Cultural Protocols: A Broader Discussion

[utoronto]

Applied to the enforcement of Cultural Protocols, I largely agree with errant sperm's latest post. Cultural change should be allowed to happen, and internal as well as external RPd events should be accepted as justifications for changes, for the simple reason that it is difficult to get all nations likely to be affected by an event to RP its impact. For instance, any war is likely to result in an exodus of refugees to nearby countries, but few nations are willing to RP a refugee crisis (and I may add that was precisely the justification for increasing the number of Majatran minorities in Selucia, although that nation had not, until the Barmenian Refugee Crisis, RPd immigration from other war-torn nations from the continent). I admit I don't have much knowledge on errant's Valruzian and Mordusian RP, but if he can justify a large exodus from Valruzia to Mordusia then I don't see why his Polish cabinet names should not be allowed, especially since he has made no attempt to establish a Valruzian minority/apartheid regime or alter the demographics, and even if he had, he could have done so by creating RP.

I think CPs should be enforced as they are now, with perhaps more leniency on how cultural changes are justified, provided that the original culture is not altogether eradicated (leaving a small 5-15% of the original dominant group as common courtesy for the original creator should be enough), and that stronger protection is given to more unique cultures (I would be strongly opposed to any move that would try to Germanize Ibutho, for instance). And in addition to internal RP, players should be able to provide external RP as justification for cultural changes and their IG actions.

I agree with Polites on this- I would say that cultural change should be recognized both based on internal and external RP. Not to kick the US dog again, but for example- cultural infusion in the United States has led to a hybrid sort of culture which is not Old World, and yet not entirely New World either. Many of our political traditions are straight out of Britain, and yet, the modifications we have made to our political system make it distinct, and a new source of inspiration (to put it melodramatically) to newer democracies around the world which came into being after our War of Independence. (Argentina, for example, has a constitution which is more or less cribbed from the US Constitution, circa like 1827 or something). Meanwhile, culturally, Americans are just as likely to eat European cuisine as they are American cuisine, as they are Mexican cuisine, and they are East/South Asian cuisine. Tacos and Burritos are eaten even by ardent nationalists in the US. All those sorts of infusions came because of demographic changes which occured in other countries and flavored our culture here, so that they are seen as probably more American than Mexican or Chinese (I am sure General Tso's Chicken is WAY more popular in the US than it is on the street in China, and tacos even in Tijuana are WAY different than the tacos we buy at Taco Bell.)

External events do change local culture, and should at least be recognized, especially if it is part of a larger, multi-national RP, which domestic players have recognized and participated in. And, by the way, if anyone wants to RP a refugee crisis, please be sure to contact Kalistan. We have a long tradition of encouraging refugees to come to our country, and would theoretically have an infrastructure set up to provide assistance.

Certainly. However, New World countries and Western European countries are particular cases for this model. But the degree in which other countries are affected by this is another story. Countries like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France -- amongst many others -- are multicultural, multinational, and/or multiethnic. Many of the former Eastern Bloc states, former Soviet republics, and many East Asian states are large or mostly homogeneous. While external factors tend to affect the former in a profound manner, many of the latter tend to react by becoming more isolationist, more nationalist, and measures are taken to strengthen the position of the primary or dominant culture (this, btw, is also partially applicable to one jurisdiction in North America: Québec).

I agree, changes should be based on internal and external RP, but other factors may need to be considered. If a PT country had a adopted a culture influenced by a RL country that has a tendency to become more isolationist, more nationalist, and more culturally protectionist when faced with an external influence, then the external RP should have only minimal influence.

Also, I am of the opinion that the game mechanics should be considered when changes are made. If the political opinions state that the pop is isolationist, then definitely the influence of external RP would be not as great as a country where the opinion is more internationalist. If a country has a majority secularist position, then the dominant culture should not be one that is religious (unless of course someone pulls off something based on the contradictory cultural identity of the French: that is, a population that is both Catholic AND Atheist at the same time).

[Polites]

The degree of multiculturalism and openness of a country can change drastically over time, so I don't think that aspect should be enshrined in Cultural Protocols or be taken into account when updating them. Countries in the Balkans and in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire were all very multi-ethnic and multi-religious, but with the fall of the Ottoman and Austrian empires the resulting nation-states became very homogeneous and enforced that homogeneity via population exchanges, assimilation (voluntary or otherwise), or the repression of minority cultures. Turkey was once the go-to place for persecuted refugees from Europe (hence the rise of the Sephardi ethnic group), but the emergence of ethnic nationalism led to the imposition of a homogeneous Anatolian-based Turkish ethno-national identity. Like ideology, this is one of the things that change and should not be enforced by Moderation. I also think that game mechanics should not be used to justify cultural changes, as political leaders do not always follow popular opinion to the letter.

[Doc]

The degree of multiculturalism and openness of a country can change drastically over time, so I don't think that aspect should be enshrined in Cultural Protocols or be taken into account when updating them. Countries in the Balkans and in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire were all very multi-ethnic and multi-religious, but with the fall of the Ottoman and Austrian empires the resulting nation-states became very homogeneous and enforced that homogeneity via population exchanges, assimilation (voluntary or otherwise), or the repression of minority cultures. Turkey was once the go-to place for persecuted refugees from Europe (hence the rise of the Sephardi ethnic group), but the emergence of ethnic nationalism led to the imposition of a homogeneous Anatolian-based Turkish ethno-national identity. Like ideology, this is one of the things that change and should not be enforced by Moderation. I also think that game mechanics should not be used to justify cultural changes, as political leaders do not always follow popular opinion to the letter.

True, but they do, to some degree. The Turkish President wouldn't speak Spanish, even if he was Sephardic. Among the Sephardic, he might drop into it, but when he is pronouncing things for Turkey, he wouldn't speak it in a radically different language than the majority of the population. There are few examples of something like that happening, which I can think of- One was French nobility ruling Saxon Anglia and speaking almost completely in French, and the Clergy speaking almost exclusively in Latin. That situation remedied itself in a couple of centuries as even the Normans adopted English, and then found a source of national unity in it. As mentioned (I think above, but it might be on a different thread) the Mongols, when they conquered China, nonetheless eventually adopted Chinese custom and culture, in order to rule. I think the later is more common than the former in the long run. IN this case, the United States would certainly be an exception rather than the rule- the people we conquered and the people we assimilated speak English now. Even many of the people who are recently arrived from Latin America make an effort to learn the language of the rulers, and certainly encourage their kids to do so.

Culture changes, but it is possible that what was once multi-ethnic is now a new, homogeneous culture where the constituent cultures are lost in a melange and are indistinguishable from one another in broader society. See, for example, Kalistan. I think however, that a "one instrument fits all" situation is problematic, because of the exceptions, not because of the rule.

[utoronto]

The degree of multiculturalism and openness of a country can change drastically over time, so I don't think that aspect should be enshrined in Cultural Protocols or be taken into account when updating them. Countries in the Balkans and in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire were all very multi-ethnic and multi-religious, but with the fall of the Ottoman and Austrian empires the resulting nation-states became very homogeneous and enforced that homogeneity via population exchanges, assimilation (voluntary or otherwise), or the repression of minority cultures. Turkey was once the go-to place for persecuted refugees from Europe (hence the rise of the Sephardi ethnic group), but the emergence of ethnic nationalism led to the imposition of a homogeneous Anatolian-based Turkish ethno-national identity. Like ideology, this is one of the things that change and should not be enforced by Moderation. I also think that game mechanics should not be used to justify cultural changes, as political leaders do not always follow popular opinion to the letter.

True, but they do, to some degree. The Turkish President wouldn't speak Spanish, even if he was Sephardic. Among the Sephardic, he might drop into it, but when he is pronouncing things for Turkey, he wouldn't speak it in a radically different language than the majority of the population. There are few examples of something like that happening, which I can think of- One was French nobility ruling Saxon Anglia and speaking almost completely in French, and the Clergy speaking almost exclusively in Latin. That situation remedied itself in a couple of centuries as even the Normans adopted English, and then found a source of national unity in it. As mentioned (I think above, but it might be on a different thread) the Mongols, when they conquered China, nonetheless eventually adopted Chinese custom and culture, in order to rule. I think the later is more common than the former in the long run. IN this case, the United States would certainly be an exception rather than the rule- the people we conquered and the people we assimilated speak English now. Even many of the people who are recently arrived from Latin America make an effort to learn the language of the rulers, and certainly encourage their kids to do so.

Culture changes, but it is possible that what was once multi-ethnic is now a new, homogeneous culture where the constituent cultures are lost in a melange and are indistinguishable from one another in broader society. See, for example, Kalistan. I think however, that a "one instrument fits all" situation is problematic, because of the exceptions, not because of the rule.

Perhaps what the situation needs is a asymmetric approach to CPs and culture in PT...

[IdioC]

Warning: Monolithic Post as I tried to reply to everyone...

For the record: I did read people's examples, but have cropped them here for space as this post became a monolith. Thanks all for the broad insight and it's amazing how similarities exist between two cultures where perhaps someone might not expect to find them at first glance.

I hope to condense the comments into workable suggestions soon. Generally, it seems the consensus is to keep Cultural Protocols but with three clear sections but to relax the enforcement some way to allow new developments, with this latter part being the ongoing discussion.

In the absence of more open nations, would you relax the penalties and reach of the Protocols to increase accessibility for new players, or would you see this is too much of a risk to RP?

No, this may undermine the quality and continuity of RP.

For what it's worth, I also think that's a fair assessment.

{to the above} Or this: perhaps it would be good to require a cultural opt-in rather than prefering an opt-out. That would make most of the countries in the world generic and cultureless, conducted in English (as per the rules of the game) and the select few that want to be culturally closed the opportunity to be so.

This might have been true if it was introduced to Terra ab initio but aren't the Cultural Protocols the very embodiment of this cultural opt-in and now present in too many countries for this to work?

Of course, this could yet be a good suggestion for the sequels.

I think that moderation should be able to (i.e. not obliged to - that would a step too far) declare a nation culturally open if they satisfy one of two criteria: a) their culture is poorly developed (i.e. if all you've got is cultural protocols and a generic liberal democratic Anglophone democracy with a paper-thin veneer of foreign names) and b) the player(s) primarily responsible for developing a country's cultural protocols are first consulted and give their consent to having a nation declared culturally open.

Back when Cultural Protocols were introduced, there was also the concept of cultural dormancy in a culture to allow a nation to be regenerated as a new idea by other players. As new nations are unlikely to appear as Wouter focusses on the new world, would you favour a multi-tiered system of freedoms for nations with different levels of restrictions to give more scope or do you feel this would be a complication for the community?

Do you feel... that Cultural Protocols are too unilateral, often disregarding the previous cultural creations? Should there be a protection of older cultures as suitable minority cultures for RP purposes to allow for more flexibility?

Well, this is hard to say: I can easily see the other side too- A lot of times, these old RPs were run by people who aren't either playing in that country anymore or playing all together. I can see a case for newer players coming to an empty country, retconning a culture there, and that being the new culture. In Kalistan's case, that wasn't what happened, because Pentalarc was still there at the time, and I returned in the middle of this business. I think that was where the friction in our situation came in- the old players had not abandoned the country, so the retcon was doomed from the start. In completely abandoned countries, I suppose the fate of the CP should be different. But I think if there is significant evidence of an older, RP culture which is not the same as the one in the CP's there should be an acknowledgement made in the CP to allow that to be an option... That can be added at any time, I suppose, if people are interested in picking it up, and the criteria for permitting it should be simply the fact that "artifacts" of the older culture were discovered in the forums of in old bills, so it is safe to say that that culture never really went away (as cultures occasionally hang on and reappear later.)

A good point on old bills. I have often traipsed to find the founding dates of older cultures and perhaps a list of one or two old bills that reflect a previous culture in a Cultural Protocol would be a suitable aide memoire. Some Archaeological RP would also be good and perhaps allow artefacts to be "misappropriated" for the ends of the current regimes; Terra is old enough for it!

Perhaps the answer is a protection footnote for older cultures so that may be revived, but new migrant cultures in culturally active nations should be RPed with OOC respect for the existing culture and then be included after a set period of time, possibly provided at least two parties follow it?

Would it benefit the game, to your mind, to have Cultural Protocols split into these three concept protocols {Demographic/Linguistic/Cultural} for clarity and allowing the undeclared sections to remain "Culturally Open"?

Further to this, as the lack of Open nations has been identified in other comments, would it be acceptable to you to limit nations to being able to lock one or two of the three (Demographics/Ethnicity, Language and Culture) to leave some breathing space for other parties to be creative?

Oh, I don't know- The ethnic breakdown of the country was a big one. Given that our original CP made it clear that most Kalistanis consider their culture "Kalistani" and not one of the constituent parts of that cultural identity, we adopted what was eventually called "Cultural quantum" meaning that there weren't easily identifiable cultural communities in Kalistan... In short, though our CP said Kalkali- 56%, that didn't mean that Kalkalis made up 56% of the population... basically 100% of Kalistanis... celebrated that culture. When culture is defined as ethnicity, Aquinas correctly informed me that cultural quantum is problematic.

And none of it touched what I saw as the main culture of Kalistan, which was entirely political- The main cleavages in Kalistan were always between those who wanted more and those who wanted less civil liberties, and other related political topics. They have never been over ethnicity or language or religion. Other countries, obviously this is not the case, and so a culture as ethnicity probably will work better for them. We aren't special in Kalistan, but as you say, the CP on all is a blunt object.

At any rate- I wouldn't say that we need three different protocols. You can just deal with these issues in the same document, and have moderation enforce them separately. A Language guide, a demographic guide and a cultural guide which may or may not represent the same thing.

Seems a fair assessment. This, admittedly, does also make finding the agreed points easier to locate in a single place.

The question then becomes one of enforcement and how vigorously things should be protected...

For example- if I want to have Kalistanis eat Indian food primarily, appear as predominantly Blonde Hair, Blue eyed Russians, worship in the Protestant Religion and exclusively speak Jamaican Patois, why would that be a problem? I know some players would claim "Well, that just doesn't make any sense! In the real world, that would never happen!" But why not? Why are the marriage of Northern Indian culture, Brown Skin, Hindu Religion and Punjabi language a necessary thing? And anyway, this is Particracy, not the real world, and so it should be even easier to put an arrangement like this in place. Some folks wanted me to account for HOW all these different groups got to Kalistan, given our neighborhood, but our population was made up of the people who lived there first (related to the other surrounding countries) AND all the other groups who came there later. By Sea, overland, what difference does it make? It happened before the game started for the most part, so it happened because we said it happened. And it has always been that way, since Pentalarc started keeping track of the history of the country. If other countries did things differently and were more culturally homogeneous, well, how does that affect Kalistan?

Preach, brother. As much as we draw on the real world for inspiration, it is unfortunate that some cultures just used them for definition, as much as it is simpler for those with less time or prefer a lighter RP to do so.

I would make those things variables for the CP, which players, as long as they agree to them, can set in the CP, and then those things can be enforced by Moderation in culturally protected nations until the players in that country change them. They would have to RP the change under the old CP, probably the using RP conflict rules where the majority of the players have to agree to the RP, but otherwise, Moderation can keep an eye on the RP to ensure that it continues under the old CP, and the end of the RP will be the revision of the CP.

That seems like a nice compromise.

A sound suggestion, that should be accompanied with a footnote that "Particracy cultures can be inspired by fusions of cultures improbable or impossible in real life; be creative!".

Would it benefit the game, to your mind, to have Cultural Protocols split into three concept protocols (Demographic/Ethnicity, Linguistic and truly Cultural) for clarity and allowing the undeclared sections to remain "Culturally Open"?

Perhaps. But it would obvious that the categories would need to be well defined. At the same time, is it really possible to segregate the three? In some cases, I find that all three are very much intertwined with each other. {Thorough examples scissioned for space}

Basically, it would be a nice idea to have separate protocols, and it would be plausible in some cases, but not in others.

It also makes it easier to locate in a single place, but the three sections being required within them would be a step forward to allow these details to be recorded as appropriate. It seems taking up the same enquiry with Doc led to a very similar answer.

I agree that most players should stick to the main culture's names and phonology, but for minority party players, perhaps of regional or migrant cultures, where do you draw the line: should the names be transliterated regardless of their origin or to what extent are other languages/orthographies permissable?

{Example scissioned} I would say it depends, esp. on how the main culture deals with names and terms that are foreign to that culture.

This would create a problem though. How would you stop a Cultural Protocol defining absolute intolerance of minority languages IC, preventing any variation and potentially being unfair on new players with new ideas OOC, even if these new players respect the aspect of the culture?

However, which acculturation (is this protologistic?) steps should be required?

Bare minimum, which is, in the case of Valruzia, Valruzianised names (again, could be minority or foreign names, but transliterated).

...and the same if we were defining a Terra-wide protocol? Sounds reasonable to me.

What about minority parties who are actively opposing the existing culture in RP yet respect its existence OOC?

I think as long as its existence is respected OOC-wise, I'm ok with it.

It's an extension of standard OOC respect in RP, I suppose, but it's probably worth a reminder in any text.

{Example scissioned} Thus, I could definitely see a language and values protocol while leaving ethnicity out of the picture, but I do see how it could become an assumed factor. The people speak X and value X so they must be X, when in fact they are really Y.

Then perhaps the Cultural Protocols have brought out the worst presumptive aspects in some players in encouraging them to make simplistic snap judgements about the cultures they were trying to protect! A bit ironic there...

It seems that the three-section one-document plan would help in your example too and thanks for the input.

If I may, please ....

Of course!

Further to this, as the lack of Open nations has been identified in other comments, would it be acceptable to you to limit nations to being able to lock one or two of the three (Demographics/Ethnicity, Language and Culture) to leave some breathing space for other parties to be creative?

I'm afraid I would be very strongly opposed to that, sorry.
Wasn't, and isn't, the whole point of the Protocols, to protect nations from vandalism?
Now, we're faced with the situation where there are players who want to change cultural facets of nations, and who are complaining that there are too few "open" nations where they can do so. I certainly agree that having more nations that are "open", would be a very good idea.

I should clarify I was devils-advocating a position here to test an opinion (hence the "acceptable to you" line and indeed, the response was negative) and nor do I have the power to bring in any unilateral change, so rest assured, I'm not going to completely retract them. Sorry if I worried you with this discussion!

For what it's worth, I feel such a restriction would be artificial; a better option would be to be more relaxed about deviations from the protocol provided the protected culture is respected.

Yet, we lack open nations and are running out of space for new ideas... it's tough to find an answer.[/quote]

and I would dread the process of selecting which nations lost their cultures to liberate new "open" nations.

As for the task of "selecting" which additional nations would become open and/or reviseable?
I agree that that would be a weighty responsibility.
But I feel I have the solution: simply, please don't make that choice.
Instead, please let the players themselves decide.

It was the original intention with the protocols to let cultures rise and fall as players come and go. The arguments over the criteria of any such entirely hypothetical moderation choice would cause a schism in the community.

However, to test opinions and find out more viewpoints, I have to suggest things I do not agree with to guage responses and see the reasoning behind it.[/quote]

My opinion:
As long as there is at least one player in that nation who is interested and willing to defend the current culture of the particular nation in which they play, then that nation's Protocols/protection should continue to be absolutely sacrosanct, please. In full.
But if by contrast, there's a nation where nobody is playing there; or if, of the players who are there, there are none who are interested or willing to defend the latent culture (and of course with there being at least one who wants to change it, or else this matter wouldn't have arisen in the first place); then, what good does standing in the way of the latter do? Who benefits, from obstructing and denying the latter their opportunity, their preference?

This concept, then naturally flows into the closely related one of, allowing the overall cultural landscape to be a little more fluid, please, based upon (and crucially solely upon) player demand.
If there's a particularly popular culture among the players' preferences, we should look into considering letting that culture spread to more nations.
And on the other hand, if some culture is particularly unpopular (nobody wants to play there / uninterested), let's please free up some such nations for more popular cultures and/or for "open" nations as per the original request.

This is the current process but the flow has dried up. We also suffer from one-person nations (full disclosure: I am in one) where newcomers may be less inclined to go, which I think leads to your next suggestion...

If Particracy wants more players ... well then, why not arrange a more culturally-welcoming new home "nest" for them, in order to help attract them in this way? "Catch more flies with honey", etc., as it goes.

... Although, it's probably better to have players, instead of having flies.

It's an excellent idea but sadly one I don't think would be implemented in the current world; Wouter won't have the time to introduce the code. A tutorial nation or set of anglophone newbie nations for the first fortnight of so of play (a new player would need a time definition) would have been a good idea to let players learn the ropes. However, any one who inactivated and started a new party would be deprived of instant access to their nation of choice and only move after such a grace period. It may actually be a double-edged sword.

I agree with the ethos of your suggestion though: we need more things for newbies besides the tutorial but that's a much bigger issue than this thread can cover.

In order to participate in political discourse, this is perhaps expectable. However, which acculturation (is this protologistic?) steps should be required? What about minority parties who are actively opposing the existing culture in RP yet respect its existence OOC?

I'm afraid I don't understand this, sorry.
I can see the opposite -- that is, how a situation could arise where people would object to some arrangement or layout OOCly but would grudgingly go along with it ICly -- but, the reverse I just can't figure out, sorry.
How could a party ICly object to the blatantly obvious IC demographic facts on the ground ("why yes, we do see all of these people around us speaking Vietnamese, with nary an Urdu-speaker in sight, yet we still maintain and loudly proclaim that this nation is an overwhelmingly Urdu-speaking one") -- and further, why would they ever do such a weird thing if the player OOCly happens to have no OOC complaint about it?

Objecting to political opinions is one thing (and without which we wouldn't have much of a game...); objecting to set demographic facts is something else entirely, no?

(again, of course it's certainly possible to object to the latter, but such would be OOCly; doing so ICly without also doing so OOCly, I'm afraid just doesn't make any sense to me)

I'll re-explain because in retrospect I was probably a bit vague for the sake of brevity.

By actively opposing, I mean they are a party of a different ethnicity opposing the current regime IC (as "opposition", not threatening full overthrow) but respecting it OOC. When you think on it on a RL national cultural level, of course, this is a bit hard to make sense of as you're comparing the cultures of two nations forced together in one game nation. However, you could draw on a RL nation culture as inspiration for a regional culture in game, in the same way that different areas of Russia have different cultures; the Uighurs and Tibetans in China as well as the Han; Indigenous populations in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand; African cultures versus the legislative cultures from old Empires... even less stark differences on a ethnological level, such as that between Catalans and Castillians in Spain.

...the risk is by homogenising a national culture in a Cultural Protocol you actually could supress RP based on cultural diversities such as these.

IRL, of course the sudden existance of a new population would be a migration due to disaster or war of biblical proportions. However, we need to find a compromise between IC sense and OOC fairness to players in the Particracy world. This is often what makes decisions contentious in the Particracy world!

If you follow my line of thought, where would you draw the line?

I agree that most players should stick to the main culture's names and phonology, but for minority party players, perhaps of regional or migrant cultures, where do you draw the line: should the names be transliterated regardless of their origin or to what extent are other languages/orthographies permissable?

Seems straightforward to me. If any existing player complains, then the migrant should be asked to transliterate (at least); whereas if none of the existing players mind, then just let things be, please.

Just my ideas

I think this is a reasonable concession to make (after all, national newspapers in the original cultural language would need to transliterate names anyway) and seems to be a concensus developing.

I think the same rules should apply to all nations. Having some open and some closed seems kinda unrealistic to me. I would like to see the game emulate real life as much as possible, while still having the players in control and Moderation preventing the ridiculous. If a nation is abandoned and someone comes along and wants to change the CP then I think its should be allowed.

The Game should indeed emulate real life, but concessions have to made to Out Of Character fairness.

Abandoned nations should have their Cultural Protocols made accessible but after an OOC grace period: players inactivate for their holidays and other factors and shouldn't come back to see their RP work of the past year a smouldering ruin.

I think the scale of changes should be determined by how many players are involved in the RP for such change. The more players involved, the quicker CPs can be change. But I think that even a single player should be able to make slow and reasonable changes to the CP. RP from foreign players should have effect also. On my 'Overmoderation' thread, I complain about having to change my names because of the CP. I broke the rules, I know. But I had RP to back up what I was doing. I referenced things that were going on in other countries.

No nation is impervious to its neighbours as foreign policy must react to them or a very expensive wall needs maintaining to maintain isolation.

Your rate of change proportional to player count idea is pretty interesting and consistent with changes by mass action (which is a realism none of these have considered outside of the voting engine). Presuming a linear trend (you could argue an exponential), what would you consider a reasonable number of in-game player-years* to allow a change to happen while allowing OOC grace for inactivated players?

(*In case this isn't clear to anyone: similar to manhours in that an 8 hour task can be done in 1 hour by 8 people and in 4 hours by 2 as well as 8 hours by a lone worker. For example, if we went for 50 player-years, a lone player could take it over in 50 years (100 RL days), but an invasion of 8 (a full nation) would get it done in 7 years 3 months (which is 14.5 RL days))

Also, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think any player complained about my party names before I was asked by Mod to change them. I would like to see things relaxed a bit. Everyone is going to have different opinions on what is realistic RP and what isn't but I think if a player presents a case for their RP, and it is not drastically effecting other players' enjoyment of the game, then it should be allowed. The results of the vote so far is very interesting and I think the results so far support some relaxation of the rules.

Unfortunately a violation is a violation regardless of whether it was spotted or not -- I offer no opinion on the case itself here having commented in the other thread -- but indeed, the vote suggests a reconsideration would be popular with the community.

I would support a renaming of Cultural Protocols to something like "Demographic Protocols", since the document does not (and should not) enforce a particular political culture, style of politics, or political regime. Cultural Protocols enforce the underlying cultural demographics of a nation, but I don't think they've ever been taken to mean that a certain constitutional arrangement is to be locked in place. Political regimes should be allowed to change because they do, IRL, change, sometimes drastically and practically overnight, but the cultural (i.e. ethnic, linguistic, and religious) demographics should only be amended if there is realistic RP justifying the change...

Applied to the enforcement of Cultural Protocols, I largely agree with errant sperm's latest post. Cultural change should be allowed to happen, and internal as well as external RPd events should be accepted as justifications for changes, for the simple reason that it is difficult to get all nations likely to be affected by an event to RP its impact. For instance, any war is likely to result in an exodus of refugees to nearby countries, but few nations are willing to RP a refugee crisis (and I may add that was precisely the justification for increasing the number of Majatran minorities in Selucia, although that nation had not, until the Barmenian Refugee Crisis, RPd immigration from other war-torn nations from the continent). I admit I don't have much knowledge on errant's Valruzian and Mordusian RP, but if he can justify a large exodus from Valruzia to Mordusia then I don't see why his Polish cabinet names should not be allowed, especially since he has made no attempt to establish a Valruzian minority/apartheid regime or alter the demographics, and even if he had, he could have done so by creating RP.

Another good example and another interesting take on the situation. In short, Cultural Protocols were meant to protect RP, not unduly restrict it and it seems you are very much in line with a growing concensus on the matter.

I think CPs should be enforced as they are now, with perhaps more leniency on how cultural changes are justified, provided that the original culture is not altogether eradicated (leaving a small 5-15% of the original dominant group as common courtesy for the original creator should be enough), and that stronger protection is given to more unique cultures (I would be strongly opposed to any move that would try to Germanize Ibutho, for instance). And in addition to internal RP, players should be able to provide external RP as justification for cultural changes and their IG actions.

As much as protecting original cultures would be good for the game's diversity and RP (full disclosure: I have been and am involved with one), how would you define it for the avoidance of doubt and suitability for enforcement?

An interesting suggestion on the original culture though. There's a strong argument for retaining a percentage of the original culture, although some might argue a majority dropping to 10% overnight a bit unrealistic. How would do you balance OOC fairness with realism here?

External events do change local culture, and should at least be recognized, especially if it is part of a larger, multi-national RP, which domestic players have recognized and participated in. And, by the way, if anyone wants to RP a refugee crisis, please be sure to contact Kalistan. We have a long tradition of encouraging refugees to come to our country, and would theoretically have an infrastructure set up to provide assistance.

Some might even argue they define it. I also note your agreement with Polites and think that if a lot more closed nations offered welcomes with your frequency, it would be good for the game.

I suggest a "Particracy Tourist Board" for closed nations to post a cultural advert to introduce and welcome new players, almost as a matter of courtesy and inclusion in exchange for their protection. Ideas, criticisms and extensions welcome.

Stand strong, fellow "Scrap them!" voter, whoever you are!

Scrapping them is an interesting idea, but I fear that would give us older players more chances to bitch about new players not respecting our RPs. Cultural Protocols are a good way to provide a summary of a nation's overall character to all newcomers, whether old or new players.

Therein lies the trade-off. "The System Comes First" had a beautiful simplicity but the winner very much takes it all. Having a nation in a state of permanent "Multiple Culture Disorder" just breeds discontent as well; Deltaria's disquiet led to the formation of these very protocols.

In seriousness, though, I've become more and more convinced that if you like something you've built you should have to protect it yourself or else convince others to protect it. There's an actual argument to be made that CPs are overmoderation, and the idealist in me would much prefer that people realize on their own that the work you've done (for instance) all over Terra is better for consistency and the game as a whole than them just doing whatever the hell they want - I don't think Aquinas / Amaz should be given the task or the ability to just come down hard on new kids because they're idiots, I genuinely believe the community as a whole should come down hard on new kids because they're idiots, and we should allow nation raiding etc., to restore cultures as was common in the Good Old Days(tm). Shit was more fun then. I'm a bit jaded, though.

It would certainly encourage cultures that were actively engaged with multiple players to survive, perhaps at the expense of nascent ideas struck down before they could flourish that perhaps could have been better.

I would be all for Moderation only allowing CPs that make logical sense for a region, continent, area, etc. Having things make sense is surely something most people could agree with. I mean, largely, only a few nations would be affected by such a change.

I would ask that you expand on "make sense". Do you mean that cultures have to make sense in terms of evolution from existing ones and would this restrict the formation of entirely new ideas? I just want to make sure I understand.

Instead of CP, lets call it a Census. That would give it more of an in character feel. Time between the last census, combined with amount and quality of RP, should be factors in how much it can be changed.

Censuses have been passed in nations inside and outside of Cultural Protocols and it would make sense to define an initial census in a Protocol. I would argue it makes more sense to define a Census as an instrument for a soft amendment to an existing Cultural Protocol, in line with their frequency IRL.

If you want a more realistic IC name for the original Cultural Protocol, I'm not sure a single thing stands out. It may be better to define it as a historical treatise or a cultural/tourist guide, aimed at welcoming new players, perhaps?

{Expansions inbetween read and noted}

Perhaps what the situation needs is a asymmetric approach to CPs and culture in PT...

Unfortunately, there is no in-game repository of cultures outside of the bills and treaty engines, as much as cultures usually transcend nations into diaspora. The crux of this debate is drawing the line between preventing absolute subversion and allowing new incoming cultures recognition.

Perhaps individual cultures are better represented as International Organisations which are then recognised in bills would achieve this asymmetric approach, but I'd be interested to see what you'd come up with for this.

[TheNewGuy]

In seriousness, though, I've become more and more convinced that if you like something you've built you should have to protect it yourself or else convince others to protect it. There's an actual argument to be made that CPs are overmoderation, and the idealist in me would much prefer that people realize on their own that the work you've done (for instance) all over Terra is better for consistency and the game as a whole than them just doing whatever the hell they want - I don't think Aquinas / Amaz should be given the task or the ability to just come down hard on new kids because they're idiots, I genuinely believe the community as a whole should come down hard on new kids because they're idiots, and we should allow nation raiding etc., to restore cultures as was common in the Good Old Days(tm). Shit was more fun then. I'm a bit jaded, though.

It would certainly encourage cultures that were actively engaged with multiple players to survive, perhaps at the expense of nascent ideas struck down before they could flourish that perhaps could have been better.

Meh, I think it'd lead to anarchy, because what culture actually has any sort of multi-player support? The Jelbic nations alone struggled to keep all of the several nations Jelbic at once, and that was some of the most coordinated RP we've had in quite a while. I think you could easily make the argument that most of the cultures in Terra's many nations would collapse very quickly if we didn't have the CPs, which begs the question as to why even bother with the CPs at all? If people can't be assed to protect their own creations, then they probably should learn to let go of those creations, or they should make their creations more interesting (e.g. Jelbic) so that more people want to get involved. Essentially I see CPs now like Aquinas standing over every nation holding a machine gun and pointing it at anyone who doesn't respect the work some random bastard did 400 in game years ago. In the long run, who cares? Aside from Polites/Liu and their crew nobody put much thought into the regional consistency of CPs that were really what CPs should have been about in the first place (in my opinion) and so now we've got nonsense built by randoms who happened to be in the right nation at the right time next to nonsense protected by Aquinas and we call it a victory. Meh. Let people fight for their shit without the Mods. Let the Mods be reactivators and deactivators like they used to be, let nation raiding recommence, and let the will of the majority go. Sure, it means the destruction of some legitimate work by people like Polites and friends, but I'M FATALISTIC OK?

I would be all for Moderation only allowing CPs that make logical sense for a region, continent, area, etc. Having things make sense is surely something most people could agree with. I mean, largely, only a few nations would be affected by such a change.

I would ask that you expand on "make sense". Do you mean that cultures have to make sense in terms of evolution from existing ones and would this restrict the formation of entirely new ideas? I just want to make sure I understand.

I think he means more like Regional Protocols (Majatran nations should have an ethnography that fits into Majatra's flavor as a whole, etc.), though I may be wrong. I dramatically favor this approach.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

Yes, a Regional Protocol. The regions should make sense and not be a chaotic mix of language families, ethnic groups, etc. Of course, there should be room for hybridization, but overall, regions should be consistent.

[Doc]

Without responding to the myriad points, let me just add, that in my opinion: a Terran Archaeological Society (dedicated to unearthing evidence in the forums and in the Nation's laws of various cultural "artifacts") would be a great idea, as would a Terran Tourist Board. I attempted, a long time ago, to get people interested in visiting Kalistan by the foundation of several cultural exchange programs, one with our friends in Dorvik, and one with Indrala (I think) as well as an Embassy Row. I think Kalistan is so peripheral to world events that few took notice. That is largely our fault of course- Our house rule was that before Kalistan becomes embroiled in any international affairs, all active players had to vote to participate in the RP, and SPoK usually opposed it when it involved military force (except one time when 6200 of our 7500 socialist irregulars were VX gassed to death by the Likatonians following accusations of godmodding.) Nonetheless, Kalistan wants a more active role in International affairs- and so we would be happy to join with more active players in doing some RPs around the CPs. (I'm starting to sound like a black panther)

[EEL Mk2]

Back when Cultural Protocols were introduced, there was also the concept of cultural dormancy in a culture to allow a nation to be regenerated as a new idea by other players. As new nations are unlikely to appear as Wouter focusses on the new world, would you favour a multi-tiered system of freedoms for nations with different levels of restrictions to give more scope or do you feel this would be a complication for the community?

Yes, I think this makes a lot of sense. There is, however, something to be said for protecting unique and uniquely well-developed cultures even if the originals players are no longer present. That would be an exception (to be determined by moderation) from the norm though.

This would create a problem though. How would you stop a Cultural Protocol defining absolute intolerance of minority languages IC, preventing any variation and potentially being unfair on new players with new ideas OOC, even if these new players respect the aspect of the culture?

Moderation could refuse to enforce cultural protocols (or sections thereof if the rest if sound) that they feel are inappropriate or excessively restrictive. Potentially sanctions could apply if cultural protocols were drafted with the specific intent of thwarting new players (although this would be very difficult to prove), or if someone is a repeat offender in this regard.

An interesting suggestion on the original culture though. There's a strong argument for retaining a percentage of the original culture, although some might argue a majority dropping to 10% overnight a bit unrealistic. How would do you balance OOC fairness with realism here?

I don't see that there's any need to balance OOC fairness with realism in that I believe that they are, in this context, one and the same. Realism would demand that cultural change be possible but not excessively drastic. I would think that fairness would have similar implications.

Yes, a Regional Protocol. The regions should make sense and not be a chaotic mix of language families, ethnic groups, etc. Of course, there should be room for hybridization, but overall, regions should be consistent.

With respect, I very strongly oppose this. This may come as a surprise given my general sympathy for the simulationist point of view. I would certainly favour this proposal if we were starting from scratch, but given that anomalies have arisen in the distribution of cultures as a result of long years of RP and contributions from various members of the Particracy community, I feel that to suddenly require cultural consistency across regions would overturn so much RP and hard work that it would, quite frankly, be a great shame.

[Martinulus]

Yes, a Regional Protocol. The regions should make sense and not be a chaotic mix of language families, ethnic groups, etc. Of course, there should be room for hybridization, but overall, regions should be consistent.

With respect, I very strongly oppose this. This may come as a surprise given my general sympathy for the simulationist point of view. I would certainly favour this proposal if we were starting from scratch, but given that anomalies have arisen in the distribution of cultures as a result of long years of RP and contributions from various members of the Particracy community, I feel that to suddenly require cultural consistency across regions would overturn so much RP and hard work that it would, quite frankly, be a great shame.

I agree with EEL here. I get the feeling that this is mostly about Dovani, and that's also the best example why, with all due respect, this isn't a good idea at all. If we look at Dovani a few IG centuries ago, it was considerably more diverse and interesting than it is now. The reason is very simple: a group of players consistently pushing the view that Dovani is or ought to be Asia on everyone, totally trampling on Dovani's equal status as America. I won't name names, but some people in that group (not Liu, though) have consistently refused to consider the fact that the cultures they prefer would have turned out differently in the face of colonization. Southeast Asia was never colonized, but Dovani was. The total purge of all things Western from Dovani would quite simply be a shame, but it will happen with Regional Protocols. You can say what you want about nations like Hulstria, but they were fully embedded in the continent's history, totally legit and very detailed. What, then, does it matter that there was for the time being an Austria-Japan sharing a border with Socialist Imperial Japan ruled by a line of Empresses?

That brings me to my second point. Do we really want Terra to be a boring pastiche of Earth? Because that's what consistency does. If we had passed Regional Protocols setting down the character of Majatra, would it really have become the eclectic, explosive and unstable mix of the Mediterranean, Middle East, Steppe and Russian elements it is today? I don't quite think so. Still, the fictional history that has developed to justify a mix of cultures that, on the face of it, would have to be discarded as quite ridiculous, is one of the most detailed and interesting in the game. Rather than stimulating creativity, Regional Protocols would turn everything into the perfect copies of RL nations that, let's face it, are rather boring. Instead of whining about consistency, we should realise that the strange mix of cultures we're landed with can also be a force for creativity, if we but abide by the basic rule of RP: accept eachother's premises - which in this case means don't deny the legitimate existence of present and past cultural RP in a nation simply because it doesn't fit in with your personal opinions about what the region should be like. Run with it - some of the best RP in Particracy originated because people simply ran with it. Remember Dranland? The ridiculous mixture of Welshmen, Koreans and Spanish/Filipinos wasn't realistic in the sense that it would ever be happening in the real world, but it did make for some of the best ethnic conflict RP I've seen and also the most active International News topic in the game.

What I'm trying to say is: realism and consistency can only get you so far. The best RP comes out of reconciling unlikely situations with eachother and finding the common or opposed patterns.