Kubrick wrote:Did you miss another memo, Zanz? Only cool kids in this thread.
Kubrick wrote: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.
Kubrick wrote: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.
Kubrick wrote: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."
TheNewGuy wrote:IdioC wrote:-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?!
TheNewGuy wrote: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.
Doc wrote: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.
IdioC wrote: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.
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.
IdioC wrote: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?Aquinas wrote: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.
IdioC wrote: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.
IdioC wrote: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.
IdioC wrote:Doc wrote: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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests