Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby SelucianCrusader » Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:54 pm

CCP wrote:The last moderation team was lead by Amazeroth who very much leaned towards none-intrusiveness and I think it was much more appropriate for the game (not sure if you were here then). So moderation can and does change, and player input can and does greatly affect changes. So don't hold back.
And back then, there was absolutely no way CP's could lapse. Every nation was destined to eventually have a CP - as it was originally intended (protecting lore and people's contributions from blatant vandalism). Aquinas is the most "liberal" moderator we had on this matter at least since I came here in late 2011. Before Amaz we had Farsun/Zanz and even back before than Liu Che/JBN, the former who openly admit that they intervened and passed new rules to further the agenda of their own power bloc (that I happened to be part of, lol). Aquinas never does the later, I strongly suspect his ruling on letting CP's pass (which I disagree about btw, but look - I can still like the guy even if we disagree on something :shock: ) was made due his concern for new players and the problems some of them have with learning about the lore (which can be complicated at times, sure) and desire to form a nation in their own image.

Govenor12 wrote:Hear, hear. I think there is also a considerable minority of players which lost a sense of belongigness and interest into this game because of the very "active-style" moderation.
I don't. Yeah - there are a quite sizeable minority that we never see on the forums who only vote on bills and hardly RP and maybe don't even know about the forums/wiki or has no interest in them - but I really doubt it has anything to do with "belongingness" or moderation. Some people don't have as much time on their hands. PT has always been like that.

CCP wrote:stuff
Don't address a veteran player like Aquinas in that kind of hectoring manner. Cut the crap out.

Aquinas is enforcing CP's on behalf of us the community, on behalf of those who wrote those protocols and all whose contributions are in them, as well as us others who don't want to let just anybody to come and raze other people's contributions to the lore. The continuity is about our "enjoyment" as well. If you don't like a certain CP - move to another country (or revise them after some well-though RP, which is piss easy). There are a multitude (way to many imho) of Culturally Open countries no, thanks to Aquinas.

hts wrote:To be completely honest, I am starting to worry that there will soon be too many culturally open nations. As a person who prefers CPed nations, I am starting to run out of options (right now there is still plenty of options, but in time I worry there wont be).

I think that it might be necessary to lessen the requirements for making a new CP so that we can get more new cultures.
Word.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby MichaelReilly » Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:44 am

Govenor12 wrote:Hear, hear. I think there is also a considerable minority of players which lost a sense of belongigness and interest into this game because of the very "active-style" moderation.


Certainly the reason I left the game, combined with utterly-stupid rules concerning the fact that words like 'Marxism' and 'Christian' were banned. It destroyed any aspect of it being a politics game and it became almost exclusively a role-playing game. What previously had made it great was its ability to absorb both aspects. Not anymore. Not allowed to use the term 'Marxist' in a politics game. Absurd.

I had 8 long, happy years here, and in the space of 6 months the spate of messages from moderation suddenly telling me I had to get in line with these new rules imposed by the unaccountable junta drove me to vow to never return. Tragic.

Particracy used to be fun, laid back and relatively casual. You could log in for an hour every 2 or 3 days, vote on bills, have a bit of role-play, and get on with your life. Now you've got to adhere to 1000 ridiculous and overly complex rules, and unless you want to dedicate all your free time to it you're made a pariah and have your account deactivated. 3 day deactivation limit. 3 DAYS? Ridiculous.

RIP Particracy. You were once great. 'This is a message moderation. You can't refer to yourself as 'Marxist-Leninist' on our politics game anymore, despite having done so since 2008, because it goes against our weird restrictive new rules'. Fuck off.

The forum's still good craic though.
Down with this sort of thing
User avatar
MichaelReilly
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:39 pm
Location: The boy from the County Hell

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby Rathon » Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:13 am

MichaelReilly wrote:
Govenor12 wrote:Hear, hear. I think there is also a considerable minority of players which lost a sense of belongigness and interest into this game because of the very "active-style" moderation.


Certainly the reason I left the game, combined with utterly-stupid rules concerning the fact that words like 'Marxism' and 'Christian' were banned. It destroyed any aspect of it being a politics game and it became almost exclusively a role-playing game. What previously had made it great was its ability to absorb both aspects. Not anymore. Not allowed to use the term 'Marxist' in a politics game. Absurd.

