Overmoderation

[Aquinas]

You are correct in your analysis that the Cultural Protocols, their interpretation and enforcement have been a matter of strong contention in this game's history. They have been around for longer than you think - since late 2011, which I think was before you first found Particracy. A trend you may have noticed is that more and more nations have adopted Cultural Protocols until now, as you say, there are going to be only 3 Culturally Open nations remaining. All of those 3 nations have player slots available though, so any player who wishes to join a Culturally Open nation is able to do so and has a choice as to which of those nations to join.

Yes, I agree most new players quite naturally tend to play the game intuitively rather than researching all of the documentation first. But like any role-playing game, and like life itself, Particracy necessarily has certain rules and restrictions. For a variety of reasons, the whole process of communicating those to players has sometimes been messy, but as I said before, we're doing what we can to make things better.

If your party in Mordusia was not a Polish party, then I am puzzled why its character names appear to be Polish. To quote from the party description:

Party Leadership

Chief Executive = Norbert Jarek
Cheif of Operations = Wawrzyniec Zoja
Foreign Affairs = Krystian Jarogniew
Internal Affairs = Kastaloc Vortac
Finance = Glen Millhouse
Defence = Fabian Albert
Justice = Longina Lubomierz
Infrastructure and Transport = Malina Brygida
Health and Social Services = Florian Roch
Education and Culture = Walter Łukasz
Science and Technology = Alina Krystyn
Food and Agriculture = Karolina Bożydar
Environment and Tourism = Bronisław Metody
Trade and Industry = Szczepan Adam

As the rules explain, and as I told you, you were allowed to have a minority of Polish names, but not all of your character list could be Polish. But you refused to change a single one of your character names. To quote what you said to me:

You are grasping at straws and overmoderating. I will change the names as I see fit. If you don't like it then you can change them yourself or ban me from the game. I have grown tired of ridiculous Moderator interference. What is the point of the game if Moderation is interfering all the time.

Look, I realise you've not had a good experience with me, but honestly, I'm here to help and I'm not out to get you. Remember you are not banned from Mordusia, or anywhere else for that matter. If you adjust your candidate/character names so they conform with the rules, and then put in a reactivation request, I will reactivate your party in Mordusia as soon as I can.

But whatever you do, I hope you will stay in the game. We need all the players we can get, and I think it's clear there's a lot you can contribute to Particracy's role-play. And of course, like everyone else, you are very welcome to discuss your ideas for making changes to the game and the rules right here in General Discussion sub-forum. We can't promise anything, but we do follow these discussions and we do hear you out.

[errant sperm]

Norbert Jarek : could be from anywhere
Glen Millhouse : Definately not Polish
Fabian Albert : Could be from anywhere

Like I tried to exlpain to you. I was slowly changing the names as time went on as characters retired. They are not all Polish. The party came back to Mordusia as mostly immigrants and was in the process of assimilation but unfortunately the way I was doing it is against the rules.

I have no desire to join a nation for the sole reason that it is "Culturally Open".

The point is that I don't like the rules and I don't like the way they are enforced so I want them changed and until changes are made, I no longer choose to participate.

Its nothing personal against anyone. Its just that these restrictions make the game no longer worth playing for me.

[JuliaAJA]

I do think that IdioC has the right idea.

[IdioC]

I'm sorry to be so frank, but mods: stop interfering in matters that don't require you, by which I mean overzealous enforcement of cultural protocols, protocols which weren't even ratified with the approval of the player base in the first place.

What seems to have creeped into the moderation team is that lamentable attitude that so often seems to plague the more established player base: that older, more experienced players know best, and their carefully crafted roleplay is god and cannot be challenged. It puts newer players off by confusing them and making them see the older player base as snobbish, elitist and unwelcoming.

Unfortunately, as older, more experienced players tend to be those who make the cut for moderation selection through understanding the game enough to get the visibility through play to become trusted, this has always been a problem. It's probably best I stay quiet on this.

If there is a problem in how the game is currently being moderated at the moment, then it is probably fair to say I am primarily responsible. Amazeroth has been occupied, which has meant, in practice - and through no fault of Amazeroth's - that most of the day-to-day running of Moderation has been done by me. The majority of the initiative that went into devising and then implementing the new rules also came from me, although of course it was done with his involvement and agreement.

I should apologise as I fear I've probably given the wrong impression. My remark was self-deprecating; I have probably been one of the "more established players" guilty of such an effect in my past governance.

I actually find your attitude to moderation very considered and positive. The challenge in this thread is more about the contextualisation of the argument.

I would like to add a voice to the calls for migrant parties to be recognised in line with, rather than seen as merely contradicting, Cultural Protocols. In the real world, minority rights parties have been formed... *snip*

Migrant parties -- provided they remain true to the original cultural protocol of their original nation yet respect that of their "host" nation -- can only be a good thing for diversity, realism in RP and the game in general. If players feel so moved by the "invasion", they can take up the role of defenders of the original culture and the RP that results will be excellent. If players don't take up the mantle, surely the protocol represents a culture that was dormant as per the original text to define a grace period for returning players, if not completely dead?

You said once before that you support abolishing the Cultural Protocols. I am not sure what your precise views are now, but it seems to me that allowing "migrant parties" to operate in the way you have described would render the Cultural Protocols rather meaningless. If it was possible to prevent a migrant party from winning more than a small percentage of the vote, then this would be more practical. But as you know, Particracy does not work like this. At the last Mordusian election, errant sperm's Polish migrant party won 45% of the vote, despite the fact that under the Cultural Protocols, they could not possibly have more than 5.1% of Mordusia's population. Do you see the issue here?

Remember also, by the way, that the system is not inflexible as Cultural Protocols are not set in stone. Cultural Protocols can be changed, but it has to be done realistically and with player consent.

My views are that we brought Cultural Protocols in to protect nations with strong cultural identities from sabotage, destruction into cookie-cutter social democracies and trolls, but they should not be used to prevent the evolution of nations. Empty nations suffer from their inactivity if players cannot revitalise them with new ideas; the balance has to be drawn somewhere but names aren't going to cause a revolution.

I'm still a strong believer in the system comes first, but the protocols were a concession.

In short, cultures clash. Ultimately, my own name would fall foul of the cultural protocols: Saxon first, Greek middle, Celtic surname with an uncertain meaning... I couldn't stay in any nation.

This is not true. A name like yours could be used as a character name in any nation in Terra, so long as the player's spread of character names was realistic. As the rules say:

6.8 Character names and especially Head of State, Head of Government and Cabinet minister names must be appropriate for the cultural background of the nation. Whilst a small number of character names may be permitted to come from minorities, the broad spread of character names should be realistic. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented.

6.8.1 In nations where English is present as an in-game culture, but not the majority, English character names must not be too disproportionately prevalent. For example, if 10% of the population are English, English characters should not make up half of the Cabinet or half of a party's list of candidates. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented.

...but if you have a party based on minority/ethnicity rights, you will not have a distribution that matches the nation by default.

In my case, it was more to highlight that were it not for the spread of Greek (through Rome) and Saxon cultural ideas into Britain, my name would not ever have been. Cultural Protocols interpreted in this fashion risk preserving empty nations and lock them out of development in the way real nations do.

When Roman Britain was asked to (as is often paraphrased) "look after their own defences", a Cultural Protocol would have seen them unable to change despite being abandoned. This is, in essence, what I'm trying to get across: Cultural Protocols were never immunity from the course of history, but a protection from OOC inconsideration. It's about stopping someone steamrolling the nation variables and ignoring other players' consensus, not stopping someone playing in an empty nation with the wrong name.

[Polites]

What people seem to forget is that Cultural Protocols can and often are changed, sometimes drastically, with the provision that there is sufficient and plausible RP backing it up. To refer to the RL examples mentioned above if they were to occur within Particracy, the demographic changes of Palestine during the 20th century would have been approved by Moderation if the relevant RP were to have happened (a foreign power making the Balfour Declaration, the existence of an international Zionist party organization campaigning for Jewish immigration to Palestine, players in Palestine RPing several waves of aliyot, an RPd native opposition to Jewish immigration culminating in riots, and the nation name change request resulting in an RPd Arab-Israeli War). The cultural changes accompanying the Roman withdrawal from Britain could be approved on the same principle, if there is RP backing it up justifying the introduction of Graeco-Roman culture to the native Celts and the subsequent introduction of Germanic culture and language.

So bottom line, you can do practically anything if you have the backing of enough realistic RP. One could make Mordusia Polish if there is roleplay justifying such a change, and one could have all of their characters have Polish names if there is a strong case for that. Maybe the possibility of amending Cultural Protocols and the necessary steps for the amendments to be accepted should be mentioned in future communications between Moderation and new players.

[IdioC]

...and I agree in entirety with Polites above. Reasonable change should not be prevented, to my mind.

For the curious, I've remembered how the name clause first came in. The First Party insisted on ignoring the RP Culture of Deltaria agreed by the other parties with entirely anglophone names and acting with complete disregard for the nation. It turned out that his HoS candidate was the same for >300 in-game years (spanning some inactivations), as verified in Newspapers and RP.

I think an odd inconsistent name is fine and may even provide an interesting back story for RP -- Nicolas Sarkozy became French President with a Polish name and heritage after all -- so long as we don't see the inconsistent immorals of yesteryear.

[errant sperm]

We only have one person here who gets to decide what is "realistic" or "plausible" RP and what is not. It is all subject to the opinion of our Overmoderator Aquinas.

You are saying I can "practically do anything" but there are a bunch of "strict" rules saying the exact opposite.

[Kubrick]

We only have one person here who gets to decide what is "realistic" or "plausible" RP and what is not. It is all subject to the opinion of our Overmoderator Aquinas.

You are saying I can "practically do anything" but there are a bunch of "strict" rules saying the exact opposite.

Oh come on, Aquinas is a reasonable guy and not some dictator you're making him out to be. He's also a human with flaws, like everyone here.

[Maxington]

We only have one person here who gets to decide what is "realistic" or "plausible" RP and what is not. It is all subject to the opinion of our Overmoderator Aquinas.

You are saying I can "practically do anything" but there are a bunch of "strict" rules saying the exact opposite.

Oh come on, Aquinas is a reasonable guy and not some dictator you're making him out to be. He's also a human with flaws, like everyone here.

I agree with Kubrick here guys, Aquinas is not particracy's Kim-Jong-Un. He's responsible, kind and friendly. Something you can't find in some of the people around here.
Just give the man a chance and stop breathing down his neck for once.

[utoronto]

I think an odd inconsistent name is fine and may even provide an interesting back story for RP -- Nicolas Sarkozy became French President with a Polish name and heritage after all -- so long as we don't see the inconsistent immorals of yesteryear.

His name is Magyar (i.e. Hungarian) actually