Cultural Protocols: A Broader Discussion

[Kubrick]

Did you miss another memo, Zanz? Only cool kids in this thread.

[TheNewGuy]

Did you miss another memo, Zanz? Only cool kids in this thread.

always the bully

[Doc]

Oh hell- I am trying to put a positive spin on these cultural protocols, but I am really having a difficult time with it.

I really am opposed to them, but then I'm not required to live under them anymore, so to be honest, unless there is a move to reprotect Kalistan, I really don't have a dog in the fight.

Personally, I would like people like Polites and Kubric to have their culturally protected countries, and I would like other countries to be completely opened. I would want those people who want to make their countries a specific culture to be able to protect their work, and those countries who want none of it to be able to play however they like. But the one thing I oppose more than anything is players in one of the protected countries attempting to force their dream on those who don't want to play in protected countries, just so that their particular vision of a unified world history can come true.

And so, as long as I play in Kalistan, I'll keep Kalistan out of that particular unified dream, unless that unified dream includes Kalistan as it is, and not as people who don't play in Kalistan want it to be. And I support other states staying out of that as well unless they are asked what they want, and then the unified world dream is made to accommodate them, rather than the other way around. Nor do I support hopping from country to country, working on CPS so they are the way you want them, and moving on to the next country. This is what Polites did in Kalistan, and as soon as he left, as I guessed he would, I did what I promised I would do and first gutted the variables, then restored the traditional variables to the country. And then Kalistan was let out of the CP regime all together, so we will never have to worry about that sort of invasion again. To be clear, I don't have any problem with what Polites is doing in other countries- that is on them to let him. But Kalistan isn't going to go out that way. We never RPed Hindustani politicians or Punjabi language until yall came there and posted three posts in our national paper which represented things as if they were always that way, and if I have my druthers, the cultural guidelines will be scrubbed of any reference to Northern Indian culture, except as related to ancient pre-history.

I have come to this position reading the posts on this thread. I understand, we have the CPs now, and those aren't going away. I am not lobbying for that. I just want to make sure, and to support other people who are interested in the same thing, that I am playing the game I want to play, not the game that others want me to be a character in. And that's that. If you support the CPs for the purpose of retconning a unified world culture, then I am not on your side of this discussion. If you want to ask players in countries what they want rather than making the decision for them because your decision fits in with your overall plan for the world, then I will be happy to help in that project.

Otherwise, consider Kalistan's unofficial flag to be the Jolly Roger.

Peace.

[Kubrick]

By the time I went to Kalistan it was a one party state. And look at it from an outsiders perspective, Doc, Kalistan makes no sense, especially not on that continent. It's a mixture of Roman names and European cultures on a continent with Persians, Asians, etc.

The reason I went there was to give Kalistan a sensible place on Particracy's map but I guess we have to live with the fact that realistic cultural development is not acceptable for some.

In a perfect world the cartoony nations should get a seperate continent, but hopefully P3 will avoid the weird stuff alltogether.

[Doc]

By the time I went to Kalistan it was a one party state. And look at it from an outsiders perspective, Doc, Kalistan makes no sense, especially not on that continent. It's a mixture of Roman names and European cultures on a continent with Persians, Asians, etc.

The reason I went there was to give Kalistan a sensible place on Particracy's map but I guess we have to live with the fact that realistic cultural development is not acceptable for some.

In a perfect world the cartoony nations should get a seperate continent, but hopefully P3 will avoid the weird stuff alltogether.

Kalistan makes perfect sense, from the Kalistan perspective. It is the sum total of its RPed experience. You have this idea that all things have to fit just so- I have the opposite idea, but from Kalistan's perspective, it was the traditional dumping ground for the world's refugees, pirates, and free traders. It is geographically isolated, its orientation is toward the Sea, not the continent, and it is culturally more diverse than any other country around it. We have RPed it that way, and a retcon is what doesn't make sense.

