Game Rules Updates

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Game Rules Updates

Postby Aquinas » Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:18 pm

As usual, with the close of the Cultural Era, we are introducing a few adjustments to the Game Rules. The significant changes are...

Second accounts and Security Council role-play

2.2.7 ASAA players should not control the representative of more than 1 nation during Security Council role-play.


Simpler 3 day inactivations

The current rule...

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.


...has been modified to...

8.1.1 They have not logged into their account for at least 3 days (72 hours) and another player from the same nation has requested their early inactivation. The player requesting the inactivation should cite this rule when doing so.



The core name must be included in the nation name

No more special exceptions anymore, since this can cause confusion for players trying to locate a specific nation.


More protection for Party Organisations

The rules have been changed from...

12. Party Organisations.

12.1 A Party Organisation will be deleted if one or both of the following apply:

- It has no active leader(s).

- It is more than 20 IG (in-game) years old and does not have a minimum of 2 active members of full member status or higher, who must both be listed with no more than 25 organisations.

Organisations which meet this criteria may be reported for deletion on the Organisations for deletion thread.

12.2 If a player uses an inactive account within an organisation to raise or demote a party from leadership, then Moderation reserves the discretion to reverse the changes if this action is challenged by another player.


...to...

12. Party Organisations.

12.1 A Party Organisation will be eligible for deletion if it is more than 30 IG (in-game) years old and does not have a minimum of 1 active member ("active member" meaning an active member who has leadership or full member status) who is listed with no more than 20 organisations.

Organisations may be reported for deletion on the "Organisations for deletion" thread.

12.2 A leaderless organisation is an organisation with no active leaders. When an organisation is leaderless, a party with full member status may receive leadership status by posting a link to both their party and the organisation on the "Organisation leadership requests" thread. In exceptional circumstances, Moderation reserves the discretion to deny leadership requests.

12.3 If a player uses an inactive account within an organisation to raise or demote a party from leadership, then Moderation reserves the discretion to reverse the changes if this action is challenged by another player.



Easier bill clearouts

13.6.1 Clearouts can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the "Bill Clearout Requests" thread.

13.6.1.1 Bills proposed by active parties are similarly eligible for clearout if they are 10 or more game years old. Players should cite this rule when making the request.


More protection for Treaties

The rules have changed from...

14. Treaties.

14.1 Treaties which have become inactive, meaning they are over 20 IG (in-game) years old and have no ratifications or are over 100 IG years old and have fewer than 2 ratifications, will be deleted. Treaties identified as inactive may be reported for deletion on the "Dead Treaties" thread.

14.2 "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation.


To...

14. Treaties.

14.1 Treaties which have become inactive, meaning they are over 50 IG (in-game) years old and have no ratifications or are over 200 IG years old and have fewer than 2 ratifications, will be deleted. Treaties identified as inactive may be reported for deletion on the "Dead Treaties" thread.

14.2 "Treaty-locking", or ratifiying treaties that completely or nearly completely forbid any proposals to change laws, is not allowed. Amongst other possible sanctions, Moderation reserves the discretion to delete treaties and/or subject parties to a seat reset if this is necessary in order to reverse a treaty-lock situation.



Maximum 15% limit on changes to Cultural Protocols

16.5 As a general convention, players should be able to provide good reasons if they want to significantly change Cultural Protocols which are less than 30 in-game years old. Where the Cultural Protocols are more than 30 in-game years old, then a change to any of the categories by 5% or less will generally be accepted without question. If the changes proposed are between 5 and 10%, then players should be prepared for the possibility of having the changes queried. If the changes proposed are over 10%, then players should always expect to need to provide strong role-play justification for the changes. Changes of over 15% will never be accepted, unless there are exceptional circumstances where this is deemed necessary to repair a situation in which a Cultural Protocol is insufficiently accessible to players.



No more Nationmaster-requested 8 party limits

We were having some issues with this, some of these being:

- Refusing to reactivate parties was causing some upset/frustration.

- Moderators (myself included) were not always very good at remembering which nations had 8 party limits and remembering to deny reactivation requests where they were in place.

- Nationmasters already have the authority to request inactivation after 48 hours, and it was felt that this is in itself is sufficient to deal with the problems which traditionally arise from nations having more than 8 parties.


Some role-play clarifications

21.5.1 The Head of Government may dismiss a Cabinet Minister and replace them with a chosen temporary replacement. In practical terms it may not always be possible to arrange this through the game mechanics, but the dismissal and replacement will be recognised under the Game Rules if the player controlling the Head of Government simply puts forward a bill, announcing the change.

21.6 In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there.


23.1 Role-play events between nations, such as wars, will be officially recognised if before they are commenced, in all of the concerned nations a RP event bill outlining the event is approved by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature. This bill must specify the necessary and possible consequences of the role-play event, as well as a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be interpreted in in-game terms.

An inactive nation, meaning a nation with no players with seats, clearly cannot give consent to role-play, which means players outside the nation should not attempt to role-play with it in in any major or controversial way.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Polites » Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:41 pm

Aquinas wrote:Maximum 15% limit on changes to Cultural Protocols

16.5 As a general convention, players should be able to provide good reasons if they want to significantly change Cultural Protocols which are less than 30 in-game years old. Where the Cultural Protocols are more than 30 in-game years old, then a change to any of the categories by 5% or less will generally be accepted without question. If the changes proposed are between 5 and 10%, then players should be prepared for the possibility of having the changes queried. If the changes proposed are over 10%, then players should always expect to need to provide strong role-play justification for the changes. Changes of over 15% will never be accepted, unless there are exceptional circumstances where this is deemed necessary to repair a situation in which a Cultural Protocol is insufficiently accessible to players.


I'm wondering how this would apply to situations like Church schisms or mergers, since under a literal reading of this new rule things like the unification of the SPC and TC under the APC, or the occasional re-creation of a separate Trigunian Church from the TPC would not be allowed. In cases where the changes are the result of a shift in institutional affiliation rather than demographic shifts could the resulting change be larger than 15%?
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Aquinas » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:59 pm

I see your point; this needs looking into.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Aquinas » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:51 pm

We have opted for a formula of "Changes of over 15% will never be accepted unless the grounds for justification are exceptional".
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Khaler » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:04 pm

Aquinas wrote:The core name must be included in the nation name

No more special exceptions anymore, since this can cause confusion for players trying to locate a specific nation.


This is interesting, as what decides the core name? I for one can not find nation once called Ikradon anywhere, which I believe was the core name once. So how are the core names determined? Are the current names the core names now or what?

Obviously I have my own interest here too, as Darnussia has been called Darnussia and/or Narikaton for long withstanding RP and cultural reasons multiple times over the years, and without exceptions that aspect of RP with years of backing and history can never be fully explored again.
Be on your OLD GUARD, stand firm in the faith!
-1 Selucians 16:13
Khaler
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: Great Democratic Republic of Khaleristan, a member of the caring and loving Russian Federation!

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Aquinas » Thu Jan 12, 2017 3:30 pm

Khaler wrote:
Aquinas wrote:The core name must be included in the nation name

No more special exceptions anymore, since this can cause confusion for players trying to locate a specific nation.


This is interesting, as what decides the core name? I for one can not find nation once called Ikradon anywhere, which I believe was the core name once. So how are the core names determined? Are the current names the core names now or what?

Obviously I have my own interest here too, as Darnussia has been called Darnussia and/or Narikaton for long withstanding RP and cultural reasons multiple times over the years, and without exceptions that aspect of RP with years of backing and history can never be fully explored again.


You can see a full list of the core names at the Nation Renaming Guide. If you want to make a case for any of them to be amended, you can do so on the Nation Renaming Guide: feedback thread. Although bear in mind we don't want nations to have more than 2 core names each (or else it will get too confusing).

Also bear in mind you can just have the core name in brackets; it does not have to be part of the main title. The point here is that the core name (or one of the core names) needs to be in the nation title somewhere.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Reddy » Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:36 am

Use of the terms "Bolshevik", "Nazi" and "Soviet" is now allowed. Thus subsections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 have been removed from the Game Rules.

5.2.1. The terms "Bolshevik", "Nazi" and "Soviet" are specifically prohibited.

5.2.2 "Сове́т", which is sometimes translated as "Soviet", is permitted as a translation of "Council".


Please note however that this only applies to use of those terms only, and not the real life political characters found in those regimes and political parties. Those remain prohibited under section 5.1
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Reddy » Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:57 am

The Authorised Second Active Accounts experiment has come to an end. Thus subsection 2.2 of the Game Rules has been repealed and deleted entirely.

2.2 Authorised Second Active Accounts (ASAAs)

Under certain conditions and at Moderation's discretion, it can be permitted for a player to run an Authorised Second Active Account (ASAA).

This involves a considerable degree of trust, so players should make sure they fully understand the terms involved BEFORE requesting permission. Please do not apply for this unless you are certain about what you are doing. Any abuse of the system will be treated seriously and will result in immediate withdrawal of the permission. Similarly, be aware that Moderation will be swifter to inactivate an ASAA player over rules compliance issues than other players, so please make sure you are familiarised with the Game Rules BEFORE applying.

The procedure is as follows:

2.2.1 The player should have a good record in terms of respecting the Game Rules.

2.2.2 The player should have an account in the game that is currently continuously active (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month.

2.2.3 The player should post a request for an ASAA on the Authorised Second Active Account Requests thread, listing their currently active account and an inactive account in another nation which they wish to be activated and treated as an ASAA. It is preferable, but not compulsory, that in the interests of transparency, the usernames for the accounts should appear obviously connected (eg. "Fred001" and "Fred002").

2.2.3.1 In preparation for beginning the process of applying for an ASAA, it is permitted for a player to set up an account in another nation and then IMMEDIATELY inactivate it, with a view to then requesting it as an ASAA.

2.2.4 If there is room on the Register of Authorised Second Active Accounts, then Moderation will consider the request, and if it is accepted, add the player’s primary and second account details to the Register, along with the date permission for the ASAA was granted.

2.2.5. A maximum of 10 ASAAs are allowed in the game at any one time. Permission for the ASAA will be considered to be withdrawn immediately either the player’s primary or second account has become inactive. When players notice this happen, they are encouraged to report this on the Authorised Second Active Accounts thread, so Moderation can remove the player’s entry from the Register.

2.2.5.1 If there are 10 players on the Register and another player is approved for an ASAA, Moderation will remove permission from the player who has been on the Register the longest, so long as they have not been there for less than 2 months. That player’s second account will then be inactivated, and they will be removed from the Register. In other words, once a player has run an ASAA for 2 months or more, they are on borrowed time and should be prepared to lose the second account at any moment.

2.2.6 Once a player’s entry has been removed from the Register, they cannot apply for another ASAA within the next 4 days (96 hours).

2.2.7 ASAA players should not control the representative of more than 1 nation during Security Council role-play.


Multiing is now once again forbidden under any circumstances.

2. Multi-accounting.

Multi-accounting, also known as "multiing", involves players running more than one active account in the game at the same time. Multiing can be authorised or unauthorised.

2.1 Unauthorised multiing.

Moderation has a responsibility to prevent unauthorised multiing, which means:


has become:

2. Multi-accounting.

Multi-accounting, also known as "multiing", involves players running more than one active account in the game at the same time. It is forbidden.

2.1 Moderation has a responsibility to prevent multiing, which means:
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Reddy » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:41 am

We have decided to abolish Cultural Eras entirely. The duties they impose on both players and Moderation are wholly unnecessary in our view. We believe there's a better and easier way to achieve their aims without risking the protection status of every single country.

We will however introduce a new rule which is based on the one proposed earlier and which will allow for very unpopular and inaccessible Cultural Protocols to be made Open. The rule prioritises consensus and is somewhat stricter than the current rules covering the creation of Cultural Protocols but they will generally operate in the same manner. The main difference will be that players need to have played in a country for at least 2 months (continuously) before making a request for Culturally Open status. Moderation will retain the discretion to refuse to approve requests for Cultural Open status where it is believed that they are motivated by malice or where they target a culture which is under-represented in the game. This discretion in practice should be exercised very rarely and in very few cases.

A "Requests for Culturally Open Status" thread will be added to the "Game Moderation" sub-forum. Rule 17.2 will be deleted as affirmation are no longer necessary for neither new nor old cultural protocols. Rule 19 which covers the RP Team is to be also amended to reflect the change in appointments which is no longer based on Cultural Eras.

The new rule

15. Requests for Culturally Open Status
15.1 In order to become a Culturally Open country, a bill requesting such a change must first be passed. It has to be supported by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature. Also, at least two of the players sponsoring the bill must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 2 months.

15.2 A request for approval of the bill should then be posted on the Requests for Culturally Open Status thread. In order to become official, the request must then be approved by Moderation. Moderation reserves the right to reject such a request where such a request is motivated by malicious intent or the targeted culture is deemed to be under-represented in the game.

15.2.1 Moderation will not approve of such a request within the first 96 hours of it being requested. This is in order to give other players a chance to query the proposed changes, if they wish to do so.


Rule 17.2 which will be deleted.

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.


Rule 19 will be amended from

The Team takes collective responsibility for its decisions and operates under Moderation's overview. It automatically comes to the end of its term of office at the close of each Cultural Era, when appointments and/or reappointments will be made.
Where appropriate, the Team may delegate role-play and other tasks to players outside of the Team, but it retains overall responsibility.


to...

The Team takes collective responsibility for its decisions and operates under Moderation's overview. Appointments shall be made in March and September of each year, with each term lasting six months. Where appropriate, the Team may delegate role-play and other tasks to players outside of the Team, but it retains overall responsibility.
To live outside the law, you must be honest.
Reddy
 
Posts: 4116
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Game Rules update

Postby Suber36g » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:31 am

Is there a simplified version of the culture protocol?
User avatar
Suber36g
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:13 am

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron