Cultural Protocols: Draft Proposal Mark I - Moribund

[IdioC]

In light of the Presentational Changes that give newbies much fairer warning about Cultural Protocols, my objection to the current system is greatly diminished and I will not be pursuing this further.

---
From the discussion in this thread, I have condensed the opinions presented to what I aim to be a workable proposal I would like to put to you for your consideration. Thanks to all who commented, suggested and constructively criticised during the debate. Thanks also to those who expressed concerns and provided some real-world cultural and in-game historical insights that provided inspiration for the development of further ideas.

Please read the proposal and suggest what you would change. Votes are deliberately set to be changable in response to modifications as it evolves.

Preamble: Conclusion of Previous Discussion
Cultural Protocols were originally designed to protect the cultures of nations using a language other than English through a hard set of rules, then evolved a use to protect RP ideas ranging from soft protection of a culture from invasion to an absolute law for roleplay, suffering no deviation. Over six years, these have been applied and modified by Moderation in different ways and at various stages, in line with their own interpretations of a poorly-worded original document and the various interpretations of players in making requests. This has resulted in a lack of certainty in what players can expect from them.

The conclusions of the poll suggest support for two tiers of Cultural Protocol: one of absolute protection with no other cultures/names predominantly in a set language; another of relaxed protection permitting the creation and appearance of other minority languages/cultures. This is in line with the complaints made against Cultural Protocols in previous threads over the past six years, suggesting the tightening or relaxation of the rules over time (cited in the linked discussion above). Two tiers of Cultural Protection are needed to ensure players set which level they want and receive the protection desired.

The discussion also raised the prospect of a Cultural Opt-Out for nations that do not want to be locked down, with historical examples cited where a culture had been enforced on a nation that had been previously fluid. This is, in part, due to the drive against the large number of anglophone cultures in 2009, with the original CultPro designed to encourage rapid conversion of these nations. This is no longer appropriate and has led to a shortage of Open nations. A declaration for a third "Culturally Open" tier is needed to protect these fluid nations if they so desire.

I propose the following names and welcome suggestions if these do not seem clear enough:
*"Absolute Cultural Definition" (Strict);
*"Cultural Protection" (Relaxed);
*"Cultural Opt-Out" (Open).

Notice the deliberate lack of use of "Cultural Protocol" to avoid confusion.

Each tier will have an expiry time from the month of last culturally-relevant action: A party satisfying the undertakes political activity in-game (Early Election, Legislation, Treaty Withdrawal, Cabinet bills) or Culturally-relevant RP (Message to all world nations on forum or game engine World News; Valid RP on the forum).

As the "Absolute Definition" tier (Strict) is more restrictive, I suggest these expire sooner than the "Protection" (Relaxed) tier; if players desire such restrictive protections, they have to maintain the culture to use them to prevent a nation being locked dead for a long period of time. "Absolute Definition" will expire to "Protection", "Protection" will expire to "Open". "Open" will require renewals so as to allow Cultures that develop in all nations to be protected under the right circumstances if desired, to allow the current arbitrary -- but necessary -- assignment of nations forced "Open" to be relaxed. This will allow cultures to rise and fall all over Terra, as in the real world.

The discussion also raised the prospect of a Repeal option, if players in a nation unilaterally withdraw from it. I suggest this should be permitted after a set period of time to prevent players jumping the nation of a group of players who go on holiday at the same time, for instance.

This is the first serious proposal of time limits and I am keen to know whether players feel they should be expanded or shortened to reflect community opinion.

As the name "Cultural Protocols" refers to the various evolutions of the old system (which to be fair, I completely buggered up), I dub this new suggestion the "Cultural Framework" to avoid confusion.

Draft Proposal: Cultural Framework

0 Scope

0.1 The Cultural Framework is to replace the existing system of Cultural Protocols.

0.2 The System Comes First: the variables in the system cannot be ignored by the use of the Cultural Framework.
0.2.1 Where a System Variable is in conflict with the Framework, Moderation will remedy the situation if appropriate, with sanction at their discretion.
0.2.2 Where a Cultural Framework Bill passes in the Game Engine, it may not necessarily be accepted under the terms of the Framework.

0.3 The Game Rules, Rildanor Accords and other codified systems for RP management take precedence over the Cultural Framework.

0.4 The word of Wouter is final.

1 Definitions

1.1 "Framework" refers to the "Cultural Framework".

1.2 "Culture" refers to the Cultural, Linguistic, Demographic and Religious characteristics of the population of in-game nation.

1.3 "Cultural Protocol" refers to the previous system for protecting the Culture of a nation, as defined in 1.2.

1.4 "Culturally-Relevant Action" refers to any activity undertaken by an in-game party actively adhering to the Culture, as defined in 1.2, in compliance with the Framework, as defined in 1.1.
1.4.1 This may include in-game political actions: Early Election, Cabinet, Legislative and Treaty Withdrawal Bills.
1.4.2 This may include RP actions: World News articles, Forum newspaper articles and RP.
1.4.3 Exceptions: Any activities in 1.4 in violation of existing Rules and Accords do not count.

1.5 "Month of Last Culturally-Relevant Action" refers to the in-game month where the last "Culturally-Relevant Action" was made by any party in compliance with the Framework, as defined in 1.1.

1.6 The Bill types referred to in the Cultural Framework are defined in section 2.2 and subsections.

1.7 All Game Engine terms not declared explicitly herein are defined as done so in the game.

2 Process

2.1 The Cultural Framework codifies the terms and process of the passage, recognition, enforcement, amendment/renewal and repeal/expiry of one of three types of in-game Resolution to either opt into or opt out of protection of an established in-game Culture.

2.2 Names. These three bill types should have different names to reflect their intents.
2.2.1 "Absolute Cultural Definition": This bill provides an exhaustive list of variables with no deviation permitted on pain of Moderation sanction, but a shorter expiry time to prevent nations being locked dead.
2.2.2 "Cultural Protection": This bill provides a general description of variables with some deviation and subcultures permitted and reactive enforcement, with a longer expiry time to encourage gradual and more realistic changes.
2.2.3 "Cultural Opt-Out": This bill provides no variables with total free reign permitted in accordance with the rules of the game, preventing a "Absolute Cultural Definition" or "Cultural Protection" being declared and, insodoing, preventing the protection of a single culture upon the nation in which it is declared.

2.3 Conditions. Each stage of the Process for the above has conditions attached as set in Sections 3 ("Absolute Cultural Definition"), 4 ("Cultural Protection") and 5 ("Cultural Opt-Out").

2.4 Passage. Upon passage of any of the above Cultural Framework Bills in accordance with the terms in Sections 3-5 as appropriate and in the absence of any currently valid alternative, Moderation should be informed on the forum or by PM with a link to the passed bill so that it may be recognised.
2.4.1 Upon passage, an OOC Bill should be written in the Draft phase for players to use as a reference, clearly stating which sort of protection it is in the title.
2.4.2 Moderation reserve the right to refuse variables that are deemed to be too close to Real Life cultures.
2.4.3 Moderation reserve the right to refuse to recognise bills passed through, or containing rule violations.

2.5 Recognition. Upon recognition of any Cultural Framework Bill, Moderation will keep a link in the forum for reference, at which point, the bill comes into effect.
2.5.1 Moderation reserve the right to put a Cultural Framework Bill on hold to ensure a suitable supply of Culturally Unprotected nations for players.

2.6 Enforcement. When Moderation detect or have a report of the violation of the bill, an enforcement process will be enacted as appropriate.
2.6.1 The player in violation will be contacted first to allow them to correct the variable or action at fault.
2.6.2 If a player in violation refuses to correct, Moderation reserve the right as and when appropriate to amend variables, officially warn players, inactivate accounts, reset seats or in extreme cases, ban players outright.

2.7 Amendment and Renewal. A Cultural Framework Bill may be amended or renewed in the same manner in which it was passed.

2.8 Repeal. A Cultural Framework Bill may be repealed with a different Bill under conditions specific to each type, as specified in Sections 3, 4 and 5.

2.9 Expiry. A Cultural Framework Bill shall expire either after a set number of in-game years from the Last Culturally-Relevant Action as in Sections 3 and 4 or after a set time for the Opt-Out as in Section 5.
2.9.1 Upon Expiry, an "Absolute Cultural Definition" Bill becomes a "Cultural Protection" Bill.
2.9.2 Upon Expiry, a "Cultural Protection" Bill or "Cultural Opt-Out" Bill both cease to be valid.

3. "Absolute Cultural Definition".

3.1 Passage. An "Absolute Cultural Definition" (ACD) Bill shall contain in explicit detail variables to do with the nation's Culture, such as Languages (RL or Particracy-specific), Demographics (Proportion of Populations), Religions (Using Particracy Names as appropriate) and Cultural points (food, terrain, games, employments, history etc.)
3.1.1 Passage of an ACD Bill requires a unanimity of players in the nation with seats to be recognised, regardless of it passing in the Game Engine.
3.1.2 An ACD Bill should recognise previously protected Cultures as minority populations.

3.2 Enforcement. An ACD Bill comes into force when it is recognised.
3.2.1 All parties in a nation where an ACD is in force must comply with the details, including character names, language, activities as defined in the ACD.
3.2.2 The English Language (Luthori) may be used for conduct for those who have no fluency in another language used in the nation; translations must be available at least on request.
3.2.3 Points cannot be implied from things stated in the ACD Bill; it is unfair on new players to expect them to adjust to what they may not be able to infer. Hence, points on Culture must be explicitly stated in the ACD Bill.

3.3 Amendment. An ACD Bill can be amended with a 2/3 majority of players in the form of an amended form of the original ACD bill.
3.3.1 The Amendment must be consistent with the previous culture, not a complete overhaul.
3.3.2 Barring RP events by consensus, a 5% shift in demographic statistics shall be the maximum considered reasonable.
3.3.3 Moderation refuse the right to refuse amendments that alienate or disadvantage a particular player in the nation; culture should be consensual.

3.4 Repeal. An ACD Bill can be repealed when conditions 3.4.1, 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 are satisfied:
3.4.1 A Repeal Bill is passed by a unanimity of players with seats in the nation.
3.4.2 The repealing parties have played in the nation for half the Expiry time of the ACD Bill, currently 25 In-Game Years (38 RL Days).
3.4.3 The ACD Bill has stood for half the Expiry time of the ACD Bill, currently 25 In-Game Years (38 RL Days).

3.5 Expiry. An ACD Bill expires automatically after 50 In-Game Years (75 RL Days) since the Month of the last Culturally-Relevant Action occurred as defined in 1.5.
3.5.1 The ACD Bill is then considered a "Cultural Protection" Bill.

4. "Cultural Protection"

4.1 Passage. A "Cultural Protection" (CP) Bill shall contain in loose detail variables to do with the nation's Culture, such as Languages (RL or Particracy-specific), Demographics (Proportion of Populations), Religions (Using Particracy Names as appropriate) and Cultural points (food, terrain, games, employments, history etc.)
4.1.1 Passage of a CP Bill requires a 2/3 of players in the nation with seats to be recognised, regardless of it passing in the Game Engine.
4.1.2 A CP Bill should recognise previously protected Cultures as minority populations.

4.2 Enforcement. A CP Bill comes into force when it is recognised.
4.2.1 Most parties in a nation where a CP is in force should comply with the details, including character names, language, activities as defined in the CP, however, flexibility is granted for minority cultures, secondary languages and derivative cultural ideas.
4.2.2 The English Language (Luthori) should be used primarily for conduct for those who have no fluency in another language used in the nation; translations must be available at least on request if a second is used.
4.2.3 Due to their flexibility, points can be implied or interpreted from things stated in the CP Bill; New players must be granted some freedom to diversify without completely ignoring the existing culture.
4.2.4 As such, Moderation will only intervene when an obvious violation is spotted or an objection is raised.

4.3 Amendment. A CP Bill can be amended with a 2/3 majority of players in amended form of the original CP Bill.
4.3.1 The Amendment must be consistent with the previous culture, not a complete overhaul.
4.3.2 Barring RP events by consensus, a 5% shift in demographic statistics shall be the maximum considered reasonable.
4.3.3 Moderation refuse the right to refuse amendments that alienate or disadvantage a particular player in the nation; culture should be consensual.

4.4 Repeal. A CP Bill can be repealed when conditions 4.4.1, 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 are satisfied:
4.4.1 A Repeal Bill is passed by a unanimity of players with seats in the nation.
4.4.2 The repealing parties have played in the nation for half the Expiry time of the CP Bill, currently 50 In-Game Years (75 RL Days).
4.4.3 The CP Bill has stood for half the Expiry time of the CP Bill, currently 50 In-Game Years (75 RL Days).

4.5 Expiry. A CP Bill expires automatically after 100 In-Game Years (150 RL Days) since the Month of the last Culturally-Relevant Action occurred as defined in 1.5.
4.5.1 The Nation is then considered unprotected and open to whichever Cultural Framework Bill is passed and recognised next.

5. "Cultural Opt-Out"

5.1 Passage. A "Cultural Opt-Out" (COO) Bill shall contain the following text, amended as appropriate for the nation name, "We, the citizens of the nation of <<NATION NAME>> do hereby opt-out from the protections afforded under the Cultural Framework for the next century."
5.1.1 Passage of a COO Bill requires a 2/3 of players in the nation with seats to be recognised, regardless of it passing in the Game Engine.
5.1.2 It would be useful for a COO Bill to recognise previously protected Cultures as a list, for historical preservation.

5.2 Enforcement. A COO Bill comes into force when it is recognised.
5.2.1 Although continuity is encouraged, there is no regulation of Cultural, Religious, Demographic or other variables beyond the Rules and standard RP Common Sense.
5.2.2 The English Language (Luthori) should be used primarily for conduct for those who have no fluency in another language used in the nation; translations must be available at least on request if a second is used.
5.2.3 Moderation will only intervene in line with usual Game Rule enforcement.

5.3 Renewal. A COO Bill can be renewed with a 2/3 majority of players in the form of adjustment.
5.3.1 This is required every 100 in-game years (150 RL days) at least to prevent the Opt-Out expiring.

5.4 Repeal. A COO Bill can be repealed when conditions 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 are satisfied:
5.4.1 A Repeal Bill is passed by a unanimity of players with seats in the nation.
5.4.2 The repealing parties have played in the nation for half the Expiry time of the COO Bill, currently 50 In-Game Years (75 RL Days).
5.4.3 The COO Bill has stood for half the Expiry time of the COO Bill, currently 50 In-Game Years (75 RL Days).

5.5 Expiry. A COO Bill expires automatically after 100 In-Game Years (150 RL Days) since the Month that the original COO Bill was passed.
5.5.1 The Nation is then considered unprotected and open to whichever Cultural Framework Bill is passed and recognised next.

6. Transition.

6.1 Upon the commencement of the Cultural Framework, all existing Cultural Protocol Bills will be considered "Absolute Cultural Definition" bills, unless the nation passes a "Cultural Protection" bill to opt into the relaxed mode.

6.2. Culturally-Open nations under Cultural Protocol will [i]not[i] be presumed Culturally Opt-Out nations unless the nations pass a COO bill to do so.

...and suggested rules tweaks (modifications in bold)

6.1 Cultural Framework Bills and updates to existing Cultural Framework Bills must be passed by a unanimity or 2/3rds majority of players with seats as appropriate and recognised by Moderation in order to become official. In order to be recognised, the changes must be judged realistic and where they are significant, adequate role-play justification must be be provided.

6.1.1 Whilst Cultural Framework Bills may contain information about a nation and suggestions about how to play in it, the parts of the Cultural Framework Bills which are officially binding are specifically:

- cultural demographics (eg. Luthori/English)
- linguistic demographics (eg. Luthori-speaking/English-speaking)
- religious demographics (e.g. Hosian/Christian)

6.1.2 All future Cultural Framework Bills and updates to existing Cultural Framework Bills must contain a percentage breakdown of the cultural and religious demographics. These percentage breakdowns must add up to exactly 100, meaning that no overlaps are allowed. A maximum of 5 percentage points may be allocated to an unspecified "Other" category. The linguistic demographics, if not directly provided, will be assumed to be based on a reasonable interpretation of the cultural demographics, but may not be enforcable in a dispute. Please ensure your Cultural Framework Bill is as thorough as possible to give newcomers a chance to integrate

6.1.3 Cultural Framework Bills must provide descriptions of the cultures, languages and religions which would be easy for a new player to understand (eg. "Dundorfian = German").

6.1.4 Once recognised, players should copy them into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Framework:", followed by the Cultural Framework Bill type for the avoidance of doubt. This bill should include links to the actual Cultural Framework Bill which was recognised by Moderation, the Rules of the Game and the Cultural Framework Bills Index. Where appropriate, it should also provide guidance to players on where to find help with translations and character names. This might include, for example, links to Google Translate and Behind the Name's Random Name Generator.

6.1.5 The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to prevent confusion by ensuring unofficial or outdated bills labelled as "Cultural Framework Bills" are removed from their nation page.

[Kubrick]

I'm pretty tired so probably not reading half of this correctly but culturally locked nations can just float to culturally open? So if I have a busy period I could come back to a generic American republic version of Vanuku?

[IdioC]

I'm pretty tired so probably not reading half of this correctly but culturally locked nations can just float to culturally open? So if I have a busy period I could come back to a generic American republic version of Vanuku?

After no culturally-relevant activity, strict ones will float to a relaxed version after a set period of time (currently 75 RL days), then expire completely after a further (as standing) 75 RL days under the current proposal.

In short, you'd have to be away for over 2 months to see it relaxed, then nearly 5 months to see it expire.

If other players are in the nation who also play under the same culture, they can renew or amend the Cultural Framework Bill and keep it alive. This way, Moderation know it's still active. It's a way of preventing stagnation.

The flip side is that previously protected cultures have to be acknowledged in opt-outs and new Cultural Framework Bills so that even if it does disappear, you can return as a protected minority population and even, with support, reinstate it. After all, if any player is out of the game for that period of time, whatever the reason OOC*, it's not entirely fair on the remaining players to keep the seat warm if they favour another idea.

The reason for this proposal is simple: Several culturally-locked nations have a single player in (or lie vacant) but if a newcomer comes in completely unaware of the cultural system, from the Nation Selection screen, they'll get burned for just playing the game to their mind in the name of a culture practically dormant if not completely dead.

(*for what it's worth, I'm currently commuting 75 miles and working 0530 to 1900 at least every day, whilst applying for new jobs and finalising a qualification. Real life can be throw up all sorts of balancing acts and issues but unfortunately, the world does indeed keep turning.)

[IdioC]

Further to this, I should state that as I am trying to chair this and update the draft to community ideas, I am not voting for any option in the poll. I need to see what everyone else thinks without skewing the outcome.

[SelucianCrusader]

I voted that I disapprove of Repeal system in general, although I could just as well have voted that I disapprove of the Expiry system. Back when the CP:s were created, the time for a country to "float" to cultural void was 500 IG years, i. e. 10 years. While that might seem draconic, I'm not sure that I want such a system in place at all. Why would a country of Jelbic-speaking Muslim nomads or Emperor-worshipping German Japanese just suddenly start speaking English and elect a "President" and a "Congress"? There is no excuse for vandalism that makes sense from a role playing-perspective. I'd favour having a relaxed interpretation of the cultural protection system for players engaging in RP in countries that have been effectively culturally dormant for a long time, meaning that the players interpretation of the nation's culture may be allowed to vary a lot and deviate form the original if they make their country contribute to RP once again.

Regarding the COO, that's probably my biggest problem here. I can't help viewing it as a way to legalize nation raids. If a group of players come and wants to turn Luthori, Dankuk, Indrala or whatever into America, they shouldn't be allowed through do that through an "opt-out" from the rules. We should rather help people to play the game by the rules and read up on their country's lore instead of acting against consistency and common sense.

I'm all for innovation, but it shouldn't come at the expense of hat came before. The contributions of previous players or plain common sense should never be an "opt-out".

[Polites]

Though I've previously expressed cautious support for the idea of introducing expiration of Cultural Protocols, there are some major issues with the idea that have caused me to reexamine my stance on this.

1. Expiration is hard or outright impossible to justify IC.

As current rules on CPs stand, major and sometimes drastic cultural changes are allowed if RP justification is provided. That is of paramount importance, since, even if a certain degree of fluidity is realistic and fair, major changes will not disrupt the narrative continuity of the game and each individual nation. In contrast, expiry would remove the requirement to provide IC justification, and thus break continuity as well as ruin immersion (not to mention that it would be unrealistic).

2. Some cultures are inherently unpopular.

Looking at player distribution, it is obvious that larger numbers of players prefer English or Open nations, and non-European or PT-specific cultures attract fewer, but more RP-active players. That has pretty much always been the case, and the only way to create an even distribution of players would be to make all nations Open or English-speaking. While that would likely put an end to permanent 1 or 0-party nations, it would make Terra as a whole less diverse and more mono-cultural. Look at Indrala, for example; although it currently has a large number of players, for most of its history since it was orriginally defined as Chinese-speaking it's been a single-party nation. While making it Anglophone would attract more players there, losing the game's only Chinese-based nation would be a great loss to RP and the cultural diversity of Terra.

3. Lack of players does not mean lack of interest.

Just because active players in one nation have no interest in engaging with its culture does not mean that the player community as a whole lacks interest in it, and indeed many would be quite irritated by its loss. Even the most obscure cultures of the game have attracted the direct or indirect interest of players other than their creator. Cildania's Phoenician culture has been RPd by many players other than its creator (me), both new and old, many of whom remain active members of the community. Similarly, interest in Vorona's Anglo-Saxon culture has outlived the presence of its original creator (Captain Socialist) in that nation, and many of those who RPd that culture, myself included, are still around.

Also, the cultures and histories of nations are, after years of cultural development and nearly 2000 years of IG history, intimately tied to each other, so that any change in one nation would have an impact on at least 1 other nation if not Terra as a whole. It is important to New Endralon that its former colonizer was Endralon, so some degree of common culture should remain in place. It matters to Deltaria Nova that it was once a colony of Deltaria, so it should remain populated by at least one of the ethnic groups in its former metropolis. The Jelbic Khaganate would become retrospectively inexplicable if any of the Jelbic nations would cease to be one without RPd justification and recognition of this past RP. And so on.

4. Representation of cultures is horrible.

One problem that the game suffers from more than the uneven distribution of players is the extreme underrepresentation of anything that isn't European or Middle-Eastern. For most of the game's IG history there was only one nation with an African-based culture (Talmoria), and even there it was almost constantly under minority white rule, while there have always been at least five German-based nations and tens of Anglophone ones. Allowing cultures to expire would affect those underrepresented cultures far more than it would the European ones.

5. Nobody owns a culture.

Just like no one player owns a nation, cultures are not anyone's property. It is true that new players should not be obliged to keep the seat warm for older players who've gone on holiday, but they should also not be allowed to disregard and ignore the collective effort of previous players. If they want to change it, they can do that with RP, therefore contributing to rather than destroying the collective storytelling device that is Particracy roleplay.

Conversely, tying strict cultural protection to active RP would ultimately lead to the entrenchment of players in a single nation, as they would have an incentive to stick around indefinitely so that the strict rules will not expire. That may have been the norm in the past, that's no longer the case these days, where older players tend to roam all around Terra, as Aquinas explained in the previous thread.

[Doc]

Quick response

1. Naturally I will object to "narrative continuity": If there is nobody playing in that country for a century, there is no "narrative continuity." When a brand new player then arrives at that country, it is kind of silly to expect him/her to pick up the storyline where it left off. If an older player returned, it should be easy to re-establish the old protocol, but to some degree, if one snoozes, one looses. And it is inappropriate for people outside the country to be allowed to enforce that continuity on a country that they are not a part of.

2. If it is true that players naturally gravitate toward english language/culturally open countries, then Kalistan should be loaded with Parties now. We have had two Parties join Kalistan since we became open, and because I have been focusing on RP these last couple weeks instead of proposing a lot of legislation, they came, stayed there silently for a few months and then left. It is not true that players gravitate to these places. There are a lot of things which determine where people play- culture is only important to those who actually want to play with it, and those who don't will probably just ignore it.

3. It is inappropriate for players outside a country to try to enforce a culture within a country, so they can use it for their own purposes... The culture is only as important as those who are in the country who want to keep using it.

4. On Terra, it is possible that "African" culture is reduced to just one nation, like "Guatemalan" culture is restricted to just one nation on Earth. There is no reason that culture needs to be distributed in any way similarly to how it is on Earth. I don't understand why this is just the assumption- that because Africa holds 15% of the world's population, it should be represented by 15% of Terra's population, or because 1/3 of the world's population lives in Asia on Earth, we need to have 1/3 of the population of Terra also living in various Asian states. If it does, it is because someone deliberately imposed an Earth scheme onto Terra's population, but we need to stop pretending that the culture scheme is natural, and we are just writing it down. It is not. It is possible that the ENTIRE PLANET of Terra is populated by European like nations, with one or two differences here and there. And the only reason why that IS impossible is because a few players don't want it to be so, while many others don't particularly care.

5. Agreed- the Nation's RP history comes before anything else except the rules of the Game, in my opinion. So if the RP history doesn't support the cultural protocol, grafting it onto a nation doesn't make any sense. But there are a few players who do not roam, and as a result, we actually remember the RP history. For those countries which have zero player memory because people have bounced in and out for so long, why not allow the CP to expire after a while, so that the new players can build the place for themselves?

[Polites]

Quick response to the quick response:

1. It is, of course, nobody's obligation to pick up the storyline of previous players. That's what the wiki and forum are for (archiving past RP). What the CP does is make sure that the storyline does not get disrupted or removed without good reason, and that aspect I would like to see maintained.

2. Kalistan may be an exception, but English-speaking and Open nations have, on average, more players than non-Anglophone culturally protected nations.

3. I did not say that outsiders should have a direct impact on cultural enforcement, and indeed current rules allow only players actively playing within the nation to modify the culture. What I am saying is that such modifications should keep in mind the impact they may have on other nations and their background histories.

4. The end result of that is a very Eurocentric Terra. Most Terran nations are explicitly based on one or more RL countries, and most nations give primacy to European/Western cultures. Although I'm sure that is not the intention, the result is, for lack of a better word, rather racist, because it privileges European cultures, languages, and religions to the expense of all other RL cultures.

Moreover, Terra is supposed to mirror Earth in terms of technological development and other basic characteristics. The sentient beings inhabiting Terra are identical to the Homo sapiens inhabiting Earth, their level of technology is the same as that of contemporary RL countries, and its biological evolution was identical. Privileging white European cultures above all others would mean that the RL distribution of phenotypes and genotypes is fundamentally different from that of Earth, which would violate the core assumption that, unless otherwise stated, Terra mirrors Earth. See here for a more detailed argument as to why at least one African nation is needed in Particracy.

5. I agree, RP history is of secondary importance only to game rules. Which is why I believe some degree of continuity in RP history should be maintained.

[Reddy]

I want to explain why I now think Cultural Protocols should be radically reformed or even abolished. As long as I've played this game (since November 2012) much of the community's energy has been focused on these cultural conflicts. There are several threads on this culture and that one... and harassment of new players who don't immediately adopt whatever complex culture their new country has. We have to recognise some cold hard facts. The vast majority of the community is Eurocentric and countries with such cultures generally have the highest number of players. Countries with non-European cultures generally struggle to even keep player. Just a week or two ago I counted 7 empty countries. Guess how many of them had Eurocentric/open cultures? Zero.

I'm not saying the contributions of previous players should be ignored but what would be the point of maintaining, say Beiteynu's Yeudish culture or Kalopia's is, if the countries spend half to three-quarters of the year empty? It's an online game so all this 'we should have different cultures just for the sake of it' argument means next to nothing to me. The mission to make PT realistic at the cost of player retention is a very bad idea. The two should be balanced in favour of the later. I personally feel more outraged that we have so many one party states and empty ones than by the fact that we don't have more African or Asian countries. Good RP has nothing to do with culture, it's about being imaginative and creating interesting scenarios. You can have the most elaborate exotic culture but if it's just window dressing, what's the point?

Some of these countries are just too culturally variegated in my humble opinion. Countries like Kalopia or Cobura are difficult to imagine as RL countries because some of the cultures in them are difficult to imagine as existing in the same country. Ethiopians and Serbs. I think this discourages players to stay in this. I think Kalopia in particular should just be restored to a Greek country, the Arabs there are just not that necessary.

As for this proposal, I question if now is the right time to consider more reforms. There have been several reforms in the past few months and maybe we should give them time to evaluate their effects so that if we do choose to adopt them, we would likely be more informed about the negative effects.

[Doc]

Quick response to the quick response:

4. The end result of that is a very Eurocentric Terra. Most Terran nations are explicitly based on one or more RL countries, and most nations give primacy to European/Western cultures. Although I'm sure that is not the intention, the result is, for lack of a better word, rather racist, because it privileges European cultures, languages, and religions to the expense of all other RL cultures.

Moreover, Terra is supposed to mirror Earth in terms of technological development and other basic characteristics. The sentient beings inhabiting Terra are identical to the Homo sapiens inhabiting Earth, their level of technology is the same as that of contemporary RL countries, and its biological evolution was identical. Privileging white European cultures above all others would mean that the RL distribution of phenotypes and genotypes is fundamentally different from that of Earth, which would violate the core assumption that, unless otherwise stated, Terra mirrors Earth. See here for a more detailed argument as to why at least one African nation is needed in Particracy.

I guess I don't see how this is racist- If this is the kind of game that players want to play, then so be it. It would be racist to explicitly exclude them from playing other races, but there is nothing which does that, not explicitly, and not implicitly.

Plus- this game has evolved since its beginning. I am not exactly sure what the intentions were at the beginning beginning, as I was not around then, but I've been around for a decent chunk of time, and I have seen parties grow and shrink, players hop from country to country to country, and play all kinds of different types of parties. I've seen players play socialist parties in one place and fascist parties elsewhere. There is all kinds of room in this game, as it stands right now, for players to play whatever kind of Parties they want. I've never seen anything, though which said Particracy had to mirror Earth anything. As a matter of fact, it seems that the trend has been otherwise- we are not allowed, for example to even use earth names for religions anymore. It used to just be we weren't allowed to make reference to actual earth events in RP, like World War II.

I don't have a problem with one or 10 African nations being a part of Particracy. But my point is, as I made in Kalistan, it should be because the players in that country want it that way and the RPed History of the Country supports it, and not because it fits in with some grand scheme that is being promoted by a few players so that the world "makes sense" to them according to an internal program they are operating on and promoting to the rest of us. If Kalistan wants to become an African nation, it should be because the players who play there want to become an African nation, and then they RP to make it so. But if they, and everyone else wants to play an Anglophone European nation, there shouldn't be anything standing in the way of that either, and certainly not some grand scheme of culture to make everyone fit into some cooked up narrative about how things were "supposed" to be given Earth.

I don't see how making that argument is racist. Just because you don't like it doesn't necessarily mean it is bad, unless you own the game, and then I suppose we should listen to you on the matter.