I had 8 long, happy years here, and in the space of 6 months the spate of messages from moderation suddenly telling me I had to get in line with these new rules imposed by the unaccountable junta drove me to vow to never return. Tragic.

Particracy used to be fun, laid back and relatively casual. You could log in for an hour every 2 or 3 days, vote on bills, have a bit of role-play, and get on with your life. Now you've got to adhere to 1000 ridiculous and overly complex rules, and unless you want to dedicate all your free time to it you're made a pariah and have your account deactivated. 3 day deactivation limit. 3 DAYS? Ridiculous.

RIP Particracy. You were once great. 'This is a message moderation. You can't refer to yourself as 'Marxist-Leninist' on our politics game anymore, despite having done so since 2008, because it goes against our weird restrictive new rules'. Fuck off.

The forum's still good craic though.


If you don't play anymore, why do you feel compelled to lambaste Moderation over rules that have been in place since before those individuals even *became* Moderation (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the no RL references rule was in place when I played three and a half years ago, and that neither of our current moderators was in that position at the time), and contribute absolutely nothing constructive to the debate? You don't agree with the rules, so you decided not to play anymore. That's just fine. Leave it at that.
Coaliție Unitate Centru
A sensible alternative for all of the Confederation's peoples.
Rathon
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:40 am

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby CCP » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:08 pm

Rathon wrote:
MichaelReilly wrote:
Govenor12 wrote:Hear, hear. I think there is also a considerable minority of players which lost a sense of belongigness and interest into this game because of the very "active-style" moderation.


Certainly the reason I left the game, combined with utterly-stupid rules concerning the fact that words like 'Marxism' and 'Christian' were banned. It destroyed any aspect of it being a politics game and it became almost exclusively a role-playing game. What previously had made it great was its ability to absorb both aspects. Not anymore. Not allowed to use the term 'Marxist' in a politics game. Absurd.

I had 8 long, happy years here, and in the space of 6 months the spate of messages from moderation suddenly telling me I had to get in line with these new rules imposed by the unaccountable junta drove me to vow to never return. Tragic.

Particracy used to be fun, laid back and relatively casual. You could log in for an hour every 2 or 3 days, vote on bills, have a bit of role-play, and get on with your life. Now you've got to adhere to 1000 ridiculous and overly complex rules, and unless you want to dedicate all your free time to it you're made a pariah and have your account deactivated. 3 day deactivation limit. 3 DAYS? Ridiculous.

RIP Particracy. You were once great. 'This is a message moderation. You can't refer to yourself as 'Marxist-Leninist' on our politics game anymore, despite having done so since 2008, because it goes against our weird restrictive new rules'. Fuck off.

The forum's still good craic though.


If you don't play anymore, why do you feel compelled to lambaste Moderation over rules that have been in place since before those individuals even *became* Moderation (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the no RL references rule was in place when I played three and a half years ago, and that neither of our current moderators was in that position at the time), and contribute absolutely nothing constructive to the debate? You don't agree with the rules, so you decided not to play anymore. That's just fine. Leave it at that.


I do not understand this defensiveness that has been voiced repeatedly in this thread (obviously not just by you, Rathon). MichaelReilly did not once 'lambaste moderation.' He lambasted (or you know, just criticized) an 'unaccountable junta' who he says imposed language restrictions. That is a substantive objection, not a personal or trivial one. But you and others continually try to return the discussion to a 'don't be mean to moderation/Aquinas' discussion. Not only have you derailed a thread which mpog designed to be an open and casual discussion about fundamental game questions, but you've done so by trying to police the parameters of discussion. That is a sabotage for the health of the game, because if one long-time player and forum regular like MichaelReilly feels a certain way about something in the game, you can bet that a fair number more players who frequent the game but not the forum, or who played the game and have departed, feel the same way MichaelReilly do. Me for instance -- didn't frequent the forum for years, but I agree with every word MichaelReilly wrote. Now I, MichaelReilly, mpog, hts, and Siggon for instance have been willing to read perspectives like yours repeatedly here and have not resorted to attributing motive or dismissive charges of 'contributing no constructive debate.' We have taken your differences at face value and have continued to engage you and the topic substantively. Please try to do the same.

If we can do that, we might be able to salvage value from this thread even though its OP, mpog, has apparently left the game again if I read his party inactivation correctly. Now I can try to understand if you and perhaps some others here don't mind people leaving the game over these kinds of disagreements. But some of us do mind. I am asking courteously for now: please stop trying to shut us up.
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: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby MichaelReilly » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:15 pm

And yeah, I know I've not been directly accused of doing so, but I'm not insulting or attacking Aquinas. He's a good guy who works hard who I just happen to disagree with.
Down with this sort of thing
User avatar
MichaelReilly
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:39 pm
Location: The boy from the County Hell

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby CCP » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:18 pm

SelucianCrusader wrote:
CCP wrote:The last moderation team was lead by Amazeroth who very much leaned towards none-intrusiveness and I think it was much more appropriate for the game (not sure if you were here then). So moderation can and does change, and player input can and does greatly affect changes. So don't hold back.
And back then, there was absolutely no way CP's could lapse. Every nation was destined to eventually have a CP - as it was originally intended (protecting lore and people's contributions from blatant vandalism). Aquinas is the most "liberal" moderator we had on this matter at least since I came here in late 2011. Before Amaz we had Farsun/Zanz and even back before than Liu Che/JBN, the former who openly admit that they intervened and passed new rules to further the agenda of their own power bloc (that I happened to be part of, lol). Aquinas never does the later, I strongly suspect his ruling on letting CP's pass (which I disagree about btw, but look - I can still like the guy even if we disagree on something :shock: ) was made due his concern for new players and the problems some of them have with learning about the lore (which can be complicated at times, sure) and desire to form a nation in their own image.


Thank you for this background and perspective and background. I found it very helpful.

SelucianCrusader wrote:
CCP wrote:stuff
Don't address a veteran player like Aquinas in that kind of hectoring manner. Cut the crap out.

Aquinas is enforcing CP's on behalf of us the community, on behalf of those who wrote those protocols and all whose contributions are in them, as well as us others who don't want to let just anybody to come and raze other people's contributions to the lore. The continuity is about our "enjoyment" as well. If you don't like a certain CP - move to another country (or revise them after some well-though RP, which is piss easy). There are a multitude (way to many imho) of Culturally Open countries no, thanks to Aquinas.


I did not hector Aquinas. As I said in my post, I gave Aquinas my perspective (at what I did not feel was the best time, by the way) because Aquinas insisted and specifically asked (for a second time -- this point came up in another thread a couple weeks back) to know my position. Now I can make this personal if you and others want to continue to play war of words here. What I would prefer instead is if you would take my and others' contentious points at face value and not read into them points that were not made or read into them motives that you cannot substantiate.
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: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby Rathon » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:55 pm

CCP wrote:I do not understand this defensiveness that has been voiced repeatedly in this thread (obviously not just by you, Rathon). MichaelReilly did not once 'lambaste moderation.' He lambasted (or you know, just criticized) an 'unaccountable junta' who he says imposed language restrictions. That is a substantive objection, not a personal or trivial one. But you and others continually try to return the discussion to a 'don't be mean to moderation/Aquinas' discussion. Not only have you derailed a thread which mpog designed to be an open and casual discussion about fundamental game questions, but you've done so by trying to police the parameters of discussion. That is a sabotage for the health of the game, because if one long-time player and forum regular like MichaelReilly feels a certain way about something in the game, you can bet that a fair number more players who frequent the game but not the forum, or who played the game and have departed, feel the same way MichaelReilly do. Me for instance -- didn't frequent the forum for years, but I agree with every word MichaelReilly wrote. Now I, MichaelReilly, mpog, hts, and Siggon for instance have been willing to read perspectives like yours repeatedly here and have not resorted to attributing motive or dismissive charges of 'contributing no constructive debate.' We have taken your differences at face value and have continued to engage you and the topic substantively. Please try to do the same.

If we can do that, we might be able to salvage value from this thread even though its OP, mpog, has apparently left the game again if I read his party inactivation correctly. Now I can try to understand if you and perhaps some others here don't mind people leaving the game over these kinds of disagreements. But some of us do mind. I am asking courteously for now: please stop trying to shut us up.


Firstly, I'm not trying to shut anybody up, although my tone in my previous post may have come across that way, and if so, I apologize. But people who stopped playing the game *years* ago over rules changes brought on by a completely different moderation team complaining about it to this day seems to me to be only slightly less salty than the Bonneville Flats. This "unaccountable junta" no longer exists. If it did, do you honestly think we'd even be able to have this discussion?

My main point for posting in this thread is that we could argue about CP's ad nauseum and never find a solution that satisfies everyone. I think the current system, where certain nations are culturally protected and others are open, is the best solution, as it allows players who enjoy each type of nation to play in the type of nation they prefer. But, obviously, there are people who are dissatisfied even now, and there are people who will be dissatisfied no matter what is done. And there seems to be a very vocal minority here whom I suspect would attack Moderation no matter whose forum username is highlighted in green. This discussion would be a lot more productive if it were focused around actual ways to improve the rules where more people would be satisfied instead of just bitching about the rules and Moderation in general.
Coaliție Unitate Centru
A sensible alternative for all of the Confederation's peoples.
Rathon
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:40 am

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby Govenor12 » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:47 am

If you don't play anymore, why do you feel compelled to lambaste Moderation over rules that have been in place since before those individuals even *became* Moderation (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the no RL references rule was in place when I played three and a half years ago, and that neither of our current moderators was in that position at the time), and contribute absolutely nothing constructive to the debate? You don't agree with the rules, so you decided not to play anymore. That's just fine. Leave it at that.


We need to understand the reasons in order to improve the game and our community as a whole or better: To stengthen our community. The point is: The moderation always finds wise interpretations and reasons for their behaviour but as soon as your begin to voice opposition you are attacked, you are seen as unwanted. We have to move away from this attitude and be able critizes the moderation freely and fairly wizthout beeing restricted too far by languange restrictions.
I think at the moment the moderation is like the public service: They believe they are always right and always find seemingly good reasons for it but disregard completly the other side.
Govenor12
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 11:20 am

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby SelucianCrusader » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:54 am

I think one thing we need to ask ourselves is: what are culturally open nations good for anyway? Are there any "culturally open" countries in the real world? It seems like people think of "culturally open" as another word for "English". It isn't. If there is a lack of anglophone countries - now that is a relevant issue to bring up. We already have Beluzia, Luthori, Rutania, Mordusia, Kirlawa, Likatonia - all somewhat popular countries. There's some space left in most of them - but if there wasn't, sure we could let the number of anglophone rise a bit. Maybe 6 (space for at least 48 players) are too few - maybe there should be 12 (98 players, then no one won't ever be able to say there's a shortage of them) or so.

Has introducing more Culturally Open countries done anything to widen the player base? Are the 23 Culturally Open nations fledging with activity? No - they aren't. In fact, most have 1 player. The average number of players in Culturally Open nations are exactly 3 (I just did the calculations, 69 players / 23 nations = 3 on avearge). Culturally Open nations aren't the solution to anything and I think this was an idea some people got because of some rare (1 or 2) cases where groups of noobs swarmed into player-less counties and completely disregarded the culture, causing a not-always-overly-constructive backlash from the community. Back then, cultural protocols weren't explained on the PT main page, and the FAQ wasn't especially helpful, so I think Aquinas has already fixed that problem.

I think the main problem with some former CP's lie in the complexity in some of our creations - the convoluted history and the appearance of very non-accessible cultures (from the ancient world etc) and sometimes religions as well. CP's should be written in a way that is simple to gasp the basics of for any new player, veteran or not. And that's were moderation should step in. Apart from that - I don't think we need any Culturally Open countries or Cultural Eras.
Last edited by SelucianCrusader on Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
User avatar
SelucianCrusader
 
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:32 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Cultural Protocols: What? Why? How?

Postby Rathon » Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:12 am

To me the value of Culturally Open nations lies in two areas:

1. They allow players to do their own thing without having to worry about trampling over an established culture, and
2. They allow for stale, unpopular Cultural Protocols to be replaced with something new.

The problem is, players do neither of those things. They default to boring, cookie-cutter Anglophone parties and cultures. Moderation can't do anything about this. But, perhaps we as players can. Maybe if some veteran players move into Culturally Open nations and play parties that reflect a distinct culture, it will inspire other players in those nations to get out of their comfort zones and try something new. And from there, discussions can be had on introducing new protocols based on these new cultures that are *informally* introduced to the nation through roleplay.
Coaliție Unitate Centru
A sensible alternative for all of the Confederation's peoples.
Rathon
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:40 am

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests