Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby SelucianCrusader » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:15 pm

As for now, we do not know if the Union for a Sovereign Future is pro- or anti-felinist, or perhaps neutral on the matter. All we know is that it supports the introduction of a monarchy, and doesn't seem hostile to felinism at the moment.

Thank you for bringing this up to discussion! There is no fun for anyone in nation-raiders completely ignoring RP-conversions and destroying ancient cultures. There is no fun in a world filled with generic republics. In the case of the Eredian Party, I can't see why he is even allowed to participate. The troll has taken over countries many times and renamed them after himself, he has always ignored RP and made no sense in his moves. Why moderation doesn't intervene is beyond my understanding, it seems like a great ignorance of anything but game-mechanics to me.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby Fred » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:14 pm

Yes, Jack - why do people do that?
Fred
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:08 pm

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby catparty » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:16 pm

The game will always be in flux, I think we can all agree on that. Particracy is meant for those of us who love political competition.

I do wish though, that something more could be done to require that players respect existing cultures even as they try to present their own fresh take on them. The game is best when players build on what has come before, rather than trying to treat countries as blank slates after winning elections.

For example, I think that all of the Felinist players in Barmenia have done a great job at presenting Terra with a valuable culture for the past few hundred years. While doing that, we have tried to preserve and respect previous Barmenian cultures. (Hence our island of Kathuristan having a predominantly islamic take on felinism.)

As another example, consider Luthori. Everyone knows the strength and longevity of the Luthori monarchy. Part of what made the recent plotline regarding Luthori upheaval fun was that while the monarch was briefly overthrown, all of the involved parties did so in such a way that was respectful to the monarchist culture. One player overthrew the monarch, and soon afterwards supported restoring the monarch, because he respected that IC the monarchy was popular enough to have sway over even republican parties. Another party from Davostag wanted a share of the Luthori monarchy's titles, so he showed that he valued the monarchy even while opposing it. A third seems to have been trying to overthrow the monarchy for centuries, so by the time it happened that party had clearly shown its IC reasoning. Luthori was an example of how the most interesting gameplay respects what had come before it.

What's not nearly as fun is when parties appear in a country and RP orthogonally to how RP has always gone before. I call this the "Democratic Party/President/Senate/Federal Republic" Syndrome. RP isn't for everyone, but I think we should develop a consensus that players who do choose to RP should RP in accordance with a nation's RP history.

* If a party enters a country with a clear existing culture/religion, they should either adopt it or have IC reasons for not doing so. IC reasons would not be that a culture is "stupid". If the religion/culture has been around for a long time in a country, then their party's leaders and voters would either A) have been brought up under that culture and would not reject it fully or lightly; or B) have immigrated from another country, in which case they should also be RPing that a wave of immigration occurred over time.

* If a party arrives in a country with an established culture and starts renaming HoS and Legislature to names that don't fit into the existing culturally protected culture, like "President" and "Senate", then the moderators should edit the titles to read "President (Culturallyreleventname)" so that the name that fits into the culture is kept in parentheses after the generic name.

* Etc.
Libertarian Alliance of Cats
Feline Homeland of Barmenia

Progressive Party
Realms of Luthori
catparty
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby catparty » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:24 pm

Also, "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" isn't exactly a HoS title that goes against the culture of Luthori. Its definitely not a "President of the United States of Luthori" type of situation.
Libertarian Alliance of Cats
Feline Homeland of Barmenia

Progressive Party
Realms of Luthori
catparty
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby Reno » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:41 pm

Jackmeister wrote:Similarly, I agree with catparty's proposals next to the *'s. If only, as well as cultural protocols, there could be political protocols to protect countries such as Luthori that have a long history of monarchy and conservative views, for example.

While I agree with your concerns, personally I think the political protocols should be incorporated into the cultural protocol, if anything. After all, the political system of a country is (usually) a product of the culture, and a political system that stands long enough will have effects on the culture as well, as in the case of Luthori (as well as Beluzia, if I were to advertise our country). A RL example would be Japan, of which the divine emperor is in place for long enough (even though most of the time he/she was just a puppet of the shogunate), that imagining a Japan without an emperor is very difficult, as the failure of the more radical communist movements in Japan, as well as the current stance of JCP to the emperor possibly proved.
Resident Chinese/Cantonese, upholder of Gao-Showan civilisation.
User avatar
Reno
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:15 pm

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby catparty » Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:15 pm

I support keeping political systems IC, but not as game variables. I think that players should be permitted to overthrow kings, but that afterwards the players should still acknowledge that the monarchy existed, that the royal family is still out there somewhere, and that a significant portion of the population probably still misses the monarchy.

Making it such that monarchies can't be overthrown or created at all would neuter a significant portion of gameplay. The IML's goldenage was based upon encouraging monarchy creations across Terra. The current ATR era is based upon rolling back monarchies and defending republics. If neither side was permitted to have victories, it would get boring for everyone.

Also, if the moderators do end up listening to us, and start providing a greater degree of cultural protection in some nations, I feel that they should also specify a few Culture Free Nations. The Culture Free Nations could be where players who like having blank slates to work with could go and create their "Generic Republics of PlayerName" without paying any attention to their countries' previous histories.
Libertarian Alliance of Cats
Feline Homeland of Barmenia

Progressive Party
Realms of Luthori
catparty
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby Fred » Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:32 pm

catparty wrote:As another example, consider Luthori. Everyone knows the strength and longevity of the Luthori monarchy. Part of what made the recent plotline regarding Luthori upheaval fun was that while the monarch was briefly overthrown, all of the involved parties did so in such a way that was respectful to the monarchist culture. One player overthrew the monarch, and soon afterwards supported restoring the monarch, because he respected that IC the monarchy was popular enough to have sway over even republican parties. Another party from Davostag wanted a share of the Luthori monarchy's titles, so he showed that he valued the monarchy even while opposing it. A third seems to have been trying to overthrow the monarchy for centuries, so by the time it happened that party had clearly shown its IC reasoning. Luthori was an example of how the most interesting gameplay respects what had come before it.

That may have been what it looked like from outside, but it wasn't what it looked like from inside, which was a prime example of nation-raiding. Jackmeister changed his tune because he realised he wouldn't get a supermajority in the next election, and because I martialed support inside and outside Luthori against the changes. The Davostag Invasion Brigade was brought in precisely to counteract the Commonwealth Party. They now refuse to leave unless they get their way. They're out to make a land-grab for Luthori and seem totally uninterested in actual RP. As for the People's Party, they likewise don't engage much in actual RP. In the main both of these parties vote assiduously - either to remove all of Luthori's military spending, or to withdraw us from various treaties, or to go to war with Kundrati and have a civil war at the same time, but RP? Post? No. As I say, it doesn't look much like RP to me.

What's not nearly as fun is when parties appear in a country and RP orthogonally to how RP has always gone before. I call this the "Democratic Party/President/Senate/Federal Republic" Syndrome. RP isn't for everyone, but I think we should develop a consensus that players who do choose to RP should RP in accordance with a nation's RP history.

Which is pretty much exactly what the Luthori Commonwealth Party/Luthori Labour Party was doing: inactivating to preserve visibility, then reactivating immediately before elections. He was pulling the same trick in Beluzia as well with a different account. Frankly, at the time I considered it an ATR attack on Luthori (which given that a few months ago, the country was suddenly flooded with republican parties, didn't seem that unlikely, particularly given the Hulstria debacle), and I'm still not convinced it wasn't.

catparty wrote:Also, "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" isn't exactly a HoS title that goes against the culture of Luthori. Its definitely not a "President of the United States of Luthori" type of situation.

Only if you think Luthori is a purely British nation, and a British nation with no particular periodic leaning. It isn't. Our own cultural protocols define us as a mix of 19th Century Britain (where a "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth" would have been unthinkable), and the Holy Roman Empire of the 15th Century. The point is: it's an Anglo-Germanic mix, and Jack here decided to completely rip out the Germanic elements. Admittedly, my own change of the Diet to an Estates-General in this context was not a good move, but the point remains. If one thing has come out of this which is good, it is a determination not to reduce the Germanic element in future.
Fred
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 6:08 pm

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby Polites » Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:46 pm

Jackmeister wrote:Forgive me if I'm wrong, but these are the only countries that visibly have a non-English culture: Al'Badara (Arabic), Alduria (French), Beiteynu (Hebrew/Israeli/Jewish), Cobura (Esperanto), Dorvik (German), Dundorf (German), Hulstria (Austrian/German), Hobrazia (Georgian), Indrala (Chinese), Kafuristan (Arabic), Canrile/Kanjor/Rildanor (French), Kazulia (Norwegian), Likatonia (weird mix of Latvian, Latin, and Gaelic?), Lourenne (French), Kizenia (Romanian), Saridan (Afrikaans/Dutch), Sekowo (Japanese), Selucia (Latin), Trigunia (Russian), Valruzia (Polish), Vanuku (Dutch). I think we need more.


There is also Cildania, which has a Phoenician/Syriac/Non-Islamic Levantine culture, reflected in their Hos, HoG, and Legislative titles.

Jackmeister wrote:I don't think there are any African-styled countries either..

Particracy is just too darn white...

Jackmeister wrote:But countries such as Luthori that have a monarchy that is deeply entrenched in its history, culture, and politics, it would be unlikely that anyone would oppose the monarchy. Nevermind on a scale that could actually overthrow it.

I'm not saying that all countries should have this political protocol protection, I'm personally arguing for a more elitist protocol that would only apply to countries that have a very long tradition of a certain system, like Luthori that I keep using as an example.


I think even that would be too limiting on creativity and new input. The real world itself has many examples of deeply entrenched monarchies collapsing, and countries experiencing all sorts of different political systems, irrespective of their culture. This has happened in Particracy as well, countless times (Hulstria was a communist dictatorship for a while, and even Luthori had a civil war between republicans and monarchists). No matter how popular or long-established a certain regime may seem, there will always be a few people that feel marginalized or dissatisfied, and if well organized and/or armed, they can certainly overthrow it.

So while culture itself should be protected, the political system should not, for reasons both of realism, and player liberty. New players should not feel like they have to do their homework before playing this game.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby Reno » Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:55 pm

Polites wrote:
Jackmeister wrote:I don't think there are any African-styled countries either..

Particracy is just too darn white...

It is kind of to be expected for an English webgame. At least we have more than US-clones, such as some European countries and some... well, Orient countries around. Admittedly, cultures other than these tend to be unknown to most, especially for colonised places like Africa and pre-colonial Americas.

Polites wrote:I think even that would be too limiting on creativity and new input. The real world itself has many examples of deeply entrenched monarchies collapsing, and countries experiencing all sorts of different political systems, irrespective of their culture. This has happened in Particracy as well, countless times (Hulstria was a communist dictatorship for a while, and even Luthori had a civil war between republicans and monarchists). No matter how popular or long-established a certain regime may seem, there will always be a few people that feel marginalized or dissatisfied, and if well organized and/or armed, they can certainly overthrow it.

So while culture itself should be protected, the political system should not, for reasons both of realism, and player liberty. New players should not feel like they have to do their homework before playing this game.

While I agree with that, I still think that a long-standing system should not be completely uprooted quickly. Instead, I believe the new system should have some remnants of the old system around the corner. Of course, it makes setting up rules for it to be very difficult, and I guess we can just encourage and suggest people to consider that, rather than a hard limit.
Resident Chinese/Cantonese, upholder of Gao-Showan civilisation.
User avatar
Reno
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:15 pm

Re: Generic republics and Anglo-Saxon cultures

Postby SelucianCrusader » Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:50 pm

Some suggestions:

1. That the cultural protocols should be declared to be above game-mechanics.
2. That players ignorant of the cultural aspects of their nation should be banned. (this is not relevant when it comes to cultural upheavals with adequate RP-backstories, such as the Selucian colonization of Pontesi or a Gishoto rebellion in Hulstria)
3. That the changing of the national motto and national animals should be made to require a 2/3:s majority.
4. That the moderation should be given the task to intervene to protect and support countries with original cultural flavours.

Don't know if any of this is possible though.

New players should not feel like they have to do their homework before playing this game.
No, but they should at least take, say, 5-10 minutes to get the basics about the cultural character of the nation that they have chosen. New players ought to respect what others have created.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests