EEL123 wrote:I personally think that it's a horrible, unwieldy institution that needs massive trimming.
If you have not noticed in my off-topic threads, I tend to shut up and wait for other people to talk first. Nevertheless, if you object to my relative silence, I will talk.GreekIdiot wrote:That ain't much to start with.
EEL123 wrote:1) (2.2.1) Shorten the inactivity time before a party is killed. Four or five days in enough. Many people will agree that the seven-day limit is irritating.
EEL123 wrote:2) (3, 8.2.3, 9.6.1, 9.6.4) Real-world names, ideologies, etc. shouldn't be banned. Sure, Particracy is not the real world, but there is no damage.
EEL123 wrote:3) (4.1.4.2; 4.3.4) What's wrong with strong language? It doesn't hurt anyone. People swear all the time, and nobody, as far as I know, has died from it.
EEL123 wrote:4) (4.1.5 - 4.1.7, 9.1) Our egos and self-images don't need protection. So what if there are a few personal attacks? It should only be banned if it satisfies 4.1.4.3.
EEL123 wrote:5) (5.3.2) If there is consensus to enforce a law, custodial sentences can be ridiculous if that's the law. Characters should be able to be shot if agreed.
EEL123 wrote:6) (5.3.8, 6.1.1) If you agree to an RP, you're in. It's irritating when people start pulling out. An exception, though, for 9.5 offences, or where it degenerates into 4.1.4.3.
EEL123 wrote:7) (6.2.3) Why? They've agreed. It's not like it's godmodding.
EEL123 wrote:10) (6.9.3) Provided that the copied item is reasonable in the context, there's no reason to ban it.
Taken to the logical extreme, there may not even be intelligent life on Terra. Let us RP as rocks.Zanz wrote:There was no Jesus Christ on Terra, there can be no "Christianity" derived from his name.
Well then deactivate and re-activate when you're free again. Otherwise, it gets in the way.Zanz wrote:But there are cases, from my own life, where I get busy with school work, real life, etc.
Well, if emotional damage is involved, fine. But seriously, the cases requiring intervention should be reduced.Zanz wrote:Maybe you don't mind if someone is disrespectful to you, but there are those who do, and you should respect that.
Pretty much.Zanz wrote:I don't understand this rule or your complaint with it completely, but from what I understand, what you're saying is possible through RP...
Some unreasonable rules exist. Some reasonable rules don't. Just because I like to cut doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to add. If you pull out of an RP, that is in a sense a "breach of contract", if you will, with the other participants.Zanz wrote:So you're doing away with rules for most things, but now you want the rules to enforce players staying in an RP that they no longer consent to?
I mean everyone agreeing to the numbers, not just a handful of them.Zanz wrote:Could be godmodding. Parties A and B agree to numbers, then invade Party C, who did not agree. Essentially, this rule protects the Rildanor Accords, from my understanding.
Try 9.6.3.Zanz wrote:Can't seem to find the article you're citing. Mistype?
EEL123 wrote:Taken to the logical extreme, there may not even be intelligent life on Terra. Let us RP as rocks.Zanz wrote:There was no Jesus Christ on Terra, there can be no "Christianity" derived from his name.
EEL123 wrote:Well then deactivate and re-activate when you're free again. Otherwise, it gets in the way.Zanz wrote:But there are cases, from my own life, where I get busy with school work, real life, etc.
EEL123 wrote:Well, if emotional damage is involved, fine. But seriously, the cases requiring intervention should be reduced.Zanz wrote:Maybe you don't mind if someone is disrespectful to you, but there are those who do, and you should respect that.
EEL123 wrote:Some unreasonable rules exist. Some reasonable rules don't. Just because I like to cut doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to add. If you pull out of an RP, that is in a sense a "breach of contract", if you will, with the other participants.Zanz wrote:So you're doing away with rules for most things, but now you want the rules to enforce players staying in an RP that they no longer consent to?
EEL123 wrote:I mean everyone agreeing to the numbers, not just a handful of them.Zanz wrote:Could be godmodding. Parties A and B agree to numbers, then invade Party C, who did not agree. Essentially, this rule protects the Rildanor Accords, from my understanding.
EEL123 wrote:Try 9.6.3.Zanz wrote:Can't seem to find the article you're citing. Mistype?
The issue isn't whether it's easy or difficult to comply with the rule. It's whether or not it should exist in the first place.Zanz wrote:Seems silly to take issue with this. How hard is it to throw some random names up?
But I see no reason when consent is given by everyone why they can't have larger-than-normal armies.Zanz wrote:I'd argue that this is enforced fairly, then. I've never seen mods step into RP unless requested, and when they do step in, I doubt this rule will be used unfairly. Indeed, this rule allows them to step in at all. If one player is getting dogpiled and needs legal help, that's the mods' job.
That's because people might not complain. You may have noticed, but I am an irritating, whiny person.Zanz wrote:I can't think of many times where this rule is enforced, and I can think of NO times where this rule is controversial when enforced.
Here, for a change, we need to toughen enforcement. Cultural protocols and stuff need to be actually enforced; trivial rules don't, but they make up at least a quarter of the Pax Cynica.Zanz wrote:If you lessen the inactivation requirements, you lose a lot of Particracy's most dedicated players, and you lose a lot of the last bastions of traditional culture.
Not normally. But I am a legalistic type.Zanz wrote:Breach of contract. In a game. Played primarily by adolescent boys. You're optimistic.
EEL123 wrote:The issue isn't whether it's easy or difficult to comply with the rule. It's whether or not it should exist in the first place.Zanz wrote:Seems silly to take issue with this. How hard is it to throw some random names up?But I see no reason when consent is given by everyone why they can't have larger-than-normal armies.Zanz wrote:I'd argue that this is enforced fairly, then. I've never seen mods step into RP unless requested, and when they do step in, I doubt this rule will be used unfairly. Indeed, this rule allows them to step in at all. If one player is getting dogpiled and needs legal help, that's the mods' job.That's because people might not complain. You may have noticed, but I am an irritating, whiny person.Zanz wrote:I can't think of many times where this rule is enforced, and I can think of NO times where this rule is controversial when enforced.Here, for a change, we need to toughen enforcement. Cultural protocols and stuff need to be actually enforced; trivial rules don't, but they make up at least a quarter of the Pax Cynica.Zanz wrote:If you lessen the inactivation requirements, you lose a lot of Particracy's most dedicated players, and you lose a lot of the last bastions of traditional culture.Not normally. But I am a legalistic type.Zanz wrote:Breach of contract. In a game. Played primarily by adolescent boys. You're optimistic.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests