New rules

[IdioC]

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.

Well, it was a conversation I tried to kick start but it faltered come November.

The original Cultural Protocols (before the rented forum imploded and Wouter set up the on-server one) did have an expiry but it was 500 in-game years or something titanic. Cultural preservation was important but now we have no space for new ideas. We have had quite a few -- me being guilty of this as well -- one-party nations sitting around, especially using the now-prohibited election spam and treaty lock tactics, not all participating in RP like many others have (or in my case, as participating as much as I would have liked to). There's little space for a group of players to go and do something new.

I'd been talking with Aquinas for a couple of weeks thereafter, then I just idled really due to other commitments. I can't claim credit for anything.

I quite like the renewal system that emerged: parties have to be active to renew their cultural protections, meaning people have to care about the cultures to protect them and we don't have vacant nations that can't be converted: even Jelbania, which I have invested in myself and have an attachment to, should not realistically have survived being left vacant for 2 RL months!

Having 4-month blocks is easier to administer with a single deadline to reach but it does mean Moderation gets a massive workload at once. A nation also gets a different length of protection based on how late they leave it. I have to admit a rolling system where every renewal lasts for a set period of time before lapsing -- such as with renewing vehicle excise/"car tax" in the UK for 6/12 months -- might be fairer. It also means that when one has expired, it's up to the parties suggesting any replacement or declaring it open to point it out to Moderation that it has lapsed, so that the first be declared dead. Keep at four-month durations, so that the wiser nations know to renew every three.

I sense an overarching issue here is the realism of the real world versus the game engine. I understand the desire to roleplay supernational organisations and "Regionalism" for realistic RP; also that a culture just "expiring" is not very realistic. However, it also not very realistic for players in a nation to not be able to change their nation's form through their legislature in the game engine due to something a long-departed player put through. We have no other way to model the changes except through slow updates through compliance or the sudden removal of a culture when it lapses (after all, there was no-one keeping it alive for nearly 100 in-game years).

Sometimes I fear we forget this is a game with a forum, not a forum with a game.

[Farsun]

That game mechanics argument is crap. This game is dead in the water and the only chance that it has for survival is to actually manage the game outside of it.

Should they expire? I don't think so. Just because ingame time is 3900 or something doesn't mean we are there in the future because if that's the case I'm gonna have space ships and settle on Mars. Gradual change is permitted with the current cultural protocols but it's through RP, this system stops that.

The old system makes players RP for change and if they dont, oh well. I wish we could get off this notion that we have to permit new players to be coddled and allow them to do what they want. We have rules and they should be enforced.

We have almost 2 dozen nations that are more or less culture less or culturally void. Why do we have to sacrifice the handful that have seen players put work into them shot to shit because a newbie wants to recreate the Russian empire or the the ussr.

I just cannot get behind that...at all.

[Doc]

I wish we could get off this notion that we have to permit new players to be coddled and allow them to do what they want. We have rules and they should be enforced.

We have almost 2 dozen nations that are more or less culture less or culturally void. Why do we have to sacrifice the handful that have seen players put work into them shot to shit because a newbie wants to recreate the Russian empire or the the ussr.

I just cannot get behind that...at all.

Have to say: Not a fan of CP, but for Kalistan, that is. For other countries that want them, why not just let them keep them, and then, as Farsun says, let them RP change? The worst thing in the world for me was to take a little time off, and then come back and find my nation had completely change races, had suddenly adopted a completely new Language, and then I was told I should just accept it as a retcon. I can see how a country, with a very specific history for thousands of years, is abandoned (its easier now, as a matter of fact, with the time out being 4 days instead of 7), and then one of these cultural periods opens up, and the CP is wiped out, and then someone goes there and makes a totally new CP, and retcons thousands of years of ingame history so a brand spankin new culture is there. How could I, if I was in a country which had a CP, possibly have any continuity of RP with that nation, which yesterday was India, today is nothing, and tomorrow is Finland? And how pissed off would I be if I came back to a country I was expecting to be India, and in fact had RPed for years as India, and suddenly found out that it was now Finland? I think I would hit the roof.

Yes- we should encourage new players. But they should join the game as it is... Besides, what was wrong with the system you all hammered out last fall? How did that fail to meet the needs of the game?