What you call sense is what we call nonsense, and I am the one who has played in Kalistan for IG centuries. I think the drive to force countries to fit an Earth mold is what is cartoony in that it is silly given the virtual nature of Terra, and it is my hope that in updates, all those people who want to play strong culture get their own continent, and let other continents be free to be whatever culture thy desire.

So basically, opposite of what you said.

[Kubrick]

You put words in my mouth that I never said, which is a shame. I read the history page of Kalistan and honestly, Latin tribes make no sense whatever you use to back it up. Kalistan has been created with zero regard for what nations are around it, which is not a crime but rather a sad thing from my perspective. Nothing has to fit an Earth mold, I am not sure how well aware of world history you are but the Netherlands was never invaded by Mongol hordes with a fantasy language.

And the assumption that virtual things shouldn't be realistic makes no sense. Another problem with Particracy players is that too many of us play in the same nation for years and then we become too attached to whatever we conjured. In previous times we have also seen some people getting really angry about change.

[Doc]

You put words in my mouth that I never said, which is a shame. I read the history page of Kalistan and honestly, Latin tribes make no sense whatever you use to back it up. Kalistan has been created with zero regard for what nations are around it, which is not a crime but rather a sad thing from my perspective. Nothing has to fit an Earth mold, I am not sure how well aware of world history you are but the Netherlands was never invaded by Mongol hordes with a fantasy language.

And the assumption that virtual things shouldn't be realistic makes no sense. Another problem with Particracy players is that too many of us play in the same nation for years and then we become too attached to whatever we conjured. In previous times we have also seen some people getting really angry about change.

Forgive me- please point out where I misrepresented what you said. I'll happily correct my statement.

But the point remains nonetheless. A couple Parties came to Kalistan with the purpose of rectifying what they saw as wrong with Kalistan because it didn't fit in with their vision of the continent. They pushed something which was closer to their vision for the continent, but is based NOWHERE in Kalistan's RPed History, in Kalistan's CP, and when the CP with their retcon was ratified in the CP, they jumped from Kalistan so they could continue their project in other countries. And you personally invited me to just accept the Retcon because it might be interesting when I complained about the process under which our culture was being invented for us. Your words were

Or you could observe it as a retcon to make Kalistan a truly unique part of its continent, which features many nations with unique cultures."

Is this a misrepresentation of what happened in Kalistan?

Who says "they make no sense"? They make no sense to you. but they work perfectly fine for me, because that stuff which you claim makes no sense happened before any of us got there. And everything else happened basically within a half a RT year beforeI got there or after I got there. You have a specific vision of how all of Seleya should be, but it has NEVER been that way in Kalistan. It might be sad for you, but it is our History. I would say that I am sorry that Kalistan's history does not conform to how you think it should have been, but I am not sorry- Our history is interesting on its own, completely separate from the worldview of those who think it should have been a different way. And as I said, I have been the one playing in Kalistan since 2591, while your Party came into the country within the last 100 years. And whether you think it is a problem that I happen to find country jumping to be bad form or not, yes, I have become attached to it, because 1) I like Kalistan and its history, 2) my Party's name is all over Kalistan's history for the vast majority of the time it has existed, and 3) I periodically have to deal with outsiders deciding to come in to Kalistan and retconning that country's history, with ZERO regard for anything that came before. Just as Pentalarc complained on a different thread, when he was dealing with a religious Party coming into Kalistan and declaring it a theocracy, when nearly 2000 years of the country's history and 3 full blown RP civil wars say that Kalistan's citizens would never put up with that.

You want to talk about Realistic- how about dealing with Kalistan based on Kalistan's RPed history? Otherwise, advocate for a full reset, and then you can make every country make sense to you. Otherwise, I submit that it is those who advocate that individual countries should conform to a grand cultural design are the ones who are being unrealistic.

[IdioC]

-snip-

Didn't you just tell us you have a full time job now, man?! How do you get the time to write this stuff?!

Firstly, I just fell about laughing for a good minute when I saw that as the first reply. Usually I'm a bit wary of what will greet me after I make criticisms because how personal things can get if they are taken -- or admittedly delivered -- in the wrong way.

