New rules

[Aquinas]

Game Rules

Back in August last year we went through some changes with an update to the rules. The set of rules introduced then was still incomplete, and a new, fuller edition of the rules was promised. I am pleased to announce that is now ready for release, and I encourage everyone to read the new rules carefully as soon as they have the opportunity to do so. It takes time, I know, but it is worth reading in full, and if anything is unclear, I will be happy to do what I can to clarify.

As some of you know, Amazeroth has been away for a while. Due to this, he has not been involved at the end-phase of this process, although he did make very valuable input at the earlier phase, for which I would like to thank him. Nevertheless, it is probably only fair to say that if you really don't like the new rules, I am the guy to hurl the eggs at. But at this stage, with us just having entered the New Year, I really do feel the time is right to move forwards.

*

The perennially controversial early election tactic is now going to be restricted. To quote the new rule,

10.1 It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset.

*

Treaty-locking is also now restricted:

14.2 "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation.

*

The rules surrounding complying with Cultural Protocols have been further clarified (see section 6).

*

In section 16, the requirements for passing Cultural Protocol updates have been tightened a little. It is now necessary for a Cultural Protocol update to have been passed by two-thirds of players with seats representing more than half of the votes in the legislature, and it is also necessary for at least 1 of the players sponsoring the update to have been continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least the last month.

*

Perhaps the biggest change in the new rules is in section 15. Cultural Protocols must now be "affirmed" during determined "Cultural Eras" or else they will become candidates for Culturally Open status. Affirmation is carried out by passing a Cultural Protocol update.

At the end of the Cultural Era, Moderation will review the candidates and make a judgement about whether to allow them to continue over into the next Cultural Era. There will be a consultation and opportunities for players to put forward their views, once the time comes to make these decisions.

The first Cultural Era begins today and will end on May 1st 2016.

Long-term, as some unaffirmed Cultural Protocols are allowed to elapse, it should once again become possible for players to get involved with setting up new Cultural Protocols. Although the requirements for setting up new Cultural Protocols will be stricter than they were in the past; see section 17 for more on that.

*

I do understand some players, especially some of our more experienced players, will be unhappy with the concept of Cultural Protocols being allowed to elapse. However, it is necessary to introduce a greater element of fluidity and to keep the game lively. We have some very good, very keen players coming into the game. If we are to keep their interest, eventually we are going to need to offer them the same opportunities to test their ideas as we oldies enjoyed in the past.

*

I have listened carefully to the arguments for "cultural planning" to ensure a broader range of cultures are represented in the game, and also for "cultural sense" or "cultural continuity" across continents or regions. The new rules do not impose any of this, but in certain circumstances they do create leeway for these concerns to be taken account of when it comes to Cultural Protocol updates and the creation of new Cultural Protocols. See 16.5.1 and 17.1.2 for more details on this.

*

Under section 18, nations with 4 or more players with seats may appoint a Nationmaster to "assist in the initiation, development and co-ordination of role-play in the nations they are attached to". Some of you may remember EEL playing a role like this in Dranland/Dankuk at one time, and it worked wonderfully well.

Nationmasters will not have any formal authority, but it is to be hoped they will bring an extra dimension to the playing of the game. It will be possible to be Nationmaster for more than 1 nation at a time, so if some really good Nationmasters emerge, they can be shared around and we won't have to fight over them.

*

The rules surrounding role-play and character control have been clarified in the "Role-play" part of the rules. I hope these will help.

*

On a final note, let me concede, of course, that in the long-term, not all rules are set in stone. Doubtless we will see the odd controversy and arguments made for additions, subtractions and modifications. There will be "test cases" which challenge us all to look at things again. All of this is to be expected and I am open to it; your goodwill is all I ask.

[Farsun]

I entirely disagree with Cultural Protocols being allowed to lapse. That goes against everything that they were set out to be. At that point, its more effective to really scrap them. With this ruling, you'll see long standing cultures just being obliterated because a new player will come in and dislike the previous culture and boom. We'll have every country speaking English with English titles. We've done a tremendous job at protecting countries that are unique and driving a very diverse experience here in-game.

I seriously urge you to reconsider this new rule, which was never floated with the community at all. I would be of the mind to allow certain nations who have been "culturally void" for a long time to be involved in this but nations that have long standing cultures should not be destroyed because someone went inactive or older players moved on with their lives. Role-play is a creative writing experience that should last and not be destroyed because newer players, who usually come in and want things their way, want things to change.

It also wouldn't make a ton of sense. We've all come to accept the fact that even though its the 3900s we accept that time moves about the same rate as it does in the real-world and getting far too advanced is going to screw us all up. It'd be a shame to see Luthori, whose always active but rarely has many people involved in RP or on the forums, be gobbled up because some new player believes it should be Swahili. Or Dundorf, who traditionally has one player who just sits there and doesn't do a damn thing and gets changed to be South African. Histories and countless hours have been placed into making backstories and to destroy them on some technicality is pretty shitty honestly.

You're destroying the investment in the game as well. What point do I have now to try to make long-standing histories for my nation when someone can come in and just be like "Oh, well...I don't like that. Let's make this place....French!"

If we're going to keep players interested its getting our heads of our asses and coming up with an effective RP Team that has the authority to make world events, coming up with a permanent UN-type organization, not destroying cultures. That's something that this game needs Aquinas and I know people have said that was a good idea. RP is going to make them stay and enjoy, looking at what nations are culturally lapsed is not.

[Aquinas]

We have had considerable discussion about Cultural Protocols. The views of players - as expressed both on and off the forum - were listened to carefully and taken into account in the formation of the new rules.

A reading of sections 15 and 16 of the rules will show the requirements for affirming Cultural Protocols are not onerous or unreasonable. Culturally Protected nations have until May 1st to make their affirmations. That is nearly 4 months.

Messages have been sent to every nation message-board informing players about the new rules and the implications for Cultural Protocols.

Even unaffirmed Cultural Protocols will not necessarily be allowed to elapse. The final decision will rest with Moderation, and before that decision is made, there will be a full opportunity for players to present their views.

There is no intention to "destroy" or in any way devalue the role-play that has been done in past. What we do have is a recognition of the need to meet the aspirations of current and future players.

As some will know, I have long been a fan of the concept of a UN-style organisation in Particracy. This has been tried in the past, although there has always been a difficulty in gaining and maintaining the interest of enough players. If any current players are interested in reviving the idea, then I offer them my strongest support and will listen carefully to any requests they might make for Moderation assistance.

[Farsun]

Current and future players have a plethora of countries to choose from that does not require Moderation enforced "destruction". What is the criteria for Moderation not approving a lapsed protocol? Does it have to be "realistic"? Why do we enforce realism in some aspects of this game and not others. I find it arbitrary and I feel that a lot of work that has been done, that has taken hours of real life time will be thrown away. I find it to be not discussed at all, players wanted enforcement and when the protocols aren't enforced it makes them worthless.

Again, as I said, an RP Team would be needed to manage that and quite frankly, we rely on players to do things. I was chatting with Kubrick the other day and players cannot constantly create things themselves because we just get ignored. This RP Team would have the backing of moderation and the ability to make events with countries (naturally chatting with them and making sure things fit and work, or in moderations terms "realistic") and it would force the international community to respond.

[Polites]

I don't think there's ever been any consensus that cultures/cultural protocols should be allowed to expire, and on this I'm afraid I agree with Farsun. But if we must, then why not introduce a less tediously bureaucratic system for the "affirmation" of cultural protocols than having a census every few months? Like forum posts and bills and such.

[Farsun]

I'd like this conversation to be brought up again.

We need a solution to this problem.

[Aquinas]

The main message I want to put out here is that if you want the Cultural Protocols in your nation to continue after May 1st, then you can prevent your nation from even being considered for Culturally Open status by affirming your Cultural Protocols under the terms of section 15 of the rules.

Affirming Cultural Protocols is not a difficult process. Any nation that wants to guarantee the continuation of its Cultural Protocols is able to do so.

15. Cultural Eras and affirming Cultural Protocols

Moderation will set "Cultural Eras" which expire after a determined period of time. The date for the expiration of the current Cultural Era will be listed in the Cultural Protocols Index, which will also include a record of which Cultural Protocols have so far been "affirmed".

15.1 Within a Cultural Era, the Cultural Protocols of a nation must be affirmed by the players of that nation in order to guarantee those Cultural Protocols carry over into the next Cultural Era. Otherwise, the nation will become a candidate for Culturally Open status.

15.1.1 A nation's Cultural Protocols can be affirmed by the passing of a Cultural Protocol update (see section 16). The update need not make significant changes; it would be enough to change one of the categories by a fraction of a percentage point. Nor is it necessary for it to be accepted by Moderation in order for it to count as an affirmation. However, to count as an affirmation it must meet these conditions:

- It should be supported by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature.

- At least one of the players sponsoring the update must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month.

- There should be a time gap of at least 1 month from the previous affirmation.

- It should be formally submitted to Moderation for approval on the Cultural Protocol Approvals thread.

15.2 At the close of each Cultural Era, Moderation will review the Cultural Protocols which were not affirmed and decide whether it would be in the broader interests of the game to allow them to continue into the next Cultural Era, or whether the nation should be declared Culturally Open.

[Farsun]

Right, I get that but to have it be continually confirmed is tedious for both us and you, and quite frankly I don't wanna spend my days running around checking that I have my paperwork filed by this date. This is a game, not the IRS.

[Aquinas]

Basically, you need to do a Cultural Protocol update in order to affirm your Cultural Protocols. If you or anybody else would like any help with that, just ask and I will be more than happy to assist.

[Farsun]

Basically, you need to do a Cultural Protocol update in order to affirm your Cultural Protocols. If you or anybody else would like any help with that, just ask and I will be more than happy to assist.

It isn't about that, why was something like this introduced when the player base never discussed it at length? I would've preferred a discussion before adding it to the rules and I imagine ohters would've liked the same. What this does now is it puts further bureaucratic procedures on the players when it shouldn't.