Aquinas wrote:IdioC wrote:I think this scenario furthers the case for a "hard" and "soft" version of CultPro, as -- in accordance with your description as well as the poll -- players will either want a rough guide or a rigid framework.
I would return here to what I wrote here in my previous post:
Aquinas wrote:The rules require no player to immerse themselves in and deeply engage with the culture of a nation. No player in Aldegar, for example, has their playing style monitored and scrutinised to ensure they are role-playing their political party in a satisfactorily "authentic" Persian/Aldegarian way (whatever that might mean).
All the Cultural Protocols actually require of players is to do the minimum - and no more than the minimum - that is necessary to adequately acknowledge the culture of the nation so that those who do wish to role-play with the culture are able to do so. That is all.
The current rules surrounding Culturally Protected nations are not that "hard". They do not micro-manage role-play. They require no more than the most basic acknowledgement of the cultural background, such as in choice of character names and the formal title of the nation (and even in these areas, there can be flexibility). Party names can always be in English. Also, unlike before, players are now guaranteed the right to have constitutional titles (other than the nation name) in English in all circumstances.
We already have Culturally Open nations. How much demand is there for a form of cultural protection which is more "relaxed" than the one currently available? Precisely what things would these more relaxed forms of cultural protection protect against?
I would be worried if any player envisaged your enforcement of Cultural Protocols in the extreme manner you refer to. Players do indeed need to do the bare minimum, but largely due to differing opinions, terms in the CultPro text intended for other purposes and a range of community opinions on how relaxed they should be,
the problem herein is the definition of said minimum.
Political opinions, cultures and ethnic make-up of nations evolve gradually over time but in the game engine, we cannot have rival minority parties grow up within the nation gradually, a player has to kick-start it with the sudden arrival of a party in the engine. As such, any such attempts to introduce subtle evolutionary changes are going to violate the CultPro minimum as things stand if any player takes exception. Any new ideas from someone not already in on the act walks a tightrope, as one player could take a hardline CultPro interpretation and give the newcomer grief, even if another might take a relaxed interpretation and try to introduce the new player gradually and enjoy the RP situation that results.
The hardline interpretation is the legacy of a law designed to protect conduct in an entirely different language from invasion from existing anglophone players trying to restore a culturally dead nation where no players remained. This has certainly been necessary in some nations for RP culture protection besides this -- especially with some "glorious" invasion tactics over the years (
)-- and I would never seek to deprive players the option of this, but it almost freezes the nation in time and allows players to prevent anything. It's not realistic or that welcoming to new players. Probably why a sizable number of locked nations are a bit thin on the ground player-wise.
The relaxed interpretation is the approach of players who want to not have their hard work obliterated but are receptive to evolutionary ideas whilst having a position to fall back on if someone starts bulldozing their nation. Of course, the suggestions still have to be sensible and viable -- which makes totally novel ideas a problem -- such as religious parties of a Terran religion, a party of migrants from a nearby nation etc.
The crux of the matter is a simple one:
We have a single document but two implicit interpretations! The poll here and opinions in all the threads I've seen on the subject are unable to reach a harmonious acceptance of either interpretation, so we need to codify which.
Aquinas wrote:IdioC wrote:However, you've identified flaws with laissez-faire and the community have identified flaws with rigidity. We need a middle way.
How much evidence do we have so far that "the community" finds the Cultural Protocols to have "flaws with rigidity"? Concerns have been expressed, of course, but it seems too early to come to a conclusion about the general verdict. I would suggest we need to give them more time.
The history of community concern over the reach of CultPro is long. Here's a selection:
*The Quanzar/Istalia case which led to their creation. The original thread was on the old forum but my decision to protect nations speaking other languages in such an absolute way caused outrage for some. This also resulted in some players trolling Istalia as rightly protested (actually by yourself as it happens (protesting, not the trolling))
here, with me referring a bit to the history and the Lusitania situation.
*
The opinions on the thread on their 2009 re-introduction.
*A debate linked in the above from the
Jelbic languages thread, also 2009.
*
A thread from 2011 showing a split in opinion into two predominant camps on the extent of protection (and how the vote should be brought in).
*
A thread from 2012 concerning whether monarchies are included or not.
*
This thread from 2012 where the
moderation position on CultPro enforcement had in fact changed despite it being a restoration of the original pre-2009 one (the right to use a secondary language provided at least someone could reason in English on request was the original interpretation).
*
A further thread bemoaning the rise of Anglo-Saxon nations that evolves into a discussion on the reach of CultPro.
*...and this poll.
Generally, different nations have envisaged cultural protocols to protect a spectrum of things to a spectrum of degrees, then asked moderation to muck out their various stables, sometimes treating things loosely defined as inviolable characteristics or vice versa.
Hence, I seek to rectify my earlier mistake and at least 6 years subsequent pain with clearly defined "absolute", "loose guideline" and "opt-out" versions with "do not cross on pain of death", "you can't kick down this sandcastle" and "go nuts" as consequences. In the first case, anything unspecified isn't protected to give people a chance to comply while in the second, sensible implication and inference is permitted. Strict definitions for strict protections in the first; loose definitions for loose protections in the second.
