Requirements for creating new Cultural Protocols

[Aquinas]

2 players is more manageable, but it's not the number of players that's the difficult part, it's the no deactivations rule. Like you said, the deactivation window is much stiffer than it used to be (4 days comes much quicker than 7 did). That's why a content standard occurred to me. You said "long-term intention of actually playing in the nation" was part of your motivation for the 1-month-no-deactivations rule if I read you right. If so, I'm curious to see how it looks from your perspective: does the 1-month rule for new CPs seem to be translating to longterm retention for the 3+ players in each case? From my experience doing a recent new CP, I can tell you that for most of the 1-month period we were just party sitting (though we did have a longer lead time due to a deactivation or two). And one of our 3-player minimum was a personal friend who logged on every 3 days as a favor to me but never had any intention of ever genuinely playing the game. So the questions for me are: how closely-aligned is the process to the objective, and is the process generally producing the desired objective.

Would you do me the favor of giving some more details on your thoughts about what are the 'right direction' elements of Rathon's and my suggestions, what are the imprecise elements, and what an effective precision would look like.

The parts I like about the proposal is the emphasis on making the process of creating Cultural Protocols a little easier and more achievable, whilst continuing to recognise the need for a display of commitment from the players concerned. Two of the parts I think are more difficult are:

(i) Possible lack of simplicity. In my experience, it is best to keep rules as simple as can be practical. Introducing processes like "Quality Assessment", "Quantity Minimum", "RP volume" etc. risk making it more complicated (or at least making it seem more complicated - which can be just as important).

(ii) Possible lack of precision in the formula, leading to too much ambiguity about whether a Cultural Protocol creation request meets the minimum requirements. I fully agree that a 3 players/1-month-each or 2 players/1-month-each formula is not a perfect way of measuring player effort and commitment, but it is at least something which is easy to measure in an objective/indisputable way. If the formula is ambiguous, there is more risk of confusion, disappointment and conflicts between players and Moderators (and also probably between players and players, as well).

Of course there are other parts of the process of creating a Cultural Protocol which could appear to be less precise/more subjective. For example, Moderation might need to make a decision about whether or not a Cultural Protocol was reasonably accessible to players, or whether it should be allowed to be created in circumstances where players in the same region expressed strong objections to it. However, I would say it would be better if the minimum requirements for actually proposing a request to create a Cultural Protocol was kept simple/clear-cut/objective.

I would argue the 2 players/1-month-each formula is not so unreasonable as some might be fearing it is. Yes, it is possible a player could fall inactive during the process, and yes that would be frustrating/disappointing, but if there was a genuine, serious commitment to create the Cultural Protocol, it would not be difficult for them to start over again. All it would mean is delaying the setting up of the Cultural Protocol by a short while.

As an aside, I could add that since I became a Moderator over a year ago, I can't ever remember getting a 4 day holiday from Particracy (even at times like right now, when I'm actually meant to be on holiday and my partner is fed up with me being on the laptop!). Scarcely a day goes by when I don't have to deal with a Cultural Protocol issue. So with the greatest of respect, guys...forgive me if I'm not massively convinced that asking you to log in (that's all - just log in) every 4 days for a month (yes - only a month) before you set up a Cultural Protocol is such an unreasonable demand to make. Especially with the requirement being reduced from 3 players to just 2.

[Rathon]

I don't think that's unreasonable per se, but at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for a grace period as well in the case of an accidental inactivation. It's not that uncommon of an occurrence for players to inactivate purely by accident. IIRC, Cildania's CP wasn't reaffirmed this time around purely because Zanz accidentally inactivated. It may be better to scrap the no inactivations rule entirely and just use discretion- if players are showing a commitment to play in that nation by remaining active for a period of about a month, they should be able to enact or reaffirm a CP.

[Aquinas]

I don't think that's unreasonable per se, but at the same time, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for a grace period as well in the case of an accidental inactivation. It's not that uncommon of an occurrence for players to inactivate purely by accident. IIRC, Cildania's CP wasn't reaffirmed this time around purely because Zanz accidentally inactivated. It may be better to scrap the no inactivations rule entirely and just use discretion- if players are showing a commitment to play in that nation by remaining active for a period of about a month, they should be able to enact or reaffirm a CP.

I doubt accidental inactivations are not uncommon, because performing a self-inactivation requires players to go their User Page, enter in their password and hit a button called "Inactivate". In Zanz's case, his Cidania account was inactivated under the usual 4 day rule, not through a self-inactivation.

What does sometimes happen is that players self-inactivate in order to move elsewhere, then change their mind so request reactivation of the account they've just inactivated.

[Rathon]

By "accidental inactivation," I mean accidentally missing the 4-day rule, which can very easily happen if that fourth day throws a player a few curveballs in RL. I really don't think that alone should reset the entire process, particularly if that player has otherwise shown a commitment to play in the nation and follow the proposed CP.

[CCP]

Sorry, I don't have much time so I'm not able to address your full post, Aquinas.

(i) Possible lack of simplicity. In my experience, it is best to keep rules as simple as can be practical. Introducing processes like "Quality Assessment", "Quantity Minimum", "RP volume" etc. risk making it more complicated (or at least making it seem more complicated - which can be just as important).

Qm, rp vol, and qa should absolutely not be mentioned in the rules. I used them here for concision and to ensure the concepts and rationales were clear. If adopted, the rules under this proposal should say merely '3 articles per player,' '3 bills per player,' and no more than x inactivations during the month.

As an aside, I could add that since I became a Moderator over a year ago, I can't ever remember getting a 4 day holiday from Particracy (even at times like right now, when I'm actually meant to be on holiday and my partner is fed up with me being on the laptop!). Scarcely a day goes by when I don't have to deal with a Cultural Protocol issue. So with the greatest of respect, guys...forgive me if I'm not massively convinced that asking you to log in (that's all - just log in) every 4 days for a month (yes - only a month) before you set up a Cultural Protocol is such an unreasonable demand to make. Especially with the requirement being reduced from 3 players to just 2.

Sometimes it is difficult. During Hawu's CPing, Raaper went inactive because he went on a week-long retreat and didn't have access to the web. Other players here are children and may be barred from accessing web games during the school week by their families. It's just very dicey to assume that other players have lifestyles and commitment to the game similar to our own, and it's not clear to me why such an assumption needs to be made especially when there are rules structures which could accomplish the same objective as or more effectively without effectively barring players with unforeseen lifestyles and schedules from playing the CP game.

[Aquinas]

My concern is it would be too easy to create Cultural Protocols if 2 players could create one together, when they'd not even been active for a month. Its not that I'm not factoring in that it is more difficult to avoid inactivation now than it used to be; in fact, I mentioned this point in my opening post, and this is one of the reasons I proposed reducing the requirement from 3 parties to 2 parties. Essentially, the requirements for creating a Cultural Protocol should not be unreasonable, but should not be soft either.

[hts]

Personally, I would be satisfied with reducing the required players from 3 to 2. I think that even though it is a small change, it could help the situation quite a bit. Assembling a team of 2 is much easier than creating a team of 3.

I do, however think, that 13 open nations is a bit high. I would prefer 10. This is not a deal breaker though, and I still support the proposal.

Aquinas, I appreciate you listening to the feedback we've been posting, and I am glad that this issue is being addressed.

[CCP]

Aquinas, I appreciate you listening to the feedback we've been posting, and I am glad that this issue is being addressed.

+1

My concern is it would be too easy to create Cultural Protocols if 2 players could create one together, when they'd not even been active for a month.

That's the scenario I was referring to in my first post:

For Gamplay Time, Moderation could maintain an activation/inactivaton element but with more flexibility since the "long-term intention of actually playing in the nation" threshold Aquinas mentioned would be specifically defined by the RP Volume element. Something like "not more than 2 inactivations per player during the 1-month period" might work, or "not more than 2 inactivations of 3 days or less," if players were trying to game the system by for instance front-loading all their RP Volume within a week then disappearing from the game for 3 weeks.

In other words, since what we're trying to encourage is actively playing the game, the test should be 'show us how much you play the game' not 'show us how much you'll log in,' because as I said above, in Hawu, we were just logging in most of the time and our logging in had no correlation to game commitment. This suggestion addresses that by retaining the 1-month requirement, but allowing a low number of deactivations during that month so long as it's balanced by demonstrated RP and bill participation.

[Aquinas]

Personally, I would be satisfied with reducing the required players from 3 to 2. I think that even though it is a small change, it could help the situation quite a bit. Assembling a team of 2 is much easier than creating a team of 3.

I do, however think, that 13 open nations is a bit high. I would prefer 10. This is not a deal breaker though, and I still support the proposal.

Aquinas, I appreciate you listening to the feedback we've been posting, and I am glad that this issue is being addressed.

***ANNOUNCEMENT***

After careful consideration and reflecting on player feedback, the formula proposed above is the one that has been finally settled on. Section 17 of the Game Rules has been revised accordingly, and now reads:

17. Creating new Cultural Protocols in Culturally Open nations

It is possible for players in a Culturally Open nation to establish a Cultural Protocol if doing so would not reduce the overall number of Culturally Open nations below 10.

17.1 In order to do this, they must meet the same conditions as for updating a Cultural Protocol, as described in section 16, but with the following qualifications:

17.1.1 The Cultural Protocol bill must be passed by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote), and at least 2 players with seats must support the motion, both of whom must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month.

17.1.2 Players are not necessarily required to provide a plausible backstory for how the nation's cultural background developed. However, the provision of a plausible backstory may be a factor in whether Moderation approves the Cultural Protocol if players in surrounding nations question its appropriateness for their region of the game map.

17.1.3 The Cultural Protocol will not be accepted by Moderation within the first 4 days (96 hours) of it being posted on the forum.

17.2 Newly-founded Cultural Protocols cannot be affirmed during the Cultural Era in which they were founded. At the close of that Cultural Era, they will automatically be candidates for Culturally Open status.

[hts]

Thank you Aquinas, and everyone that joined in on the discussion.

I personally think that this is a great change for the game. Now lets get out there and start creating some new CPs.