Renaming Rules

[mpog]

This maybe a case of selective attention on my part, but I have the impression that there are a lot of renamings of nations and other variables lately. Sometimes it seems a player joins an empty nation, requests early elections, changes the nation name and leaves again (either completely or to a different nation).

This isn't really a problem, but maybe the requirements for changing the names of nations, regions, cities, and newspapers should be raised slightly. For example in such a way that at least one player supporting the change has to be active in the nation for at least a week or maybe two. Exceptions could be made for changes that only add a translation or transliteration, or that correct spelling or grammatical mistakes. Or in cases where changes are supported by role-play (e.g. an invasion).

As I said it's not really important, so this obviously shouldn't be done if it significantly increases the effort for the Moderators.

[CCP]

It's not really important at all. Aquinas's rules list has already created too many of these kinds of language restrictions. The mantra around here used to be 'The Game System Comes First,' meaning if Wouter's code allowed a player to do it, no rules imposed by any moderator could trump that. Nowadays the mantra seems to be 'Language Comes First.' I don't see indications that it's helped the game, and player numbers are still flat-to-declining. Now you want to tell players who're already jumping through hoops to comply with poorly-conceived and unnecessary rules that they have even less maneuverability to use their majorities to change countries as they wish (which is the whole point and ultimate substance of the game)? For what? Because some country names have changed too quickly for you to stay up-to-date?

I think there are better gameplay and in-character (foreign policy) ways to deal with that rather than further limiting majority parties' abilities to run their countries as they choose. For instance, have you considered asking your foreign affairs minister to contact some of these countries to work out an agreement about what your respective countries should be called? Have you considered lobbying your HoS/HoG/defense minister to apply military pressure on governments that are engaging in this kind of political destabilization? Have you considered creating parties in those countries and changing the names back to the ones you prefer?

[mpog]

Wow, I didn't expect anyone to be passionate about this issue . I completely agree that this is not an important issue. And I see your point. My thought here was not that names change too often. If there's a reason for it, do it. And if two players fight over say monarchy vs. republic and change the name every two in-game months I have no problem with it. It's really more the join the nation, change its name (maybe calling it after yourself), log out never to be seen again phenomenon I had in mind.

And I think what I suggested is a pretty low bar, with one week activity and ample room for exceptions. But of course, this is reeeaaaallllly not an important issue.

[Doc]

Maybe the RP team might make a decision about this without it going into the rules. There could be generic default names, which the country reverts to when it goes empty. Then if oldsters come back to the country, they can pass a bill to rename it whatever they named it.

[CCP]

It's really more the join the nation, change its name (maybe calling it after yourself), log out never to be seen again phenomenon I had in mind.

I think it well represents the political instability implied in a country with no governing party (and so no public officials and maybe no civil service) for years on end. A random mob forms a political party, wins an election, can't think their way through to do anything more consequential than change the country's name which they believe to be so profound and consequential that they consider their work complete with that one move, then they soon disintegrate because they think governing a country is playing word games.

Again, it sounds like an opportunity to engage in more foreign policy stories for interested players. People in this game should stop trying to control it with rules and instead pursue the outcomes they desire by actually playing the game.

EDIT: And related to @Doc's mention of the RP Team, other countries' foreign policies never really recognize the kind of short-term name changes you're referring to, @mpog. Terra global politics move on with the kind of dismissal and ignoring warranted by an unserious government doing an unserious and destabilizing thing. So again, I strongly urge you for the sake of this dying game to respond to this IC instead of trying to boss around itinerant players with more unnecessary rules. Because ultimately, the only people the rules will frustrate is long-term players since the itinerant players of course don't stick around long enough to care and certainly not long enough for their random name changes to matter.

[mpog]

Well this is not something I feel strongly about. And I certainly won't push for it. Though I don't think that such a rule would really be that oppressive, or that it might even drive away players.

As to Doc's proposal, I think reverting to neutral names when nations become empty is a good idea. But it might mean more effort for the Moderators than this issue warrants.

[Aquinas]

This maybe a case of selective attention on my part, but I have the impression that there are a lot of renamings of nations and other variables lately. Sometimes it seems a player joins an empty nation, requests early elections, changes the nation name and leaves again (either completely or to a different nation).

This isn't really a problem, but maybe the requirements for changing the names of nations, regions, cities, and newspapers should be raised slightly. For example in such a way that at least one player supporting the change has to be active in the nation for at least a week or maybe two. Exceptions could be made for changes that only add a translation or transliteration, or that correct spelling or grammatical mistakes. Or in cases where changes are supported by role-play (e.g. an invasion).

As I said it's not really important, so this obviously shouldn't be done if it significantly increases the effort for the Moderators.

I think I recognise exactly what it is you are describing, and I can understand the sense of bewilderment and sometimes frustration players may feel about it, at times. Without going into details, these sorts of concerns have been raised with me in the past, although this is probably the first time (or at least the first time in a long while) that this has come up in a discussion on the forum.