Aquinas wrote:We have seen calls for Cultural Protocols to automatically expire under certain conditions and for players to be able to adopt a looser form of cultural protection or opt-out of cultural protection altogether. From my perspective, here are some of the challenges involved here:
i. How precisely would you define the conditions under which a nation's Cultural Protocols would "expire"? It seems to me that this question has not been satisfactorily answered yet. Not that I want to say it is impossible to satisfactorily answer it, just that we haven't yet seen a precise & practical formula put on offer. How do you define whether a nation's culture is being actively role-played with? Remember, by the way, that we are now in an era where almost all players are going to be conforming to the culture in regards to the requirements of the rules (eg. character naming). The days when Jelbania's Cabinet was regularly made up of names like "Joe Bloggs", and "Fred Brown" are over.
ii. Would such a system be able to maintain the consensus support of the community, or would sudden changes in the cultural status of nations provoke a passionate chorus of disapproving cries along the lines of "That doesn't make any sense at all!", "You're destroying all our work!", "You're vandalising our cultures!" and "You've ruined our continent!"?
iii. How easy would it be to communicate a 3-tier system (Culturally Open and two versions of Culturally Protected) to the player base?
i) Indeed it's not answered yet, as it's a subsequent question that'll need a separate poll. I'll come to this in due course with a new thread (with respect to names: It also should be remembered that if a party leaves the fields blank, they will get automatically generated names from the game engine). I have rough relative timeframes that I'll put in the next part but the fuller discussion will come later.
ii) The transition, as I see it, can only be smoothly acheived in one way, balancing fair protection with incentive:
*Current cultural protocols would have to be presumed strict: bills in nations renewed to acknowledge this change and grant the opportunity to plug any cultural gaps.
--I envisage that strict protocols due to their inflexibility would expire the fastest (e.g. 50 in-game years from the last use of cultural activity; 75 RL days) due to their relative inaccessibility.
--Due to their strictness, new ones need
unanimity from playing parties to impose.
*Nations with cultural protocols which take the relaxed interpretation can opt-in to the relaxed system.
--In return, they will not need pro-active policing by moderation -- although will still be able to raise concerns for investigation as with any issue -- and will have a grace period of double the "strict" type (in this example, 100 in-game years from last use of cultural activity; 150 RL days).
--Due to the more relaxed nature, new ones need
a 2/3 majority of players from playing parties to impose and to guarantee some cultural suggestions of the remaining 1/3 as minority cultures.
*Nations that want to define themselves as culturally "Open" can do so, but require renewal at least every 100 in-game years to keep the nation forced open (or whatever the "Relaxed" expiry length).
--This will be hard to overcome with a strict or relaxed system under the above terms unless absolutely wanted and will hopefully see a slow increase in open nations up to a suitable number over time.
*Expiry will be simple: Stricts expire and become Relaxeds (but with 50 in-game years left until expiry to "Open" as the day of last cultural activity hasn't changed). Relaxeds expire and become Opens. Opens expire to nothing until renewed.
iii) Simply with clearer names than I chose 6 years ago (subject to community approval): "Absolute Cultural Definition" (Strict), "Cultural Protection" (Relaxed) and "Cultural Opt-Out" (Open). Players to be messaged with a link to the thread announcing the change. Grace period before change of 2 RL weeks.
Aquinas wrote:From my personal experience as a Moderator so far, I would say that once players have been in a Culturally Protected nation and adapted there, they tend to know what to do when they join another Culturally Protected nation. However, when players move from Culturally Open nations or English-themed nations to a non-English Culturally Protected nation...then it is much more likely they will make mistakes (even if they have been in the game for month/years...).
If we had a multi-tiered approach with different types of cultural protection for different nations...I am inclined to believe this would increase the room for confusion, since rules which applied to one culturally protected nation would not apply to another.
Rules are for guiding that small number who don't tend to know what to do; players who co-operate with themselves and the rules can generally be left alone to do as they will.
Provided we have the three Strict, Relaxed and Open tiers with clear names and explanations, we'll not let the community down with the confusion of my original four!
...but there is yet more to iron out in due course before it's ready for implementation. I'll get the next stage rolling this week.Doc wrote:2) I would prefer to make it so that players couldn't come in as short timers and pass a bill for opening the culture. I would also like to include moderation in on the discussion, because I think Moderation has the memory about the game as a whole. Right now, Aquinas has said that a culture can be unprotected if there is a good reason to do so. I think a "good reason" includes the will of the players in a country. So I think it would take something a little more comprehensive and fundamental than a statement..
