Game Rules update

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Game Rules update

Postby Aquinas » Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:34 pm

A few alterations have been made to the Game Rules. The ones worth noticing are as follows...

Easier inactivations

Accounts can now be inactivated when...

8.1.1 All of the following 3 conditions apply: they have not logged into their account for at least 3 days (72 hours), they have missed at least one bill vote with an 8 IG (in-game) month voting period and another player from the same nation has requested their early inactivation. The player requesting the inactivation should cite this rule when doing so.



Empowering the Global Role-Play Team

RP Team members may now run second accounts in order to promote RP across the game:

19.2 At Moderation's discretion and with the agreement of the Team as a whole, Team members are permitted to run an authorised second active in-game account in a separate nation, in order to advance the objectives of the Team set out in section 19.1, most particularly with regards to the encouragement of role-play. Where they do this, they should use their party description field in both accounts to explain the situation and provide a link to the other account involved.



Strengthening the Role-Play Accord

The terms for withdrawing from the Role-Play Accord have been changed from...

A nation can withdraw from the Role-Play Accord by passing an appropriate motion with a simple majority of players with seats (ie. more players with seats vote for it than against it). A notification should then be made on the Role-Play Accord thread, so Moderation can update the Role-Play Accord Index.

Moderation reserves the discretion to dissolve a nation's membership of the Role-Play Accord in exceptional cases where co-operation between the Team and the nation's players has irretrievably broken down.


To...

A nation can withdraw from the Role-Play Accord by passing an appropriate motion with a simple majority of players with seats (ie. more players with seats vote for it than against it). Also, at least one of the players supporting the withdrawal must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month. A notification should then be made on the Role-Play Accord thread, so Moderation can update the Role-Play Accord Index.



Nation Descriptions for Culturally Open nations

Culturally Open nations may now adopt Nation Descriptions which will be recorded in the Cultural Protocols Index. These are not enforceable, and to emphasise this they are not formally mentioned in the Game Rules, but for more information on the process of adopting a Nation Description, please see the OP to the Nation descriptions in the Cultural Protocols Index thread.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Game Rules update

Postby CCP » Fri Sep 02, 2016 6:01 pm

Aquinas, were these changes previewed for player input somewhere on the boards and I missed it? If not, why not? All of these are significant changes and since it's players who will be affected by them, I think we deserved to be asked our thoughts.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Aquinas » Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:21 am

There was no formal consultation thread, but the changes were introduced following careful reflection on experiences and viewpoints expressed by players, both on and off the forum.

Inactivation policy has been a big issue for a lot of players who feel the flow of the game is damaged when some players do not log in regularly. Trust me when I say I hear a lot about this - both on and off the forum. The rule change will not make everything perfect, but overall it should hopefully lessen the frustration players experience with the game.

A number of players have pushed the idea of exploring the possibilities in terms of permitting second accounts. This has been discussed on the forum; indeed, most recently, it was you who raised it. For the first time ever, we are now experimenting with this concept by allowing the privilege - within certain bounds - to RP Team members. If this is a success, then we can consider the options in terms of extending this further. We have to tread carefully because there are potential pitfalls - but at the same time, as I hope has been shown, we're not afraid to think radical and take a calculated risk.

The reform to the Role-Play Accord comes against a background of players asking for more direction on military and economic role-play. Under the previous rules regime, it was theoretically extremely easy for players to de-ratify the Role-Play Accord, effectively making it rather weak. The new rules make the requirements for de-ratification a little stiffer, but still allow players the option of de-ratifying (or, for that matter, not ratifying in the first place).

The introduction of Nation Descriptions for Culturally Open nations is not a major reform and imposes no obligations on players, but it does help meet the desire of some players for an informal variety of cultural recognition which falls short of a full-blown Cultural Protocol. It is a form of advertisement, really.

If anyone has concerns about the Game Rules or ideas/proposals for changing them, they are of course very, very welcome to raise that here in the General Discussion sub-forum.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Game Rules update

Postby CCP » Sat Sep 03, 2016 1:17 am

Thanks for those explanations. I do appreciate the point that several of these issues have been discussed prior to your rules changes. But discussing something hypothetically and discussing it prior to an imminent rules change are very different. In the same way that players are given not less than 48 hours to review CP updates for the purposes of (I'm assuming) allowing affected parties to voice any concerns, I don't understand why rules in recent months have been implemented quickly without preview, warning, or formal input. As to your invitation to raise concerns, thank you for that. I have several concerns about the new rules. But since they've been implemented already, pushing to have them revised or reverted would be placing one disruption on top of another. In fact, one of my concerns would have been the appropriateness, utility, and effectiveness of more rules at all -- I'm sure you remember that I have reservations about the sheer number and length of rules and their format. With a player input period, the time would have been right to present those views in a space where they were more likely to benefit from the input of other players as well as moderators.

I can't imagine how the game would be hurt by waiting a few days before implementing most rules in most circumstances, and I can only see how the game is (and has been) helped by maximal player input. For those reasons, I don't see what the rush was for.
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron