New Rules on RP

[Amazeroth]

Since this has apparently been largely unnoticed (or has been met with more or less complete apathy apart from EEL), I'll repost the new rules here, and delay their introduction to December 16th.




1. Considering colonial transfers, the rules revert back to their last status in the Pax Cynica - trading colonies off requires only a 2/3rd majority, and will no longer be seen as an act of RP, as far as the rules for consensual RP are concerned.

2. Considering military RP. From now on, countries going to war with each other have to consider the following. Before RP starts, there has to be an OOC agreement between the countries about possible or necessary consequences of the RP. It also has to have a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be interpreted in in-game terms (ie does it mean that the country is fighting as normal, surrenders, or is the RP void, or at least part of the RP).
This OOC agreement has to be voted on in the same bill that serves as the declaration of war, or in a bill made prior to the DoW, but in the same game month, and has to be accepted by a 2/3rd majority of the countries players (not parties).
If no such agreement happens, the RP will be void from day one. If a specific player is responsible for such RPs at least twice, he'll be subject to moderation sanctions.

3. Considering internal RP. From now on, there is no longer need for unanimous consent. RP bills will be binding without consent, as long as they are accepted by the necessary majorities. When deciding if absolute or 2/3rd majority is used, players are to go with usual difference between constitutional and normal laws, first by comparison with the constitutional laws of the game mechanics, and if that comes to no avail, by choosing the majority that would be most likely needed in the real world, respectively in the real-world countries or political systems that come most closely to the in-game one.
The system still comes first, though, which means that RP law cannot contradict law set by the game mechanics. So if you want to change a country from monarchy to republic, for example, you can't do it by RP law alone. Likewise, if an RP law needs a specific law situation that is described via game mechanics (for example an RP law regulating paramilitaries), it is only valid if the game mechanics describe the specific situations (in the same examples, the game mechanics must allow paramilitaries).
The RP laws will be enforced just as game mechanics already are by moderation, if parties go against them. However, while a party usually has to know which game mechanic laws are active, there is no duty to know all the RP law passed in a country, as long as it is not documented in a debate bill clearly recognisable as just that (for example OOC: Current RP laws, or something like that).

4. Realising that this new system has a great potential for abuse, cases were players think that an abuse has occurred can and should be brought before moderation. The following lists are easily recognisable abuses of, and exceptions to the rule, but are in no way exclusive.

Recognised RP-law abuses:

- Making it impossible for other players to play in your nation
- Allowing only parties of a certain kind (not, however, to outlaw parties of a certain kind, if the ban is specific, justified by RP and the nation's history)
- Making laws that can't be revoked
- Making laws that can only be revoked by a higher majority that was needed to create that laws
- Making laws that would make current rule violations legal


Exceptions to the rule are:

- war declarations, as far as the OOC agreement is concerned (not the majorities needed to go to war - they themselves can be changed. Which means that you can have a country in which the HoS can declare war at will without regard for government or parliament, but you still need a 2/3rd majority of the players for the vote on the OOC agreement).
- RP rules that consider OOC stuff. They can only be binding for those who willfully subject themselves to them.
- Cultural protocols. They still remain in effect as they are.
- Similar to the protocols, RP rules that don't enforce rules, but rather determine the makeup of a country (apart from culture things like language, population, opinions, etc.), in short any laws that are no real laws, but descriptions of the country.


5. Considering nation-raiding. Nation raiding becomes a real threat under these new rules, because now it can do permanent damage to a nation again, by giving away a nations colonies (either by obtaining majorities to gift them, or to start a losing war). In order to prevent raids out of malice, based solely or for an overwhelming part on the dislike for a specific player or group of players, nation raids have to be sound RP wise. Which means that practices such as raiding without RP, or with unrealistic RP (creating a "Imperialist Party" in the enemy country and then voting for a release of the colonies), won't be tolerated, and will lead to the RP actions of an offending party to be void.


These new rules will be implented by December 16th. Until then, they are open for discussion, and ideas of how to recognise potential abuses that can be included in the list.

[Siggon Kristov]

What about Lodamun where the active military is split among the parties? Can I send my party's troops to war?

[Aquinas]

I know you've put time and thought into this, and I'm sorry you didn't receive more feedback earlier, Amazeroth. I generally like the sound of what you're proposing. It seems sensible, providing checks against RP abuse whilst also trying to make sure good RP isn't unduly constrained by just 1 or 2 people being difficult.

One query I have is about the colonies. If colony transfers are going to become easier and (presumably) more common, surely we need some kind of official register of colony names/titles and colony ownerships? Much like, at present, we have a register (or rather, "Index") of Cultural Protocols. Otherwise there could be scope for confusions & arguments galore.

My other query is about the OOC RP agreements. Do you think it would make sense for Moderation to have to approve them before they become official? I'm saying this not because I want Moderation to get overly involved in details, but because a badly-written or unclear OOC RP agreement Bill could end up causing a lot of hassle for everyone involved.

[Fred]

- Allowing only parties of a certain kind (not, however, to outlaw parties of a certain kind, if the ban is specific, justified by RP and the nation's history)

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what this means. Could you clarify, please?

5. Considering nation-raiding. Nation raiding becomes a real threat under these new rules, because now it can do permanent damage to a nation again, by giving away a nations colonies (either by obtaining majorities to gift them, or to start a losing war). In order to prevent raids out of malice, based solely or for an overwhelming part on the dislike for a specific player or group of players, nation raids have to be sound RP wise. Which means that practices such as raiding without RP, or with unrealistic RP (creating a "Imperialist Party" in the enemy country and then voting for a release of the colonies), won't be tolerated, and will lead to the RP actions of an offending party to be void.

Is this really sensible? To be honest, this seems, to me, to be little more than indulging the one or two players who actively go in for this kind of thing.

[EEL123]

One query I have is about the colonies. If colony transfers are going to become easier and (presumably) more common, surely we need some kind of official register of colony names/titles and colony ownerships? Much like, at present, we have a register (or rather, "Index") of Cultural Protocols. Otherwise there could be scope for confusions & arguments galore.

I agree with this.

My other query is about the OOC RP agreements. Do you think it would make sense for Moderation to have to approve them before they become official?

That will be one shitload of work for moderation. Amazeroth has already set out the requirements involved with these OOC agreements; I do not think it necessary for moderation to actively police them.

[Amazeroth]

What about Lodamun where the active military is split among the parties? Can I send my party's troops to war?

Yes, but you'd still need an OOC agreement, and still the consent of 2/3rd of the players. The only exception would be if there would be no negative actions whatsoever for Lodamun, then you could do it alone. You should make sure the country you're warring against knows that beforehand, though.

I know you've put time and thought into this, and I'm sorry you didn't receive more feedback earlier, Amazeroth. I generally like the sound of what you're proposing. It seems sensible, providing checks against RP abuse whilst also trying to make sure good RP isn't unduly constrained by just 1 or 2 people being difficult.

One query I have is about the colonies. If colony transfers are going to become easier and (presumably) more common, surely we need some kind of official register of colony names/titles and colony ownerships? Much like, at present, we have a register (or rather, "Index") of Cultural Protocols. Otherwise there could be scope for confusions & arguments galore.

My other query is about the OOC RP agreements. Do you think it would make sense for Moderation to have to approve them before they become official? I'm saying this not because I want Moderation to get overly involved in details, but because a badly-written or unclear OOC RP agreement Bill could end up causing a lot of hassle for everyone involved.

The colonies - definitely. That should be something already in existance. I'll see that we get a register.

OOC agreements - as EEL says, it would be a lot of work for moderation. However, I personally won't object to having such agreements sent to me, and I could check them beforehand. However, it would take time, as I wouldn't be able to make that my immediate priority. But that's just me, as soon as we have other mods, they'll have to decide that for themselves.

- Allowing only parties of a certain kind (not, however, to outlaw parties of a certain kind, if the ban is specific, justified by RP and the nation's history)

I'm sorry, but I'm not clear what this means. Could you clarify, please?

It means that you cannot have a law in effect that only permits parties of your friends, parties that like the current system (only monarchist parties in a monarchy, only communist parties in a communist country). You can, though, forbid certain parties, if it is in line with your nations history and RP - like forbidding all parties of a certain ethnicity, or all parties of a particular ideology. For example, if Aloria was ruled by Jelbania, and gained freedom, it would be completely understandable if a law was passed forbidding parties of Jelbek people.

5. Considering nation-raiding. Nation raiding becomes a real threat under these new rules, because now it can do permanent damage to a nation again, by giving away a nations colonies (either by obtaining majorities to gift them, or to start a losing war). In order to prevent raids out of malice, based solely or for an overwhelming part on the dislike for a specific player or group of players, nation raids have to be sound RP wise. Which means that practices such as raiding without RP, or with unrealistic RP (creating a "Imperialist Party" in the enemy country and then voting for a release of the colonies), won't be tolerated, and will lead to the RP actions of an offending party to be void.

Is this really sensible? To be honest, this seems, to me, to be little more than indulging the one or two players who actively go in for this kind of thing.

How so?

[soysauce]

Is this really sensible? To be honest, this seems, to me, to be little more than indulging the one or two players who actively go in for this kind of thing.

I think he means (and I agree) that nation raiding is only used by a small number of players so avoiding an outright ban is allowing them to continue to do so.
Considering that it's now RP then shouldn't the permission of all players in the raided nation sought before allowing a raid to take place?

- Making it impossible for other players to play in your nation

I assume this means an end to the use of the early election exploit and similar tactics such as treaty locking?

[Siggon Kristov]

What about Lodamun where the active military is split among the parties? Can I send my party's troops to war?

Yes, but you'd still need an OOC agreement, and still the consent of 2/3rd of the players. The only exception would be if there would be no negative actions whatsoever for Lodamun, then you could do it alone. You should make sure the country you're warring against knows that beforehand, though.

Makes sense.

[Polites]

Is this really sensible? To be honest, this seems, to me, to be little more than indulging the one or two players who actively go in for this kind of thing.

I think he means (and I agree) that nation raiding is only used by a small number of players so avoiding an outright ban is allowing them to continue to do so.
Considering that it's now RP then shouldn't the permission of all players in the raided nation sought before allowing a raid to take place?

I understand that nation-raiding has a bad press, and for good reason, but there are instances where it is justifiable and generates good results. Isn't the restoration of a nation's culture, often achieved by nation-raiding, something beneficial? Wouldn't a nation raid on, say, Luthori, with the purpose of restoring the monarchy there be justified? Or didn't the restoration of Deltarian culture and implementation of cultural protocols there, something that was achieved as a result of a coordinated nation raid, produce a good outcome? I agree that nation raids done out of malice towards a nation or the player(s) there shouldn't be allowed, but not all nation raids are created equal. Sometimes they lead to good RP and the development of national cultures. Which is why I would argue for a ban on nation raids that do not produce RP alone, and not nation raids in general.

[soysauce]

Is this really sensible? To be honest, this seems, to me, to be little more than indulging the one or two players who actively go in for this kind of thing.

I think he means (and I agree) that nation raiding is only used by a small number of players so avoiding an outright ban is allowing them to continue to do so.
Considering that it's now RP then shouldn't the permission of all players in the raided nation sought before allowing a raid to take place?

I understand that nation-raiding has a bad press, and for good reason, but there are instances where it is justifiable and generates good results. Isn't the restoration of a nation's culture, often achieved by nation-raiding, something beneficial? Wouldn't a nation raid on, say, Luthori, with the purpose of restoring the monarchy there be justified? Or didn't the restoration of Deltarian culture and implementation of cultural protocols there, something that was achieved as a result of a coordinated nation raid, produce a good outcome? I agree that nation raids done out of malice towards a nation or the player(s) there shouldn't be allowed, but not all nation raids are created equal. Sometimes they lead to good RP and the development of national cultures. Which is why I would argue for a ban on nation raids that do not produce RP alone, and not nation raids in general.

But who is to say what is or isn't justified? Plus a raid out of malice could easily acquire some RP justification which would allow it to circumvent the ban.

There is no realistic situation where a flood of 6 or so new parties arrive in a nation and swamp the status quo and then act in a coordinated fashion to a common goal, in that respect I see no use for nation raids that are not malicious unless you wish to permit mob justice.