Requiring players to play in a nation for a minimum period of time before doing renamings would probably not increase the workload for Moderators. Actually, it would be likely to reduce it, if it meant we had to do renamings less often.

What you could probably guarantee with introducing a rule like this is that some players would be unhappy about the new restriction and would feel it unduly constrained their gameplay. There would be some others who would probably think it a fair rule that helped to make the game world feel more stable/realistic/satisfying.

Speaking for myself, I have in the past considered ideas like the one you suggested, but come down against them on balance. Basically, there are arguments you can make for and against it, and it is a matter of weighing them up. Vesica and I would certainly listen very carefully to any views or proposals you or anybody else would like to put forward. The views and experiences of players are very important, and of course ultimately the rules are intended to be there for the benefit of players, not the other way around.

Aquinas's rules list has already created too many of these kinds of language restrictions.

I'm puzzled by this because, at least during my period, the rules have not really become stricter overall on language. Before the interim rules were introduced in August last year, players could run into trouble with Moderation for constitutional variables (ie. national motto, Head of State title, Head of Government title, legislative assembly title, national sport, national animal, national anthem, title of sub-national entities) not being in the language relevant to the Cultural Protocol of the nation. Now, it is always acceptable for players to have those variables in English, if they wish. So here, the rules are more relaxed than they were before.

Partly in order to balance this, it was decided that in Culturally Protected nations, nation titles should be in a language appropriate to the culture. So in this area, we are stricter. But even here, there is flexibility. Exceptions have been made in response to strong role-play considerations. Also, if players are struggling with a translation, they are guaranteed the right to have an English language nation title if they are unable to receive an appropriate translation within 7 days of posting a request on the Language Assistance Requests thread. So its not as if we are unreasonable.

The mantra around here used to be 'The Game System Comes First,' meaning if Wouter's code allowed a player to do it, no rules imposed by any moderator could trump that. Nowadays the mantra seems to be 'Language Comes First.' I don't see indications that it's helped the game, and player numbers are still flat-to-declining. Now you want to tell players who're already jumping through hoops to comply with poorly-conceived and unnecessary rules that they have even less maneuverability to use their majorities to change countries as they wish (which is the whole point and ultimate substance of the game)?

It somewhat puzzles me that you express opposition to rules that go against a "System Comes First" principle and you oppose language restrictions, yet you have just introduced a Cultural Protocol to Hawu Mumenhas that will require current and future players there to comply with an additional set of rules (including a requirement for them to have their nation title, region names and city names in Ancient Egyptian). If you are unhappy with extra rules, why go through the process of requiring players to follow them and Moderators to enforce them?

this dying game

Claims about the game "dying" have been made almost ever since the game first launched over a decade ago. Development work on Particracy Classic has long since ceased, but the game is not dying. Player numbers fluctuate, but not dramatically. When I became a Moderator in June 2015, player numbers were in the 140s. Right now, they're at 183. They go up and down, from the 150s to the 190s. We've gone through a more active period, actually - only a week or so ago, we hit the 200 mark. One significant difference I have noticed over the last year is that in general, players are logging in much more regularly now than they used to (I can see this, because I have access to a list of all the accounts and when they last logged in). Considering the game has not been developed in years and there are so many other newer/smoother/more sophisticated/flashier online games out there, we are not doing so badly, all things considered.

[CCP]

The mantra around here used to be 'The Game System Comes First,' meaning if Wouter's code allowed a player to do it, no rules imposed by any moderator could trump that. Nowadays the mantra seems to be 'Language Comes First.' I don't see indications that it's helped the game, and player numbers are still flat-to-declining. Now you want to tell players who're already jumping through hoops to comply with poorly-conceived and unnecessary rules that they have even less maneuverability to use their majorities to change countries as they wish (which is the whole point and ultimate substance of the game)?

It somewhat puzzles me that you express opposition to rules that go against a "System Comes First" principle and you oppose language restrictions, yet you have just introduced a Cultural Protocol to Hawu Mumenhas that will require current and future players there to comply with an additional set of rules (including a requirement for them to have their nation title, region names and city names in Ancient Egyptian). If you are unhappy with extra rules, why go through the process of requiring players to follow them and Moderators to enforce them?

1. Because it's the currently-prevailing culture of the game. When you join an activity voluntarily, you either go along with the prevailing custom or you make efforts to change it. The CP culture pushed by what I sense to be a small number of players several years ago has become entrenched since then, and changing it would require a timely and careful overhaul, and I can't devote that level of time to the game. 2. Since CPism is the currently prevailing culture, it encourages players to create CPs where they otherwise might not. In recent years at least, the trend has been that when ethnically-African countries are CPed, they tend to be played negatively. So I decided to use a mechanism which contributes to the problem to some degree to combat the problem. Again, you work with the game (and game-culture and players and rules) you have, not those you would wish to have.

As to the other points, I'm happy to discuss them if you want to split them into another thread, but I don't want to hijack mpog's discussion further.