Pax Cynica - Amendment Proposals

[EEL123]

What would you like added to or removed from the Pax Cynica? I personally think that it's a horrible, unwieldy institution that needs massive trimming.

[GreekIdiot]

I personally think that it's a horrible, unwieldy institution that needs massive trimming.

That ain't much to start with. You're giving the impression that you have no clue about Pax Cynica, never dedicated time to it, but nevertheless don't like it and wish to change it, but without any clue of what to do. Or you're simply bored at researching a bit and want people to dedicate time to your topic either way or another, since a negative or positive response won't matter to you - cause "darling, i tried" is in place for you.

[Mr.Yankees]

I would not mess with George over the few days. He is on fire!

[EEL123]

That ain't much to start with.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
7) (6.2.3) Why? They've agreed. It's not like it's godmodding.
8) (6.3.4, 6.3.7, 9.5.3) Many nations declare war in contravention of international treaties. Provided that the other participants agree, break them for all I care.
9) (6.5.3.4, 6.5.3.5) There's no reason for these regulations. If you want to be in charge, nominate yourself.
10) (6.9.3) Provided that the copied item is reasonable in the context, there's no reason to ban it.

There. Happy?

[Mr.Yankees]

Why do you need to attack a player personally and use foul language? Can you nor communicate like regular folks do? Let's be honest, the moderators won't chastise you if you use a couple of f-bombs and I couldn't care less but if it becomes a pattern, it's annoying and rude.

[Zanz]

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.

Won't happen, and shouldn't happen, in my opinion. Generally, yes, people can keep their parties active over the course of 3-5 days. But there are cases, from my own life, where I get busy with school work, real life, etc. People should not be punished for being busy. Yes, sometimes the old and less active parties tend to hinder RP, but at the same time it is important to bear in mind that some of those inactive parties have contributed a lot to this game. My generation is getting older and busier, but we still want to play. Don't punish us for that.

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.

Seems silly to take issue with this. How hard is it to throw some random names up? And I don't even want to go into the whole issue we had very recently over the naming of religions, etc. But this rule makes sense. There was no Jesus Christ on Terra, there can be no "Christianity" derived from his name.

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.

IC swearing has always been allowed, so long as it is not the basis of a party, so to speak. And OOC swearing is rare. When has this ever been an issue? It's a political game. You've got to have some guidelines or everything will be a flamewar.

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.

Seriously, I see no point to your complaints with these rules. You're basically complaining about it being written down, from what I can gather? Maybe you don't mind if someone is disrespectful to you, but there are those who do, and you should respect that.

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.

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...

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.

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?

7) (6.2.3) Why? They've agreed. It's not like it's godmodding.

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.

10) (6.9.3) Provided that the copied item is reasonable in the context, there's no reason to ban it.

Can't seem to find the article you're citing. Mistype?

[EEL123]

There was no Jesus Christ on Terra, there can be no "Christianity" derived from his name.

Taken to the logical extreme, there may not even be intelligent life on Terra. Let us RP as rocks.

But there are cases, from my own life, where I get busy with school work, real life, etc.

Well then deactivate and re-activate when you're free again. Otherwise, it gets in the way.

Maybe you don't mind if someone is disrespectful to you, but there are those who do, and you should respect that.

Well, if emotional damage is involved, fine. But seriously, the cases requiring intervention should be reduced.

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...

Pretty much.

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?

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.

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.

I mean everyone agreeing to the numbers, not just a handful of them.

Can't seem to find the article you're citing. Mistype?

Try 9.6.3.

[Zanz]

There was no Jesus Christ on Terra, there can be no "Christianity" derived from his name.

Taken to the logical extreme, there may not even be intelligent life on Terra. Let us RP as rocks.

No, we know there is intelligent life on Terra; it's who we're playing as.

But there are cases, from my own life, where I get busy with school work, real life, etc.

Well then deactivate and re-activate when you're free again. Otherwise, it gets in the way.

And let my work be scuttled by nation raiders and adolescents with nothing better to do after 3:00 PM than destroy something beautiful? No. I am still playing; I can still defend my work. If my definition of "playing" is different than your, then I'm sorry, but the vast majority of the game does not take place on the forum, anyway. RP is nice, but the RPing population of Particracy is a minor proportion of the total population. 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.

Maybe you don't mind if someone is disrespectful to you, but there are those who do, and you should respect that.

Well, if emotional damage is involved, fine. But seriously, the cases requiring intervention should be reduced.

Maybe you can point me to the cases you're referencing. 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.

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?

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.

Breach of contract. In a game. Played primarily by adolescent boys.

You're optimistic.

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.

I mean everyone agreeing to the numbers, not just a handful of them.

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.

Can't seem to find the article you're citing. Mistype?

Try 9.6.3.

I see it now, but have no comment on this one. Thanks.

[EEL123]

Seems silly to take issue with this. How hard is it to throw some random names up?

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.

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.

But I see no reason when consent is given by everyone why they can't have larger-than-normal armies.

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.

That's because people might not complain. You may have noticed, but I am an irritating, whiny person.

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.

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.

Breach of contract. In a game. Played primarily by adolescent boys. You're optimistic.

Not normally. But I am a legalistic type.

[Mr.Yankees]

Seems silly to take issue with this. How hard is it to throw some random names up?

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.

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.

But I see no reason when consent is given by everyone why they can't have larger-than-normal armies.

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.

That's because people might not complain. You may have noticed, but I am an irritating, whiny person.

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.

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.

Breach of contract. In a game. Played primarily by adolescent boys. You're optimistic.

Not normally. But I am a legalistic type.

I think the main issue here is precedent. You may agree to have normal than typical armies with your fellow buddy and have your little war. Guess what's going to happen now? You (by the way, I'm using you as a general term not your specifically) think you have a larger than normal army. I may not agree with you on that. That's the reason we need a system. It helps us settle differences much easier.

Pax Cynica is quite specific for each possible situation. A lot of folks here state that the document itself hurts RP, it does not. The people who enforce it and the people who whine hurt the RP.