Cold wrote:Changing governments is one thing, but changing culture is a whole other thing. It doesn't make sense, it's detrimental to any attempt at piecing together a history of the nation, and it prevents any unique cultures in Particracy from flourishing without a full guard of devoted parties. Whatever happened to the Cultural Protection thing? To be honest, this seems like a perfect time to enact it.
We've still got it but, nearly everyone said it was shit and too much moderator intrusion; which it wasn't but, I digress to the stated public opinions when it was presented. It did have a surprising majority in favor via votes but, like most all things on the forums anyone who can put their fingers on a keyboard beat the life out of the idea for all sorts of ill-informed reasons. Hell the original author Adjective came out against it only to later say he favored it. I said then and I'll say it again, it was an opt-in option for nations. If I'm not mistaken, I very well could be, you were also opposed to it Cold as was many others posting in this thread. If the "community" is now having an about face on their feelings on the C.A. I would be more than happy to re-post the draft again and take up another snap-vote to weigh it out again.
I'm not opposed to implementing it. As said, it's an opt-in set of protections for the very issues being tossed around in here and has crap all to do with moderators having say over a nation. Another more recent issue that has taken place behind the scenes is a new 'directive' if you will about nation name changes that is somewhat in line with the Cultural Protocols. I forget which nation or what case it was but, I went direct to Wouter about it as afterall, the rules state his word is final, and there were some disagreements on when moderation should say no to a nation name change. I realize this hasn't been articulated in public yet and I don't mean to open a can of worms about it but, Wouter's opinion on nation name changes was that they should not deviate from the original names without a 'considerable' amount of RP to substantiate such a change. To be clear I'm not talking about the various words selected to represent a nation I'm talking strictly about the nations name, for example I could not change the name of Zardugal to say Dugal; there has been no RP whatsoever to justify this sort of name change. This is a small step to preserving culture and I know George, Jay and myself are aware of this opinion of Wouters and have stuck by it.
Don't shoot the messenger...
Now as far as the Cultural Protocols are concerned; no it was never implemented Yanks for some of if not all of the reasons previously mentioned. However, I will go ahead and re-post it in another thread and let everyone have another whack at it. Being as it hasn't been implemented, it can change. I've never said I would refuse to alter it as presented, I didn't come up with the bloody thing so I have zero invested interest in seeing it come into effect as it is nor does George or Jay to my knowledge. It was conceived in the spirit in which I'm seeing a lot of ill content and have seen it before about intentional cultural crashing. Personally, I see no allure to culture crashing a nation. It seems to me this is a tactic reserved for people with a hard-on for a player or players, we all have our cases we can cite here. It seems I'm not alone in this view and if you share it, you should do your part to contribute to the C.P. versus just pointing out it's failures. If you all want some form of opt-in protection from the things discussed, it's in your hands at this point...