New Rules on RP

[Siggon Kristov]

- Making laws that can't be revoked

I do think this needs clarifying. At present, the way it reads seems to include any treaty article, which would seem to contradict 'the system comes first'.

Treaties can be withdrawn from with a simple majority, and the laws can be changed. There is treaty-locking, but I don't think that's what he's talking about. I think he means RP laws, like passing a resolution and saying that players can't pass a resolution to repeal it later. Someone may drag on some BS and say "This law can't be repealed because it's against our cultural protocols" or try to god-mode or intimidate a player by threatening to call Moderation just because something is being repealed.

[EEL123]

Even when raids aren't intentionally malicious, some still don't make sense RP-wise (like innocent noobs joining a country together, dominating, and changing everything with unintentional disregard for cultural protocols).

I'd be happy for people to make retrospective justifications provided that there's reasonable RP.

[Amazeroth]

The new rules are now in effect and have been added to the rules thread. Here are the rules on how they are going to affect RP already in progress:

For internal RP: Any RP has either to fullfill the new requirements (have a bill made and voted on with the necessary majority), or it will be judged by previous standards (i.e. full consensus or RP is invalid).

For wars and other external RPs: If there is no OOC agreement, wars will still be valid, but under the same conditions as before (also full consensus between every party in every involved country).

For colonies: What is needed for a register is a map of Dovani and the other "colonise-able" continents, and the information on what land is owned by which nation (and, preferably, under what name). This information should come from the countries owning colonies (or the active players there, respectively).

The rules for RP and wars only go until January 1st 2014, then all RP that doesn't comply with the new rules will be seen as obsolete (if it is ever brought before moderation).

The rules for the colonies go as follows: Until January 1st 2014, every player can provide the information needed for the register (via pm in-game or to my forum account). I'd be glad if someone could provide a map, otherwise I'll make one myself. If any disputes arise over which territory belongs to which nation, all claimants must provide evidence to back their claims.
All the territory that doesn't have a registered owner by January 1st, will become ownerless, and can be colonised by the first nation that RPs so.

[Martinulus]

Just to check - we recently passed a RP Bill in Hulstria and Gao-Soto imposing a German-style constitutional ban on parties that are anti-democratic in their aims or their actions. It has a RP basis: following the scare the Communist government produced and the immediate backlash, leaders felt they had to enforce a ban to protect the democratic system. Is such a law allowed under the rules?

[Zongxian]

Just to check - we recently passed a RP Bill in Hulstria and Gao-Soto imposing a German-style constitutional ban on parties that are anti-democratic in their aims or their actions. It has a RP basis: following the scare the Communist government produced and the immediate backlash, leaders felt they had to enforce a ban to protect the democratic system. Is such a law allowed under the rules?

Obviously I don't speak for Moderation, but I think this is a violation of the rules. You have asserted on the Hulstrian directory that this law will be enforced by Moderation, deleting parties that do not comply with the rule. The "Rules of the Game" specifically state the system comes first, therefore a party can be anti-democratic or whatever they choose. And the rules also state that "allowing only parties of a certain kind" is a recognized RP-law abuse.

[Martinulus]

Just to check - we recently passed a RP Bill in Hulstria and Gao-Soto imposing a German-style constitutional ban on parties that are anti-democratic in their aims or their actions. It has a RP basis: following the scare the Communist government produced and the immediate backlash, leaders felt they had to enforce a ban to protect the democratic system. Is such a law allowed under the rules?

Obviously I don't speak for Moderation, but I think this is a violation of the rules. You have asserted on the Hulstrian directory that this law will be enforced by Moderation, deleting parties that do not comply with the rule. The "Rules of the Game" specifically state the system comes first, therefore a party can be anti-democratic or whatever they choose. And the rules also state that "allowing only parties of a certain kind" is a recognized RP-law abuse.

The rules also state that "outlawing parties of a certain kind" do not constitute an abuse:

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

We are not allowing only democratic parties, the law was not phrased as such. We are outlawing parties that, by their stated aims or actions, are anti-democratic. That's "outlawing parties of a certain kind". It's very specific in its application. And the mechanics aren't affected even if we don't see the character of a certain party as RP: a party, for example, can be covertly anti-democratic, but not openly so long as the law stands.

[Amazeroth]

That is precisely what the exception was for - as long as you specify enough what anti-democratic parties are, this should be fine. If a player doesn't adhere, his party won't be outright deleted, though, he'll get the usual sanctions before.

[Siggon Kristov]

We are outlawing parties that, by their stated aims or actions, are anti-democratic. That's "outlawing parties of a certain kind". It's very specific in its application. And the mechanics aren't affected even if we don't see the character of a certain party as RP: a party, for example, can be covertly anti-democratic, but not openly so long as the law stands.

Not so much of an abuse here, in my opinion.
Also, some law variables prohibit anti-government speech. You can always twist things to ban things.
I loved this "Stability Act Receives No Criticism" article.

We also have a law (that has existed for about a century now) that there is an official mandatory religion, all others are illegal. Would it be realistic for a party to RP in representation of another religion? No. They're not observing the law variables, and I think that's breaking the rules. It's unrealistic (I never treaty-locked or made up some god-mode RP about everything, I'm going strictly based on law variables here). If a party was to, however, win a majority and then change the laws before coming out in support of religious diversity, we couldn't do anything about that. They would have to change our religion laws (to allow other religions) and maybe our media freedom laws (to allow foreign influences).