I'm a fast typer and I often talk how I write, so it doesn't take too long. This problem with CultPros is largely from errors in their original implementation and I want to put them right. Simple as that.

Anyway, quit making me miss Dynastia, and also, you're 100% right about how people have no idea about how shitty being a Mod can be. Aquinas is doing fine as far as I can tell, though he's also got a more friendly community than I did, as far as I can tell, although that is at least mostly my own doing.

Aquinas and Amazeroth need more credit.

Oh hell- I am trying to put a positive spin on these cultural protocols, but I am really having a difficult time with it.

I really am opposed to them, but then I'm not required to live under them anymore, so to be honest, unless there is a move to reprotect Kalistan, I really don't have a dog in the fight.

Then we definitely need a passable "Opt-out" option we can cite for nations such as Kalistan -- which I didn't even consider bringing in with CultPro -- and I will need your input to draft the wording. We need a clear and unambiguous document to approve. How about:

"We hereby declare the nation of <<nation>> to be Culturally Open. No language, ethnicity or culture may be locked through Cultural Protocols in this nation until a single party who wishes to enact such changes, has already reigned unopposed for a century."

...it occurs to me that we're defining Keynes, Hayek and Nozick options for Culture: State Protection, Loose Framework or DWTFYWT.

[Aquinas]

Before I begin, please don't anyone think I am taking any of this discussion personally. Everything here has been about the game and its direction, not about personalities. You're all great people.

As much as you acknowledge the great difficulty in selection, I have to admit that I perceive the permanent opening of set nations as a mistake, as cultures come and go. Consequently, any great RP creation in Davostan, Kundrati and Lodamun would never be afforded the very protection that other nations could apply for, which -- especially considering not all players are on the forum to see these changes yet are on the game engine to see the existence of CultPros in other countries -- would be perceived as a gross unfairness on players for merely choosing the wrong nation at start-up. Even if there is a facility to mass-message all players in the game, the selection of the nations could only appear arbitrary other than the convenience of the situation when the decision was made to simplify things.

Yes, I agree that if that situation arose in one of those nations, it could be frustrating to those players and seem unfair. I think the odds are against that situation developing, though, because in practice, most of the players who aspire to do things with the Cultural Protocols already have some experience of the forum and some awareness of how the rules work. So the majority of players like that would be savvy enough to take their cultural projects/ambitions to nations where they have the best chance of implementing them.

I have no strong theoretical objection to the idea of a nation moving from Culturally Open to Culturally Protected status, but I do tend to feel that somehow this would need to be reconciled with the principle that there should always be at least some Culturally Open nations available in the game. Cultural Protocols are not for everybody. Some players - and I do understand why - prefer the flexibility that comes with not having them.

The problem of a lack of "Open" nations is caused by the large number of "Protected" nations with a dearth of players in there (Disclosure again: I happen to be in one), therefore, the solution is not to force the remainder to be "Open" but in line with RL cultural rises and falls, reconsider the conditions under which "Protected" cultures expire through a lack of support. That way, you encourage more to open up over time by an agreed framework, whilst giving players fair chance to invest in their existing cultures if they remain to do so.

But the thing is, Culturally Protected nations *are* subject to cultural changes "in line with RL cultural rises and falls"! Cultural Protocols do get amended in response to that kind of RP. If you go through the history of Cultural Protocol changes (and I appreciate that would take a lot of time, btw.), you'll see that within the framework of the Cultural Protocols, cultures can change radically.

What I will concede is this: the absence of nations available for brand new Cultural Protocols generally means players with culture-building ambitions are disadvantaged if they lack the adeptness some of our more experienced players have both for role-playing and for Cultural Protocol lawyering (ie. the art of knowing what to do to convince Moderators to approve Cultural Protocol changes).

On a personal level, I do empathise with the frustration a player might feel in this situation, especially when they see that in the past, players had little problem setting up their own cultures in nations, and in the present, other players are being successful in getting cultural changes implemented whilst their own efforts are not being so successful. This means, I think, that there is responsibility, on the part of Moderators and the more experienced players, to respond to such situations sensitively and offer the right guidance/support.

The enforcement of Cultural Protocols has been firmer since the changes announced on 26 August. Parties are not reactivated or given early elections if they are not in compliance with the rules. For example, if they are playing in Valruzia (a Polish-themed nation) and their candidates list is filled with English names and their party description contains references to Christianity and America, then they will be asked to make the changes before their request is fulfilled.

It is also true that I have personally been monitoring the game to ensure players - especially those who have just joined non-English nations - know about the rules and are following them. The most awkward situations with players I have experienced have been when a player has already been playing the game for a while and has not followed the rules, but has not been challenged about this before. Usually this is not complying with the Cultural Protocols, but it can be other things as well, like the rules on real-life/ridiculous variables and the rule on English being the language of communication in the game. Since I became a Moderator, I have become increasingly of the view that it is best to "catch them early". If you explain the rules to a player just after they've broken them, they're much more likely to be accepting of that than if the situation has gone on for a long time.

These two points present an unfortunate paradox of sorts. Yes, inconsistencies need checking when requests are made and yes, advising newcomers and nipping problems in the bud is sensible (your assessment of early explanation is spot on), but if a player has been in violation of the Cultural Protocol in a country for a fair while and either the other players aren't taking notice, wilfully permit it, aren't aware of the CultPro or are all inactive, surely it could be argued that pragmatically, this first player's culture is established in the nation -- at least on a regional or minority level -- de facto?

There is a view that if a player is in breach of the Cultural Protocols but nobody else in the nation is bothered by it, then they should generally be left to carry on as they are. My own personal view used to be, if not quite this, then something close to this. I would have found the idea of Moderators actively monitoring Cultural Protocol compliance to be intrusive and over-the-top. I would have thought this all the more so about the idea of making it necessary to be complying with the Cultural Protocols in order to receive reactivations and early elections.

Now let me explain why, after having been in this role for about 4 months, in all candour and to the best of my judgement, I no longer see the laissez-faire approach as an option.

To allow a player to disregard the rules is easy enough to do and might be the least confrontational thing to do at the time. But guess what? That player is not the only player in the game. As I said before, and as I think you agreed, the longer a player is allowed to play in breach of the rules, the more likelihood there is he will be resistant and find it unfair when he is finally asked to conform to them. So guess what happens when a player turns up in the nation who *does* care about its culture? To be fair, there are cases where the players communicate with each other and come to an understanding. But in too many other cases...yes, you guessed it...bitterness, conflict & chaos!

The pernicious effect of players not following the rules goes beyond disputes like this (not all of which reach the forum, btw.). What happens is, players who would like to play in the nation because they are attracted by its cultural background think "I would like to go there, but I don't want to as the culture isn't working because of that player and I don't want to get into a conflict with him". So in effect, whatever the Cultural Protocols say, the nation will be effectively closed to them. A certain few will react in the exact opposite way ("I'm going to go to that nation so I can have a fight with that player and get Moderation on my side"). More generally, players across the game will be thinking and saying "Moderation is useless and the Cultural Protocols must be either unenforced or unenforceable, and the game is broken".

A laissez-faire approach to cultural protection would not be a neutral choice, but a guaranteed choice for acrimony, a diminishment of player confidence in the Cultural Protocols and even in Moderation, and worse, general disillusionment with the game. Having Cultural Protocols but leaving them unenforced does not help *anybody* - neither the players who do follow them nor the players who don't follow them.

Further to this, to sanction a player who ends up on violation of CultPro after a change in the rules, when they were estabished in the nation prior to the revision, is akin to retroactive enforcement of a rule as they were in violation before the new law (per se) was established to make it a violation. This is always highly controversial and often viewed as heavy-handed. Requesting that they move to compliance is fine, but the power doesn't exist to sanction them, just as 16-year-olds who bought cigarettes just before the minimum age rose to 18 can't be retroactively fined (for the act of purchasing them, at least). They may be continuing in a state of violation rather than committing a single act, but if no-one complains and play continues peacefully, that's kinda the point of the rules.

There is no "sanction" involved. It is not treated in any way as a disciplinary matter. It's just part of the procedure that if you want to be reactivated or have Moderation call an early election, you need to be in compliance with the rules. This also avoids situations where Moderation is accused of actively facilitating such situations as the election of "Ronald Reagan" as President of Ibutho or of the Pakistani Muslim Congress as the largest party in Dundorf.

I think having two types of Cultural Protocols -- iron-cast Protocols and relaxed Protocols -- allows for the benefits of tiering without over-complication. I suggest there should be a trade-off though: considering the stricter protocols will need players of that set culture to be enforcable, I would recommend that iron-cast protocols expire sooner than the relaxed ones if no-one is around to play the culture. Would this be an acceptable compromise to those who are concerned about overcomplication, yet sufficient diversity for those who support tiering?

I personally feel that 200 in-game years is a too long (certainly for strict ones) as you'd have a lot of dead nations. Tiering would also allow a relaxation of cultures to encourage people to play alongside them and/or develop them if strict ones were relaxed after, say, 50 years and then completely open after 100. As much as IRL terms this isn't sensible, I would argue that having nations locked down for 300 days (200 in-game years as proposed) is excessive for OOC reasons if no-one comes back to revive the culture. I could reactivate once every 9 months for one day only and keep a culture alive in a nation I didn't actively play in. 50 years would be 75 days and 100 years, 150 days. I still personally feel that having a nation locked out of play for even this long with no-one in for the culture's sake is a waste of playing space, but submit this suggestion to the community to reach an agreement on. I want to find the balance between protecting cultures and preventing dead nations.

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.

***

From following some of the recent discussions, an unfamiliar observer could be forgiven for thinking there is some kind of Reign of Terror going on. This is not so.

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.

At the risk of making myself unfashionable around here...there is no stronger champion of our English party players than me. They form a large section of our player base. Most are not forum regulars, but many of them play the game very enthusiastically and create great enjoyment both for themselves and others. At times, we in the forum community tend to under-value and misunderstand them.

But let me say this: it is *precisely* because I respect them and their preferences that I believe in guiding them towards those nations where they are going to have the best possible experience of this game. I do not believe in laissez-faire; I do not believe in letting them wander unawares into an OOC cultural battlefield and then waiting until everything goes wrong.

***

A final point to make is that although, on the forum, we mainly tend to hear about it when a player is dissatisfied about a Moderation decision concerning enforcement of the Cultural Protocols, it would be mistaken to think the process of cultural enforcement is a negative one for players. Again and again, players who I've contacted about following Cultural Protocols have taken up my suggestion of translating their party name into the appropriate native language, even though I've made clear they are by no means required by the rules to do so. Some of them have researched the Cultural Protocols Index and whizzed off around Terra, moving to different nations and trying out the different cultures. The thing that has astonished me the most has been how often players take their enthusiasm for cultural immersion rather further than I would like, by which I mean doing things like putting their party and bill descriptions entirely in a non-English language.

So whilst Cultural Protocols are not always universally popular, I would argue they are much more than just a restriction - they can actually be a powerful selling point for this game.

[Doc]

Oh hell- I am trying to put a positive spin on these cultural protocols, but I am really having a difficult time with it.

I really am opposed to them, but then I'm not required to live under them anymore, so to be honest, unless there is a move to reprotect Kalistan, I really don't have a dog in the fight.

Then we definitely need a passable "Opt-out" option we can cite for nations such as Kalistan -- which I didn't even consider bringing in with CultPro -- and I will need your input to draft the wording. We need a clear and unambiguous document to approve. How about:

"We hereby declare the nation of <<nation>> to be Culturally Open. No language, ethnicity or culture may be locked through Cultural Protocols in this nation until a single party who wishes to enact such changes, has already reigned unopposed for a century."

...it occurs to me that we're defining Keynes, Hayek and Nozick options for Culture: State Protection, Loose Framework or DWTFYWT.

1) That picture was pretty funny.

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?