I propose this. This would be the standard process:
a) An OOC bill to withdraw from the CP regime is passed with UNANIMOUS vote in an OOC resolution of all PCs in the country. If a Party misses the vote, it is no good. All those Players currently in the country have to pass the bill. The Bill should contain your wording, with a couple changes:
We, the Players of <<nation>> hereby request that the nation of <<nation>> to be declared Culturally Open. We think it should be culturally open because i) nobody is interested in playing the culture set for this country, ii) this culture was set for us without our input, or iii) This country has been vacant for more than 20 elections, or iv) This culture is too limited to permit the sort of roleplay that we wish to do in this country. We understand that, if we become a Culturally Open state, no language, ethnicity or culture may be locked through Cultural Protocols in this nation until this country is vacant for 5 elections, at which point, the last CP which Moderation will have approved for this country shall be restored and enforced by Moderation.
b) Once this Resolution passes, it will be forwarded to Moderation, who will then consider it, taking whatever time necessary to do due dilligence to ascertain if indeed the Players really want out of the CP.
c) If Moderation finds that indeed all players truly want to abandon the CP because of any or all of those four reasons, Moderation will declare the country Culturally open, and it will remain so until the country is vacant for 5 election cycles (in Kalistan, that is 15 years, for example) after which point, the CP which was passed for the country will go back into effect.
d) The Players, through unanimous vote in an OOC Resolution, may vote, at any time to restore the previously moderator-approved CP for any or no reason, so that if a country becomes vacant, and other players move there quickly, they can put the CP back into effect.
e) The accepted CP cannot be modified after this OOC resolution passes. It can only be modified when the country is Protected. Naturally, I would grandfather all currently open nations out of this restriction, but any that passed their resolutions after this policy would take effect would be, in a sense, cryogenically freezing their CP, not erasing it.
f) If Moderation opts to NOT remove protection from the country, they have to explain why they did so in a public forum post, and it has to be something more compelling that "A few players who don't play in your country don't think that your country should be unprotected." There has to be a legitimate reason for ignoring the will of the players in the country; some of which include: the players themselves just moved there to throw out the CP, or the Moderators feel that this is an effort at an illegitimate invasion or something like this. If the move appears to deliberately violate the other rules of the game, it should be rejected. Otherwise, once the true will of the players in the country has been ascertained, the Moderators should follow the players' lead rather than just protecting the CP for the sake of protecting CPs.
This would allow Moderation to retain control over the final decision, but at the same time, give the players some control over whether or not it happens. The desire to establish the CP protection should be collaborative, not top down. But Moderation should also be trusted, because the players in the country are, by definition, interested in their own case, while Moderators are expected to be impartial. I would just want to make sure that players who do not want to use the protocol are not excluded from the game. The way I see this, the protocols don't work for everyone. Kalistan is just an example, and we can explain, RPly, why they don't. I am sure other countries are like this too. I also don't want to deny people the opportunity to buy back into the CP- this is conservative and shows a bias toward expanding the Protocols, making it more difficult to get out than to get in. But the out door should never be completely closed, and should never just be up to two folks who do not even play in the country in question.
This would become a new rule under the CP Rule 6. What do you think?
I would be open to the idea of allowing such a unilateral withdrawal at the half-way mark of expiry (Stricts 25 IGyrs in my example, Relaxeds 50 IGyrs; subject to outcome of further discussions) but we'll put it to the community at the next stage to gather more opinion. The new thread will bring it some more attention.
EEL Mk2 wrote:Aquinas wrote:I think the concept of having Cultural Protocols that automatically expire faces 2 particular challenges in terms of being practicable. (i) How precisely would you decide whether a nation's culture had "expired"? (ii) How confident could you be that this system would hold consensus amongst the playing community? Bear in mind we are in a situation today where players can feel that the identity, history and role-play of their nation has a strong connection to that of other nations. If one nation's culture is "expired", players beyond that nation may perceive themselves to be affected.
Expiry should be dealt with by means of a simple time limit. However, I think that moderation should retain discretion to extend the limit, or even grant semi-permanent protection, if RP in other nations would be seriously adversely impacted by expiry. I hope that addresses (ii).
To reply to your first two points before the quote:
*We definitely need some open nations, the debate is more the method of assigning these. Aquinas appointed some of the last few as permanently open -- which if he hadn't done risked there being none left -- but this risks being seen as arbitrary in the long term (as unfortunately, it had to be). I feel that at some point, we need to let players appoint nations as culturally open with an opt-out mechanism in a future revision of CultPro and provide a mechanism to let an RP culture that exists in these currently "Open" nations be protected in the same way as before. This is more like the evolution of cultures and the enshrinement of their laws in real nations, as well as not damning a newbie who builds a castle in a nation forced "Open" in this manner to leaving their drawbridge lowered and gates unlocked to invasion.
*Contacting a player in breach with an explanation and links to related information is standard good Moderation practice. Aquinas doesn't need my judgement on his skills in this regard, but if his thorough guidance, willingness to respond in a civil fashion to criticism and courteous replies to requests in the moderator section of the forum are anything to go by, I'm sure he's got this covered!
To answer the point you raise about RP in the quote: Time limits are the fairest answer on players OOC. If there's an active RP in the forum involving that culture -- not a thin one instigated post-inactivation as a stalling tactic -- it should of course be allowed to continue. Players inactivate for temporary reasons as well as
force majeure and of course moderators should have the power to make fair intervention.