Requirements for creating new Cultural Protocols

[Aquinas]

Concern has been expressed that the requirements set out in section 17 of the Game Rules for creating Cultural Protocols in Culturally Open nations are too difficult to meet. Let me quote the section in full:

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 8.

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 3 players with seats must support the motion, all 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.

So some questions...


Is there a case for easing the requirement for creating Cultural Protocols in Culturally Open nations?

In many situations, the 3 players/1-month-each requirement is not easy to achieve, and as the players in Hawu Mumenhas (formerly Ibutho/Ikradon) experienced a while back, you can be blown off course if a key player falls inactive at an inopportune time. It is also worth bearing in mind that inactivations happen more easily now than ever before. For most of the game's history, accounts have been routinely inactivated after 7 days of inactivity. That period is now 4 days, and in a minority of cases, inactivations occur earlier still (see section 8 for more details). So the 3 players/1-month each requirement is somewhat demanding - but is it too demanding, or is it fair?

Those who oppose easing the requirement might argue it would be likely to squeeze the playing space of those players who prefer Culturally Open nations. There is also an argument that if the requirement was too soft then we would see too much short-termism, with too many Cultural Protocols being created by players who had no long-term intention of actually playing in the nations they established the Cultural Protocols in.

One thing I would insist is that as well as being simple and precise, any new formula would need to require a significant display of commitment by the players wanting to create the Cultural Protocol.


Should the requirements for restoring the previous Cultural Protocol in a Culturally Open nation be easier than the requirements for creating a brand new one?

Some arguments in favour:

- This would soften the blow for players who lose a valued Cultural Protocol at the end of a Cultural Era.

- Restoring the previous Cultural Protocol could be seen as generally undisruptive and as safeguarding a sense of continuity in the game.

Some arguments against:

- Players already have an opportunity to prevent Cultural Protocols from being removed by affirming then, and even of saving unaffirmed Cultural Protocols by lobbying during End of Cultural Era consultations.

- The fact the Cultural Protocol was not affirmed may be a sign it lacks appeal to players. If this is so, then arguably it is not wise to allow it to be restored on easy terms. Harsher critics might even argue there is actually more of a case for making the requirements for reintroduction more demanding rather than less demanding.


If it becomes easier to create Cultural Protocols, should the minimum number of Culturally Open nations be increased?

If it became easier to create Cultural Protocols, then there is a likelihood that over time, more will be created. At the present time there are 23 Culturally Open nations, and the total number of these is not allowed to fall below 8. Would there be a case for increasing this threshold?

It is worth mentioning here that players who prefer the Culturally Open style are probably under-represented in the forum community, so their needs/views do not always get expressed so prominently here. Another point to emphasise is that whilst balances need to be struck, it would be a mistake to see the interests of players who like Cultural Protocols and the interests of players who aren't so keen on them as being always diametrically opposed. Experience shows, time and again, that a number of players who start off preferring English or Culturally Open nations later develop an enthusiasm for trying out Culturally Protected nations with different/interesting cultures. So in other words, if we go too far in depriving those players of playing space, then in the long-run we will be depriving the Culturally Protected nations of future players.

[Rathon]

Yeah, just because somebody screws up and goes inactive for a day shouldn't reset the whole waiting period... I think Moderation should use their discretion. Allow a bit of a grace period if someone accidentally inactivates. If they miss a day or two, jump back in, and are as active as ever, give them a pass. If they're out for a week, or if they inactivate and don't seem as committed when they return, well, tough luck.

For the question of whether the requirements for restoring the previous Cultural Protocol being easier than creating a brand new one, I would say no. Apart from the already stated arguments of players already having an opportunity to reaffirm and lack of affirming possibly being a sign of lack of interest, I would argue simply that the imposition of protocols where there previously were no protocols should require a significant commitment, regardless of whether or not those protocols were used before. And if the players couldn't be bothered to pass a simple bill to reaffirm, then I really don't mind making them jump through hoops to get it back.

Should the minimum number of Culturally Open nations be increased? I would say not at this time, but keep the question open for future evaluation. Currently, a lot of culturally open nations are either vacant or one-party states. Others are among the most active nations in the game. So it can go both ways. If there comes a time when players feel constrained by there being only eight culturally open nations, then by all means increase the minimum. But I don't think there's any rush right now.

[hts]

I am strongly in favor of easing requirements for the creation of CPs, especially the restoration of CPs.

However, I agree that open nations are often better for new players. So I would support raising the minimum necessary open nations to a reasonable number. At the moment there is just too many, IMO.

I am busy so I am keeping it short, but I do feel that this issue is very important to the future of PT. I strongly supported the starting of cultural eras, because I wanted to replace some of the dull CP's with something better. The problem is, we have replaced very few. So what is happening instead, is that PT is simply becoming more bland.

[Siggon Kristov]

I know I play in a culturally-open nation, so my view on the matter may not be that valued, however I'll share it just in the case that it is.

As the goal of cultural protocols is to ensure IC coherency over time, I think that reaffirming existing cultural protocols should have less requirements than creating new ones - just in principle.

And as I have expressed in the thread that mpog started, I would like to again commend Moderation for its efforts in enforcing workable rules in cultural protocols, as well as facilitating development of these rules in line with the community's demands.

[CCP]

I am busy so I am keeping it short, but I do feel that this issue is very important to the future of PT. I strongly supported the starting of cultural eras, because I wanted to replace some of the dull CP's with something better. The problem is, we have replaced very few. So what is happening instead, is that PT is simply becoming more bland.

As the goal of cultural protocols is to ensure IC coherency over time, I think that reaffirming existing cultural protocols should have less requirements than creating new ones - just in principle.

And as I have expressed in the thread that mpog started, I would like to again commend Moderation for its efforts in enforcing workable rules in cultural protocols, as well as facilitating development of these rules in line with the community's demands.

hts's and Siggon's views on this are pretty much in line with mine. In general, I think we have to be guided by the original logic and intent that led to creating CPs for the game. That's one reason rules consultations like this are useful and important -- because they encourage people to go back to first principles and explain the rationale of the rule(s) to begin with, which is especially helpful and important for players who might not know or recall the original rationales (I was gonna say this in mpog's thread but haven't got back around to it yet). So thanks Aquinas for being your usual responsive self by bringing these concerns up for formal discussion.

Both Aquinas and Siggon offer continuity as one possible "First Principle" for CPs, with Aquinas emphasizing community stability and Siggon emphasizing story continuity. Liu Che in mpog's thread said that CPs were originally created to reverse declining player numbers and increase game activity (another important point I haven't got around to responding to in mpog's thread). With those 2 and half things in mind as "CP First Principles," here's an unorthodox proposal. What it does is take a page out of the RP Team's playbook by attempting to define gameplay contributions by a Quantity and Quality Combo to decide which countries rank the highest in the game. One thing we could do is to create a similar structure for CPs. For example:

1. The Moderator(s) could create a Quantity Minimum (QM). The Quantity Minimum could have 2 parts: RP Volume and Gameplay Time. RP Volume means how much IC content the players requesting the New CP have generated using the new culture. Gameplay Time means how long the players requesting the New CP have been keeping-up the new culture. The Quantity Minimum would be periodically set at the Moderators' discretion but could include things like "5 newspaper articles per player and 5 bill proposals per player within a contiguous 1-month period" for RP Volume. 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.

2. When the players pass the New CP, Moderation would determine if the QM has been met

3. If the QM has been met, Moderation could then post the New CP on the forum for a Quality Assessment (QA)

4. The Quality Assessment could be conducted by all forum users. Once the New CP is posted for QA, current and former players could discuss the New CP, its originality or lore enrichment, its continuity with game lore and respect for other players' RP contributions, its potential affect on IC stability, and its likely popularity with players. Moderation could set a discussion deadline and hold a vote at the end of the discussion. All forum votes could be counted equally or current players' votes could be weighted more than former players' votes (votes should probably be public for this reason). Either majority vote wins OR . . .

5. OR . . . Moderation could take the discussion and vote under advisement and make a final decision to accept or reject the New CP.

What a setup like this would do is follow the RP Team's lead by preferencing gameplay over party-sitting, vanity CPs or 1-party states, and clock-watching. Also like the RP Team, it tries to define the value and structure of the setup by establishing and staying close to First Principles.

[hts]

I am becoming disheartened by the constant arguing in the other General Discussion threads, so can we please get back to this subject?

I think this is important, and perhaps we can start working on a legitimate proposal rather than yell at each other.

Yeah, just because somebody screws up and goes inactive for a day shouldn't reset the whole waiting period... I think Moderation should use their discretion. Allow a bit of a grace period if someone accidentally inactivates. If they miss a day or two, jump back in, and are as active as ever, give them a pass. If they're out for a week, or if they inactivate and don't seem as committed when they return, well, tough luck.

