nations out of 58! In practice, one presumes the number might eventually rise a little higher than this, due to players in some nations taking the initiative to "opt-out" of the Global Role-Play Accord. But nevertheless, this is what the "default" situation is going to be - and I presume this is going to be the situation when the new system is first introduced.

I am aware advancing this argument does not generally win one popularity amongst the forum community, but I am strongly of the view that the "playing space" for the players who prefer English RP should not be squeezed too tightly. Please appreciate they need space to play. Just like a lot of players on the forum like to move from non-English nation to non-English nation, a lot of these players also appreciate having a wide range of options in terms of (English) nations to play in. This should be respected and taken into account. We need to get away from the idea that "English parties" should be crammed into the the smallest number of nations as is practically possible.

I would also argue that it is in the interests of the non-English nations to have a decent supply of English nations, the reason being that a lot of players start off preferring English RP, but with time, like to experiment and go to nations with non-English cultures. Long-term, the non-English nations will struggle to thrive unless there is a lively and plentiful range of English nations available in the game. One might almost say the non-English nations are like "nurseries" for producing the next generation of players who will play in the non-English nations.
User avatar
Phil Piratin
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: GAME RULES REDRAFT CONSULTATION

Postby jamescfm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:25 am

You’re making a redundant argument since cultural protocols only affect the ability to name your characters and country, literally everything else can be in English anyway so I don’t see the issue. You’re also masssively confusing cause and effect, here. Most of those players don’t want to play in English countries! Personally, I’m in Telamon and all players use Icelandic party and character names. I seriously doubt there will suddenly be a stream of players who can’t find an “English friendly nation” to play in.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5472
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: GAME RULES REDRAFT CONSULTATION

Postby Reddy » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:02 am

jamescfm wrote:You’re making a redundant argument since cultural protocols only affect the ability to name your characters and country, literally everything else can be in English anyway so I don’t see the issue. You’re also masssively confusing cause and effect, here. Most of those players don’t want to play in English countries! Personally, I’m in Telamon and all players use Icelandic party and character names. I seriously doubt there will suddenly be a stream of players who can’t find an “English friendly nation” to play in.


I strongly agree. I think the supposed correlation between English speaking nations and high player averages is at best questionable and only superficial. To create more English themed nations as some kind of initiative to serve new players would be some kind of gross infantilisation. I think serious players can figure out things quite quickly for themselves and anyway long term player retention is something like 5 to 10%. As you point out, CPs only mean that one needs to name characters in the language provided and for which there are numerous sources, most notably Google translate.

One thing I noted - the length of this consultation. I question this length as I fear it may create opportunities for endless chatter and hijacking as we have seen on this forum many times in the past. I ask that Moderation consider shortening it to where a clear/general consensus has developed in order not to be distracted by permanent/pointless dissenting etc too much. You will obviously never get unanimous consent. I'm not saying that general consent has been reached yet but once it develops, we should seriously consider moving on forward. These new rules are very interesting and some of us are eager to see them put in place as soon as is reasonably possible.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: GAME RULES REDRAFT CONSULTATION

Postby jamescfm » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:17 am

Reddy wrote:One thing I noted - the length of this consultation. I question this length as I fear it may create opportunities for endless chatter and hijacking as we have seen on this forum many times in the past. I ask that Moderation consider shortening it to where a clear/general consensus has developed in order not to be distracted by permanent/pointless dissenting etc too much. You will obviously never get unanimous consent. I'm not saying that general consent has been reached yet but once it develops, we should seriously consider moving on forward. These new rules are very interesting and some of us are eager to see them put in place as soon as is reasonably possible.

I agree with this, too. On a related note, it might be beneficial to separate the dicussion at certain times. For example, we’ve been talking about cultural protocols extensively but that’s only a small section of the proposed update. Perhaps a specific thread could be created for topics which are sufficiently important that they deserve lengthy discussion.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5472
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Proposed Rule: Centralizing Culture

Postby Polites » Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:38 am

This is a separate thread to discuss proposed rule 5.i, moved from here:

The Global Role Play Accord (GRA) is an opt out index of nations. There are two types of membership in the GRA: A full membership allows the RP team to determine the nation’s culture as well as its economic and military characteristics. Whereas a partial member allows the nation to choose one option or the other.
To opt-out of the GRA a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats stating whether they are opting out of the whole accord, or part of it in which case they should specify which part.
To opt back in a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats and state what part(s) of the GRA they wish to opt into.


Moved here since the discussion on this seems to have taken a life of its own :)
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Proposed Rule: Centralizing Culture

Postby Polites » Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:13 am

Ok, so my two cents on what's been discussed so far:

1. Phil brings up the (in my eyes) legitimate argument that we need a relatively large number of English-speaking nations, and he points out that under the proposed map the number of "English-friendly" nations will drop significantly. I absolutely agree that we need a large number of Anglophone nations, which is why the proposed map has a total of 7 such nations, with the possibility of having many more if a lot of nations opt-out of the GRA. That would mean that we will have at least 56 player slots in English-speaking nations, which is quite a few I think. I would question the idea that the number of Culturally Open nations reflects the popularity of English as an in-game language though, for two reasons. Firstly, quite a few Culturally Open nations actually use languages other than English for their nation and character names, so it is not at all clear there is a demand for a total of 23 Anglophone nations. Secondly, most nations that are currently Culturally Open did not gain that status due to demand from players in those nations, they became Culturally Open during the previous system of "cultural eras" (when all nations were required to periodically "affirm" their Cultural Protocols or face their nation losing its culturally protected status), which makes it difficult to judge whether they are Culturally Open because the previous culture wasn't in demand or whether players in those nations simply failed to pass an affirmation bill in time but would otherwise prefer to maintain their old culture.

2. There's no "shame" in having a "President" for head of state, and Moderation will not penalize that in any way. Using that title also does not reflect an attachment to English as an in-game language. Of the nations listed as using that title, a few actively RP non-English cultures, so the argument is moot either way.

3. While in theory any player(s) could pass Cultural Protocols updates or introduce new Cultural Protocols in Culturally Open nations, provided the requirements are met, in practice it is a small minority of committed players with a passion for world-building that are responsible for most cultural changes. The new system will, in my view, allow all players a more direct and unmediated system for changing their culture, and make it less likely for self-appointed experts to have excessive influence over the cultural makeup of Terra. Although I do think that this will not go away under the new system, where there is the risk that the world-builders could vocally lobby Moderation, I think it will nonetheless give a greater voice for newer players who have not yet mastered the full extent of Cultural Protocols rules. The current system does privilege those players who have devoted significant time to understanding and applying the, in my view, excessively complex requirements for passing and updating CPs.

4. In my experience, most players don't really care much either way about culture. Many would object to having to use obscure languages and character names, of course, but as the "cultural affirmation" system has revealed few players will go out of their way to devote effort to culturally-related matters when that effort would be better spent just playing the game. In practice, the new system will mean that matters most players do not care much about will be handled centrally rather than the current piecemeal fashion.

5. As James rightfully points out, Moderation cannot use the current rules to implement a broader cultural vision without serious backlash. Implementing the new rule will give the Moderation team a clearer mandate to directly intervene in cultural matters.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: GAME RULES REDRAFT CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:17 am

jamescfm wrote:You’re making a redundant argument since cultural protocols only affect the ability to name your characters and country, literally everything else can be in English anyway so I don’t see the issue.


The difference between us is that you do not think this is important (ie. the ability to give your characters English names and your nation and English title) whereas in my experience, this is very important to a large number of players.

Reddy wrote:I strongly agree. I think the supposed correlation between English speaking nations and high player averages is at best questionable and only superficial.


There is undeniably a strong general correlation.

Reddy wrote:To create more English themed nations as some kind of initiative to serve new players would be some kind of gross infantilisation.


Nobody is suggesting creating more English themed nations. All that is happening is that I am arguing not so many should should be removed. I also find the "infantilisation" comment disrespectful of those who RP English parties.

Reddy wrote:One thing I noted - the length of this consultation. I question this length as I fear it may create opportunities for endless chatter and hijacking as we have seen on this forum many times in the past. I ask that Moderation consider shortening it to where a clear/general consensus has developed in order not to be distracted by permanent/pointless dissenting etc too much. You will obviously never get unanimous consent. I'm not saying that general consent has been reached yet but once it develops, we should seriously consider moving on forward. These new rules are very interesting and some of us are eager to see them put in place as soon as is reasonably possible.


I wish to place on record that I am concerned that those who have doubts about the proposed reforms are being made to feel unwelcome in this consultation, and that in particular, that the comment above is fairly obviously directed personally at me.
User avatar
Phil Piratin
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: Proposed Rule: Centralizing Culture

Postby Elf » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:02 pm

There might well be a correlation between the use of English titles and such in non-anglophone countries, and feelings of irritation in certain players (among them myself historically, at least occasionally) - but I am not so sure that the reverse applies. These rules only apply to character naming, they don't ban the use of English in titles and such. And as Reddy pointed out, long term player retention is something like 5 - 10% anyway. A lot of the players that come and go aren't especially interested in explicitly Anglo-American (or whatever) RP, they're just not as interested in the lore as others, and are mostly here for the parliamentary simulation stuff. Well, that's fine. This stuff is for those who care a lot about that. It won't really affect the others.

Just for the record, it's important to have this discussion remain on topic and constructive so that everyone who is interested can feel welcome to participate. Speaking for myself, I don't find opinions that differ form my own as "personally" targeted against me - so any hypothetical strongly pro-anglophone silent majority should feel free to voice such, without fear of me or hopefully anyone else making it "personal" in any way. ;) This is just a game, after all. I would probably quite have enjoyed the reimplementation of colonization in some shape or form. However, I do respect the fact that I haven't got the kind of overview of the plans for the future of the game that Moderation and our RP-team have, and they've been doing a great job in general, in my opinion! :mrgreen:
Last edited by Elf on Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
User avatar
Elf
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:01 am
Location: Kali Yuga

Re: Proposed Rule: Centralizing Culture

Postby Polites » Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:03 pm

We'll keep this debate open as long as necessary. If any digression happens we have the tools to deal with it, but that hasn't been the case so far and I am confident people will stay on topic in this thread.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests