Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

[mpog]

This. Some of the attacks on Aquinas are just by certain sour, begrudged players hiding behind new user names who at one point or another could not handle certain Moderation rulings. Thus they can't really be said to be based on any great or consistent principles.

Some of the defences of Aquinas are just by certain sour, begrudged ex-moderators who at one point or another could not handle players disagreeing with them. Thus they can't really be said to be based on any great or consistent principles.

[mpog]

Agreed. Maybe only 2-3 parties to make an open nation protected?

Personally, it's the 1-month countdowns that are the most onerous part to me. Some problems with it were mentioned in the CP Era Affirmations thread.

I agree that both make creating a new culture quite difficult, but it is really the combination of the two that make it really hard. It is not easy to get 3 players dedicated enough to spend a month in a nation without inactivating.

IMO, something has to be done to ensure that some of these nations get new cultures.

The problem is that if it gets too easy to create new CPs we will end up with lots of new CPs by players who disappear after a week. Does anyone have suggestions on how the rules could be relaxed while avoiding this?
I think one option could be to make it easier to reintroduce existing CPs in nations that lost their protected status while keeping the requirements for creating really new CPs high.

[mpog]

Personally, it's the 1-month countdowns that are the most onerous part to me. Some problems with it were mentioned in the CP Era Affirmations thread.

I think that making sure that people are actually committed to playing in a nation is reasonable. So the one month requirements make sense. With the introduction of nation descriptions I don't think this is particularly problematic for introducing new CPs; you can introduce a culture via description and get that elevated to a CP after a month. It's more of a problem for affirmations and updates. Maybe we could take into account more than just the continuity but also the duration of playing in a nation. Take Cildania as an example. I guess Jessaveryja joined too late to be able to affirm the CP in time. But he played in Cildania for a long time before. Maybe that should be taken into account. His commitment doesn't show in the time he spent there since he rejoined but in the time he spent there before.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

Ugh, another one of these threads. I wondered when Aquinas would get his own "inquisition". No doubt, it is probably led by an individual who partook in the last one. Regardless of your complaints, you should first realize, like Zanz and Reddy have already stated, Aquinas is a great moderator. He is fair, consistent, willing to listen, and always very kind.

What I see here is, yet again, a small and vocal minority (they usually are) that wants Moderation to bend over backwards to specifically ask certain members of this minority and I am sure other visible members of the community for their approval. Instead of waiting to be asked, why do you not throw out ideas? Instead of talking about how Moderation should approach the community for input, why not come up to solutions to the problems you see and bring them to the attention of Moderation? You might get more of what you want done if you take the initiative, especially if it is done privately. This public lambasting of the best moderator since Darvian is utterly shameful. You do not know how well you have it.

Aquinas has balanced the needs of those who enjoy the meta-storytelling and roleplay with the casual players who care more about the mechanics of the game. It is far better than the extreme "every nation must have CPs" and the "every party and nation for itself". There was a reason CPs and more Moderation involvement in the area of RP. During Darvian and Jay's last years the game was losing players. Simply, the mechanics weren't attractive enough, so more thought and action had to be put into the "soft development" of the game, which largely dealt with RP. However, this probably did get out of hand and Aquinas reigned it in so both types of players could find a place to be and enjoy the game. As skeptical as I was about Aquinas and his new take on the rules, I have grown to be quite fond of them. Not only are do they provide a balance, but they also enhance realism (as much as it can given the balance).

Anyways, if you really want to attempt to implement changes you think are necessary, quit talking about doing and offer solutions, join the RP Team, contribute to game development on your own (yes, I know many of you are already doing this), and apply for the Moderation position when it opens up. You have plenty of options. Don't take the easy route of complaining in the hopes Aquinas will change things because he is sick of being criticized. In the words of Nike, "Just do it".

[Reddy]

This. Some of the attacks on Aquinas are just by certain sour, begrudged players hiding behind new user names who at one point or another could not handle certain Moderation rulings. Thus they can't really be said to be based on any great or consistent principles.

Some of the defences of Aquinas are just by certain sour, begrudged ex-moderators who at one point or another could not handle players disagreeing with them. Thus they can't really be said to be based on any great or consistent principles.

Who are you? Not that it matters since I wasn't talking about you anyway.

[Siggon Kristov]

Some of the defences of Aquinas are just by certain sour, begrudged ex-moderators who at one point or another could not handle players disagreeing with them. Thus they can't really be said to be based on any great or consistent principles.

I can understand if you said that about Rapax/Farsun, but definitely not TheNewGuy/Zanz or Reddy.

[Maxington]

My opinion truly isn't needed here nor do I expect anyone to take it into consideration. I never do.
From just looking at this thread from am outside perspective, I would say that an immense amount of skepticism, slight hatred and inconstructive criticism is being spewed out of the minds of many people here. And I like what Lui Che said, "What I see here is, yet again, a small and vocal minority (they usually are) that wants Moderation to bend over backwards to specifically ask certain members of this minority and I am sure other visible members of the community for their approval". Instead of offering ideas/solutions to said "problem" we have people lambasting players and moderation instead of presenting anything to the table that is not critcism. There is a saying in my country "Monkey know which tree to climb." meaning everyone knows who to manipulate and take advantage of. I could bet that none of you here would have said the things you said about moderation and some players here to the site owner. And that is what most of the individuals spewing criticism as though you had a sip of liquid courage, did to moderation and some players. But anyways all skin teeth eh laugh. People bring something to the table instead of criticism and hatred.

[hts]

I would like to again assert that I am on Aquinas's side here. I am involved in the general convo of this thread, but I am not apart of this whole anti-aquinas thing. So i just want to clarify that.

The problem is that if it gets too easy to create new CPs we will end up with lots of new CPs by players who disappear after a week. Does anyone have suggestions on how the rules could be relaxed while avoiding this?
I think one option could be to make it easier to reintroduce existing CPs in nations that lost their protected status while keeping the requirements for creating really new CPs high.

I like this idea mpog.

I think that the threshold should be significantly lowered for reintroducing old CP's. Perhaps it should require only 1 player who has been active for 1 month or more.

As for creating a new CP, maybe we should change the rule too. I am thinking that it should require either 2 players who have both been continuously active in the nation for 1 month, or 3 players of which at least 1 has been active for 1 month.

What do you guys think?

[mpog]

So the one month requirements make sense. With the introduction of nation descriptions I don't think this is particularly problematic for introducing new CPs; you can introduce a culture via description and get that elevated to a CP after a month.

Scratch that, I just looked at the nation descriptions rule again and noticed that it has a one month requirement, too.

[SelucianCrusader]

Yikes.

I haven't got a horse left in this race anymore, I'm far from as active as I was, and I have no plans to ever be that active again. So this is really just an "Hey everyone remember that Aquinas is a swell guy" post.

Aquinas, though I can probably commiserate with you here, as I'm frankly pretty astounded at the amount of crap you're catching right now for simply continuing to run the same ship you've run for over a year, but I want to say that I very much hope you don't make the same decision I made when faced with much less flak.

You have been and by all estimates will remain the best moderator that this game has had in all of my years playing - Darvian included, IMO. You have been consistent, fair, open to criticism and an agent for positive change. I know everybody's being very careful to say those things while they say how shitty you are as a person, so I wanted to say that you're great without all the caveats.

If former Mods started a drinking team we'd be world champions, no doubt in my mind.

This. Some of the attacks on Aquinas are just by certain sour, begrudged players hiding behind new user names who at one point or another could not handle certain Moderation rulings. Thus they can't really be said to be based on any great or consistent principles.

Word.

I realize I haven't been terribly active in the last year and don't know whatever made some people act in such a puerile, butt-hurt matter, but it's embarrassing for this community and completely unacceptable. If I'd had been in Aquinas shoes, I'm pretty sure I'd had made use of the ban hammer already. If people can't stop spewing crap about their personal issues about someone, moderator or not, that person needs some time of the game to cool down.

And that's what makes Aquinas so great. He doesn't put himself or his friends first. He spends countless of hours trying to improve the game for everyone, new players in particular, he never does anything without a broad consultation, and doesn't ask for anything in return. If one or two people can't stand him - we're better of without those people.