Totally agree with this.

1. The Moderator(s) could create a Quantity Minimum (QM). The Quantity Minimum could have 2 parts: RP Volume and Gameplay Time. RP Volume means how much IC content the players requesting the New CP have generated using the new culture. Gameplay Time means how long the players requesting the New CP have been keeping-up the new culture. The Quantity Minimum would be periodically set at the Moderators' discretion but could include things like "5 newspaper articles per player and 5 bill proposals per player within a contiguous 1-month period" for RP Volume. 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.

2. When the players pass the New CP, Moderation would determine if the QM has been met

3. If the QM has been met, Moderation could then post the New CP on the forum for a Quality Assessment (QA)

4. The Quality Assessment could be conducted by all forum users. Once the New CP is posted for QA, current and former players could discuss the New CP, its originality or lore enrichment, its continuity with game lore and respect for other players' RP contributions, its potential affect on IC stability, and its likely popularity with players. Moderation could set a discussion deadline and hold a vote at the end of the discussion. All forum votes could be counted equally or current players' votes could be weighted more than former players' votes (votes should probably be public for this reason). Either majority vote wins OR . . .

5. OR . . . Moderation could take the discussion and vote under advisement and make a final decision to accept or reject the New CP.

This idea intrigues me, CCP. This could be a good start.

[Aquinas]

From my perspective, the proposals put forward by CCP and Rathon are going in the right direction, although my issue with them is that the formulas they employ are not precise enough. Precision is not always appreciated by players since it can seem arbitrary, but in my experience, the reverse - ambiguity - can often be more problematic.

Time to put a proposal on the table for discussion. The significant changes are underlined.

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 13.

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.

Basically, this would mean you would need 2 players who meet the month requirement, instead of 3, and the minimum number of Culturally Open nations would increase from 8 to 13. Theoretically, this would mean it would be possible for up to 10 new Cultural Protocols to be created between now and January.

If nations were given Cultural Protocols and then neglected, it would be possible to deal with that within the framework of the existing Game Rules. For example, they could be set to Culturally Open at the end of the Cultural Era.

[Rathon]

I agree with reducing the number of players needed to create a CP in an open nation from 3 to 2, as that would mean you only need one other player to agree with a plan and have a commitment to create a CP. Also, include a grace period for the "continuously active in the nation" clause, allowing, say, one inactivation and a maximum of three days of inactivity over that period. Like I said, a slip of the mind and forgetting to log in after the 4-day limit (or RL getting in the way of that, which it certainly can) shouldn't reset the whole process.

I really don't think an increase in the minimum number of open nations is necessary at this time. Currently, there are 23 open nations compared to 35 CP'd nations, and to my knowledge, there are currently no plans to introduce any CPs to open nations. In fact, I would suggest setting a *maximum* number of open nations, as the current number is about 40% of all nations, which seems like a good upper limit to me.

[CCP]

From my perspective, the proposals put forward by CCP and Rathon are going in the right direction, although my issue with them is that the formulas they employ are not precise enough. Precision is not always appreciated by players since it can seem arbitrary, but in my experience, the reverse - ambiguity - can often be more problematic.

Time to put a proposal on the table for discussion. The significant changes are underlined.

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 13.

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.

Basically, this would mean you would need 2 players who meet the month requirement, instead of 3, and the minimum number of Culturally Open nations would increase from 8 to 13. Theoretically, this would mean it would be possible for up to 10 new Cultural Protocols to be created between now and January.

If nations were given Cultural Protocols and then neglected, it would be possible to deal with that within the framework of the existing Game Rules. For example, they could be set to Culturally Open at the end of the Cultural Era.

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.

[SelucianCrusader]

I like the reduction of players needed to pass a CP but would probably want to go even further. One player who has been continuously active should be enough. Alternatively - the time required can be reduced too two weeks to make sure people looking to establish a cultural protocol and have a clear idea won't be raided by others who disagree to disrupt it. Cultural protection should be seen as something desirable, lack of CP's makes the lore stop making sense and destroys creativity - the foundations for newer players to build on.

There isn't any need for more Culturally Open countries - most have 1 or 2 players active. 8 is a good cap if you don't intend to scrap them completely - there are already established 6 anglophone countries (which is really what this is all about) to complement them.