[Polites]

As Doc pointed out, it's a bit drastic to have a nation that's been continuously RPd with a certain culture suddenly become something else, which is a definite risk under the current system. So here's an idea: instead of having the CPs "die", why not have them "decay"? Current rules allow for small changes to happen without RP to older CPs ("Where the Cultural Protocols are more than 30 in-game years old, then a change to any of the categories by 5% or less will generally be accepted without question"), and I suggest extending that principle by allowing a 5% change without RP every 30 years - a 300 year old Protocol would then be changeable by 50% without the need to RP that change, for example. That way we can encourage players to keep their CPs updated, allow new players to come up with new cultures, protect established cultures that lack active player participation, and maintain a degree of continuity and realism (with the understanding that RPless changes are a reflection of gradual demographic shifts rather than dramatic changes in population), while also being somewhat less bureaucratic. As I noticed, many newbies are eager to update CPs but fail to understand the RP requirement, and older players have a distinct advantage in the sense that they know where to dig in order to find RP justifications for CP updates.

[IdioC]

That game mechanics argument is crap. This game is dead in the water and the only chance that it has for survival is to actually manage the game outside of it.

I agree yet disagree. The problem is that we've now added such layers of complexity through extra agreements -- layers I wouldn't remove for the world in an ideal scenario -- we've practically left the game engine itself behind as you say. I find it hard to keep it relevant and want to have more time for the RP but also play the game itself. Newbies needn't be bubble-wrapped but at the same time will never grasp all of our added layers of complexity quickly enough to be patient with them without a bit of guidance and support.

We don't have that many players to come up with new ideas but I knew in my mod days many newcomers were put off by the cultural protections we put in. Hence, I'm in such a divided state over them because we need new blood and fresh ideas to provide interest, but I also don't want good things destroyed. We are a bit of a clique and to be frank, the RP could be completely divorced of the game as you say... but how fair is that to Wouter when we came here originally to play the game?

Speaking frankly, I'm lost because there is no answer that fits the bill without disadvantaging someone. To my mind, we're so divorced from the game engine that, to a certain extent, it's as if RP should go its own way and not even affect it.

The worst thing in the world for me was to take a little time off, and then come back and find my nation had completely change races, had suddenly adopted a completely new Language, and then I was told I should just accept it as a retcon.

The very situation CultPro was meant to prevent. That said -- not to advocate their entire removal or be blaseé about the situation -- we've had so little fresh blood there isn't actually a large threat from newcomers anymore.

Yes- we should encourage new players. But they should join the game as it is... Besides, what was wrong with the system you all hammered out last fall? How did that fail to meet the needs of the game?

My concerns of communication of the ideas to newcomers were balanced by Aquinas contacting Wouter to add links to the improved situation. Otherwise, change was almost always doomed: the high-investment RP players are always the ones who are going to be the highest contributors in the forum the vote was called in -- the ones who stood to lose out from a lapse under any change -- and there was no solution to balance everything anyway. It's totally zugzwang. There is no answer.

As Doc pointed out, it's a bit drastic to have a nation that's been continuously RPd with a certain culture suddenly become something else, which is a definite risk under the current system. So here's an idea: instead of having the CPs "die", why not have them "decay"?

...this was the "dormant" status, now removed.

[Farsun]

I agree yet disagree. The problem is that we've now added such layers of complexity through extra agreements -- layers I wouldn't remove for the world in an ideal scenario -- we've practically left the game engine itself behind as you say. I find it hard to keep it relevant and want to have more time for the RP but also play the game itself. Newbies needn't be bubble-wrapped but at the same time will never grasp all of our added layers of complexity quickly enough to be patient with them without a bit of guidance and support.

We don't have that many players to come up with new ideas but I knew in my mod days many newcomers were put off by the cultural protections we put in. Hence, I'm in such a divided state over them because we need new blood and fresh ideas to provide interest, but I also don't want good things destroyed. We are a bit of a clique and to be frank, the RP could be completely divorced of the game as you say... but how fair is that to Wouter when we came here originally to play the game?

Speaking frankly, I'm lost because there is no answer that fits the bill without disadvantaging someone. To my mind, we're so divorced from the game engine that, to a certain extent, it's as if RP should go its own way and not even affect it.

Newbies naturally aren't going to get it, thats why we should prepare a document or something thats linked to the forums that screams...READ ME FIRST! Giving them a brief but concise overview of what to expect. I think that the RP of the game and the systems of the game are interlocked, its cool to maybe have a party drop in and derail the entire thing, frustrating for the player involved in the RP, but it makes it realistic. Newer players that come in, a vast majority of them hardly visit the forum and I would dare say contribute little, here and there we get someone who comes in and its a breath of fresh air.

We lack an IM service, we had the IRC but that fell to the wayside. I think a Skype group (we have one for another RP I do) would work and it wouldput people in constantly communication with each other to make ideas and play with them. We haven't adapted our own strategies for success. We do not advertise, we do not communicate outside the forum. That's a problem, I never formed a great post-by-post RP with someone over the forum or PM, its like the mail, it takes too long still.

We can move this thing in the right direction, it just takes some kicks in the pants.

EDIT: I've setup a Skype chat for anyone who wants to join.

https://join.skype.com/B0DVNaBJCn5l

[Aquinas]

I sense some misunderstandings, so I want to try to set a few things things clear.

The conditions for "affirming" Cultural Protocols are relatively lax and hardly demanding. Basically, all it takes is for a player to play in the nation for 1 month (less than a third of the length of the Cultural Era) and then get a Cultural Protocol update passed. Once a Cultural Protocol has been affirmed, it is guaranteed to continue into the next Cultural Era.

Any nation which wants its Cultural Protection to continue need only to use this simple procedure in order to prevent it from even being considered for Culturally Open status on May 1st. If a nation cannot manage to affirm its Cultural Protocols even on these very easy, very generous terms, then it will be more than reasonable to examine whether the continuance of its Cultural Protocols is justified.

Even Culturally Protected nations with unaffirmed Cultural Protocols will not necessarily become Culturally Open. When the time comes, there will be opportunities for players to present their views. There will be intelligent minds involved in this; it is not as if the final outcome will be the result of a purely automatic process. Moderation will reflect carefully before any final decisions are made.

***

There are misapprehensions about nations with cultures that have been continuously role-played with suddenly having their cultures swapped over for something else.

It is, indeed, possible for Culturally Protected nations to fall to Culturally Open, and then (under certain conditions) for new Cultural Protocols to be established.

However, bear in mind that there is a process here. To become Culturally Open in the first place, it will mean the nation's players have not been invested enough in its Cultural Protocols to affirm them and that Moderation has observed the culture is not really being actively role-played with.

There is also a process in terms of setting up Cultural Protocols in Culturally Open nations (see section 17 of the rules). Unlike the old days, it will not be possible for a single player to establish a Cultural Protocol by himself. The Cultural Protocols bill will need to be endorsed by at least 3 players with seats, and at least 1 of those players must have been continuously active in the nation for at least a month. It will be possible to challenge new Cultural Protocols on the grounds of their appropriateness for a region of the game map. Also, new Cultural Protocols will automatically be candidates for expiry at the end of the Cultural Era. So if players go into a Culturally Open nation, set up a Cultural Protocol and then leave soon after, they will probably find the Cultural Protocol will not too long outlive their departure.

***

There also seems to be a misapprehension that a nation's culture suddenly vanishes when it switches from Culturally Protected to Culturally Open. This is not the case. Players in Culturally Open nations are free to continue to role-play the culture established in previous Cultural Protocols.

Again: the removal of a Cultural Protocol does not ban players from role-playing a culture. What it does do is remove the requirement, enforced with the ultimate threat of inactivation, for players to abide by Cultural Protocol requirements.

Cultural Protocols are a serious business. They can lead to a player being told by a Moderator to do things differently, even when nobody else in the nation is bothered by what they are doing. You can ultimately get inactivated for not following the culture rules.

***

Yet again it has been suggested Cultural Protocols are not enforced, and this obliges me to provide reassurance that this is not the case. Active monitoring goes on. There is hardly a day that goes by when I do not address a Cultural Protocols issue or monitor the players list for new players, to check whether they've cottoned on to the Cultural Protocols. After having done a count through my records, I can tell you that since I became a Moderator in June last year, I have dealt with 126 cases concerning Cultural Protocol breaches (this figure is only for active parties, so not including cases where an inactive party in breach of of the culture rules is seeking reactivation), and that 13 of these led to inactivation.

Of course, none of you can verify that for yourself, so you'll have to trust me with the figures. But one indicator you can examine is the Cultural Protocol Violation Reports thread. If it was true or even remotely true that the player base is in despair because of people "destroying" cultures en masse, then that thread would be filled with a large number of reports from a wide range of players. A quick glance at it should help satisfy you this is not the case.

***

But to return to the point: Cultural Protocols are a serious business. They impose responsibilities on Moderation and restrictions on players. The advantage of the new Cultural Eras system is that, for the first time, it will test how much legitimacy there is for each of the Cultural Protocols in the game. If players in those nations specifically want them then they will be able to ensure they continue. On the other hand, if, over a sustained period of time, there is no significant demand in the nation for the Cultural Protocol to continue, then we need to think about whether it should be allowed to slide.

This is especially so given one of the common questions players ask me is "Are there going to be any more nations in the game?" We do have enthusiastic players who want to innovate, just like we did in the past. The only difference is that before players could go out and test their ideas by setting up fresh Cultural Protocols, whereas now they cannot. The Cultural Eras system was introduced partly out of a recognition that long-term, something has got to be done about this.

I do not mind enforcing Cultural Protocols and monitoring compliance, but I do want to know that the Cultural Protocols I'm enforcing and monitoring have at least a degree of support amongst players who actually play in those nations. That really is all that is being asked for here.

[hts]

I am extremely torn on this issue. I have always wanted to design a new CP in a nation, as I came long after these nations were designed. However, I also wouldn't want Saridan to just turn into India if I decide to leave for a while.

It especially concerns me because I think that it will keep players stuck in certain nations. They wont want to leave due to fear of returning to a different culture. I would like to eventually leave Saridan, and I do not want to worry about it losing it's CP.

I especially understand why more experienced players oppose this, and I myself have progressed on the issue over my roughly 8 months of playing. At first I was not a fan of CPs, but I came to appreciate them a ton. Without them I can not see how we could keep the game realistic.

However, if I had to choose to support or oppose this new system I would support it. But that is probably just because I am not quite that old yet, perhaps in a year or two I will be like Farsun lol.

[Doc]

There is something to be said for staying in one nation. I have read a lot of statements from people on this subject in particular, and personally, I tried going to another nation once and ended up trying to turn it into Kalistan. So I just went back to my home in Kalistan and just stayed there. Consequently, for 1400 years, more or less, the SP has played there. Sometimes with more RP in the forums, most times with less- I think long term playing in a nation means that you are and have always been a part of the cultural and political development of the country.

But I also know that a lot of people put a lot of work into their CP. When we were trying to build ours, it was a process of negotiation... And it was pretty good when it was done. Not very reflective of the Kalistan I had always played in, but fairly coherent. I would be quite upset if I moved away for a while, and then returned to find all that work undone. Even if I, like my friend and long time Kalistani Pentalarc, need to take a real world break to get my personal RL affairs in order. It would be really disheartening if I came back to a Kalistan which I didn't recognize after only two hundred IG years of being away, though I had spent 1400 years in the other Kalistan first. The Kalistan that I had spent 1400 years passing bills in, and defending from fascists, and so forth. That would be kind of depressing to see it all undone and something else put in its place in just a space of a few RL months...

There is something to be said for continuity.

[IdioC]

{Edit: Missed replies}

We lack an IM service, we had the IRC but that fell to the wayside. I think a Skype group (we have one for another RP I do) would work and it wouldput people in constantly communication with each other to make ideas and play with them. We haven't adapted our own strategies for success. We do not advertise, we do not communicate outside the forum. That's a problem, I never formed a great post-by-post RP with someone over the forum or PM, its like the mail, it takes too long still.

We need an official IRC or something but it would need to be actively policed. Without beschmirching anyone, we all know what happened last time and it's a shame it shot an otherwise good idea down. The time is right for a second shot.

However, if I had to choose to support or oppose this new system I would support it. But that is probably just because I am not quite that old yet, perhaps in a year or two I will be like Farsun lol.

...yet strangely, in the way you came to this conclusion, you sound just like me in your thinking despite me being fossil record. I think the current system is the the best suggestion yet, but I am very torn.

There is something to be said for staying in one nation... there is something to be said for continuity.

Whilst true, the risk in leaving is that you leave such opportunities behind, and remain the risk any player takes: own creative drive (or perhaps in conjunction with another player or two) vs. community through tolerance of other ideas.

---

Doc's point gives me an idea. Although Empires and cultural unions are great in principle and true to history, perhaps we should reduce the ceiling on the number of nations with similar cultures. Perhaps even aggressively. Three total or even consider going down to two.

This has the benefit of encouaging players of a similar mind and cultural preference into a similar nation, rather than having three kings of the same playing by themselves (he says, having held Pontesi as a Jelbic thing in isolation for a while). Not only does this stimulate game play and stronger RP ideas, it also means we have more freed-up nations for new ideas to come to the fore.

The Selucians, for example, now have a strong influence in Pontesi and can make it a second vassel entity, while the Jelbic sphere shrinks to two nations (Barmenia is sufficiently different now). This is a better balance for the game world and also means fewer nations need to have a potentially offputting conlang, however much I may love it. Once I get my new job's shit together I hope to be a more active player with Zanz in Jelbania and actually contribute something again.

Question would come to system design: do you have a "Unique Culture Bonus" (perhaps in the form of extended time before expiry (e.g., 8 months cf. 4) with suitable conditions) and/or a "Homogenity Penalty (within protected nations alone)"? It could afford the answer to the laissez faire play/cultural protection balance to add criteria along these lines.

However, Zanz is right that in order to get the new players, we have to spread the world. Let's work on the playspace then bring people in.

---

I should also add that I know my opinions on this issue have fluctuated and given suggestions that counteract things I've previously said at times. Part of it is because I want to test notions and see what people think; part of it is because I am admittedly reduced to looking for hope in any direction.