Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby jamescfm » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:58 am

At present, the RP Accord is the manner in which Moderation and the RP Team are able to enforce the various rankings and realism factors which they create for the sake of developing quality role-play. During my time as a Moderator and an RP Team member, I considered or suggested that we should actually just remove this aspect of the game altogether and have the two groups enforce their rules on everyone, as opposed to a particular group of players who jump through the necessary hoops. Some might say that this is unfair. If, for example, players in Valruzia want to role-play that they have access to thousands of nuclear warheads and dozens of aircraft then who are the bureaucratic overlords of the game to stop them! In my view, this is unfair and actually illogical. In what other game do the "rank-and-file" players of the game create the rules, certainly none that I am aware of. It would be like sitting down for a game of monopoly and having three of the four players abide by the normal rules of the game while the remaining player simply claims they own all the properties and that they have a million dollars saved in the bank. Nonetheless, this isn't my decision and so I'd like to hear what other players and the two relevant groups think.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby FPC » Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:32 am

Thanks for raising this, this topic is being actively worked on by Moderation and we are aiming to make an announcement in the first month or two of the new year. We are however still open to a change of plans and will of course take any feedback we get from you guys on this thread.
Used to be relevant
User avatar
FPC
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:14 am
Location: Scotland

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby Corvo Attano » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:03 pm

I don't care either way as long as proper rp has been made to acquire said thousand nuclear missiles.
Fatherland Front

Nationmaster of Malivia
User avatar
Corvo Attano
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:16 pm

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby RedReaper » Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:37 pm

James does raise an interesting point. However it is a hard line to tread with many members of the community, even if it adds to realism.
User avatar
RedReaper
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:02 am

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby Pragma » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:58 pm

Well I was mind-fucked when I heard Valruzia was getting thousands of missiles from Dorvik because we only RPed 9 ever being created!
Currently playing in: Cildania

Image Vascanian Empire
User avatar
Pragma
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:29 pm
Location: your mother

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby thewake » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:12 pm

Will the removal lead to more interesting role play or just everyone pretending to be a superpower? This game is supposed to be realistic.

Of course maybe if it was repealed and replaced with something more flexible that might be an improvement.
thewake
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 5:31 pm

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby Lucca » Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:00 am

I considered or suggested that we should actually just remove this aspect of the game altogether and have the two groups enforce their rules on everyone,

Very, very strongly opposed! :evil:

as opposed to a particular group of players who jump through the necessary hoops.

Well then, if you want more players/nations to sign up, then maybe go about doing so by making whatever "hoops" those might happen to be, more straightforward, please. Instead of coercively inflicting this system upon those of us who actively do not want it.

If, for example, players in Valruzia want to role-play that they have access to thousands of nuclear warheads and dozens of aircraft then who are the bureaucratic overlords of the game to stop them!

I [literally] agree (that is, that the bureaucratic overlords of the game should not be permitted to stop them).

If other players happen to not like how the Valruzia players are playing their nation, then, these players should simply exclude/forbid/ban Valruzia from their own RP, their own storylines, until (or unless!!) such time as Valruzia's players do choose to comply with the first group's mutually-agreed-and-chosen (repeat, mutually-agreed-and-chosen) guidelines.
The Valruzia players should never, ever be forced to bow down to such a system, just to be permitted to play in their own nation.

Not only that, but, if two (or more) nations should ever happen to mutually agree to RP but by some different mutually-agreed-by-the-participants guidelines, partially or even completely disregarding the RP Accord and such, I feel that they should be permitted to do so.
As long as it doesn't affect anybody else, of course. (Which should naturally be a given throughout this.)

It would be like sitting down for a game of monopoly and having three of the four players abide by the normal rules of the game while the remaining player simply claims they own all the properties and that they have a million dollars saved in the bank.

Then simply just don't let the fourth player participate within the same instance [of the Monopoly game] as the first three. Problem solved.
Nobody is hurt this way; the first three don't get their instance of the game ruined, and the fourth player is not forced into obeying the first three, and can play a solo variant instead.

OP is simplistically asserting that, the only way to prevent the fourth player from ruining the first three players' fun, is that we need to allow the first three to ruin the fourth player's fun instead. We don't.

Also, please consider: if a fifth player happens by and feels (for whatever reason) that what the fourth player wants is fun, more fun than what the first three want; then, whatever right should the first three have to barge in and forbid those two their preference? (None at all!)

Instead, simply proceed by excluding, shunning, the pair from participating in your own RP. If you so choose.

The former three can participate in the RP that they enjoy; and the latter two can meanwhile participate in the RP that they enjoy; and everybody's happy.



In my view, this is unfair and actually illogical.

Well, in my view, it is your view which is the one which is deeply unfair and senseless.

Whereas as for "logic" ... why does the phrase "false dichotomy" come to mind? (see above)....

In what other game do the "rank-and-file" players of the game create the rules, certainly none that I am aware of.

Ever hear of "house rules"? Where the players involved -- yes, precisely those "rank-and-file" players whom you look upon with such contempt -- mutually agree to follow a different way of playing some game from that officially prescribed from on high, because they happen to enjoy doing so?

OP appears to like Monopoly. Well, for one, some have claimed that more players choose(!) to play that by putting money under "Free Parking", than don't -- regardless of the repeated protestations of the official publisher! --




Nonetheless, this isn't my decision

Very, very thankfully!!

and so I'd like to hear what other players and the two relevant groups think.

Well, this is how I feel on the matter.
Stated perhaps more forcefully/bluntly than I would have otherwise -- it's just that right now I am both taken aback and appalled that this, (this extermination of players'/nations' right to choose to refuse to consent to the RP Accord), is bald-facedly actually being seriously proposed.






Please ponder the Cultural Protocols system; it's a somewhat parallel occurrence, and wisely implemented.
Some nations have Cultural Protocols, and have thus voluntarily chosen to lock themselves into a nationally-self-specified culture.
Some nations are Culturally Open, and have thus voluntarily chosen to let players there personally choose any culture they happen to feel like RP'ing.

And crucially, players are free to choose which style of nation they prefer to play in, since nations of both types are available.
Players who enjoy a culturally-coherent setting, can choose an appropriate nation. Players who prefer anything-goes when it comes to culture, can choose an appropriate nation.
Everybody gets their preference. Everybody wins.



What in the world is so wrong with keeping the same wise, beneficient approach here?
Keeping it so that those players who prefer to play in an RP-Accord-straitjacketed nation can do so -- and also those players who want nothing to do with such a system can likewise do so -- simply by selecting their nation accordingly.
Everybody gets their preference. Everybody wins.




But it's become evident -- simply by the very existence/creation of this thread -- that some people hate it when everybody's happy.

Some people wanting the first group of players to be permitted precisely what they enjoy, but the second group of players to be kicked right in the face.



If the OP's way of thinking should lamentably be implemented, please notice that the obvious next step along that exact same line, a year or whenever from now, will be to then strip us players of, as well, the right to ever choose to refuse to consent to any incipient RP....







Pondering the Cultural Protocols parallel again, let's revisit the above please....
as opposed to a particular group of players who jump through the necessary hoops.

Well then, if you want more players/nations to sign up, then maybe go about doing so by making whatever "hoops" those might happen to be, more straightforward, please. Instead of coercively inflicting this system upon those of us who actively do not want it.

Looking at the Cultural Protocols Index ... as of this moment, I see 43 nations having chosen to create and pass Cultural Protocols, and 15 nations having chosen to remain Culturally Open (which doesn't require passing a Cultural Protocols bill or anything).

Meanwhile, the Roleplay Accord Index ... as of this moment, 16 nations have chosen to bind themselves to it, whereas 42(!) nations have demurred from doing so.

Think about it. Maybe it's not a matter of so-called "hoops". (Because otherwise, why are the Cultural Protocols -- which if anything involve more work -- so popular?)

Maybe ... it's instead simply that we (deplorable rank-and-file) players, have on the whole chosen to reject what you're so forcibly trying to inflict upon us here?!...
Lucca
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:02 pm
Location: Ihmetellä, Republic of Kirlawa

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby CCP » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:46 am

I agree with Lucca here. As Lucca pointed out, Jamescfm's Monopoly parallel is faulty because in that game, every player is required to interact with all other players, whereas in Partiracy RP and other nation sim RP games, players choose who they play with. As Lucca pointed out, if we don't like someone's RP in Particracy, we've always simply ignored them. I haven't observed any big change in the game that has made that way of doing things unsustainable.

A big part of the problem with enforcing the RP Accords game-wide is that players frequently disagree with the views of the RP Team members. Whether those disagreements are resolved to players' satisfaction is currently a function of whoever happens to be on the RP Team at that time. There have been instances where RP Team members outright refused to consider any changes to specific nations' rankings, despite the fact that RP Team members' reasoning when reaching their conclusions is as prone to faulty thinking as anyone else's. Also lately, since Discord has become popular with some Particracy players, RP Team and Moderation decisions have become increasingly prone to group-think and cliquishness. I'd bet that if we searched recent Discord archives, we'd find that similar group-think is driving some of the apparent urgency to change the RP Accord rules too.

I think that, because most players don't use the Discord chatrooms nor participate in the RP Accords as Lucca pointed out, the Moderators and RP Team Members should be very cautious of being seduced into thinking that the views of themselves and their friends reflect the views of any large number of players. If most players thought this were an important problem, they probably would've rallied their nations to pass the Accords. But as Lucca pointed out, very few have done so.
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: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby Maxington » Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:31 am

I know James and FPC could quote me on saying this, because in every discussion on the RP Accord, I have always said this: It was formed on the opinion that it would not be forced down the throats of players. Nor should it be this omnipresent/omnipotent force that is going to act on a level similar to that of moderation and their enforcement of the Game Rules. We all know that this game is full of persons who don't RP and don't clearly understand the concept. I don't think that it is right to shove this down the throats of the newer players. A fine example of newer players' attention to certain systems in the game can be drawn from their obedience with the cultural protocol. I know that moderation have been getting various messages pertaining to players not being in "alignment" with the cultural protocol. I personally believe that will be the same issue when and if, the RP Accord is to be biding to all nations regardless of "whether they like it or not".

As we discuss more about this, i hope everyone is coming to an understanding why the RP Accord was initially introduced as an optional thing rather than a system similar to the cultural protocol. Although I have not seen many problems pertaining to RP and players role-playing within the constraints of realism, there is really no functional way (in my view) to ensure that players RP realistically other than informing and helping them understand the concept and why realism is important. I believe that this should be the responsibility of Nationmaster, the RP Team and experienced role-players. The RP Team and the Accord should not only be these entities aimed at enforcing realism in RP, but should also be aimed at educating persons on its importance to the game and the wider community.

In conclusion, the RP Accord should remain optional and efforts be made by everyone to educate newer players.
"The future of the Nation is in the children's school bags" ~ Dr. Eric Williams
President of the Trond Henrichsen Institute for International Affairs.
User avatar
Maxington
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:37 pm
Location: Look Behind you.

Re: Removing the RP Accord (Discussion)

Postby jamescfm » Tue Dec 26, 2017 10:26 am

Lucca wrote:-snip-

Let me be honest and say I really don't care about this rant. On top of the fact that you refer to me as "OP" as though my name isn't right next to the post you repeatedly quote from, it's common knowledge at this point that you don't engage in any role-play whatsoever. Your post history is literally just a constant attempt to prevent anybody else from enjoying role-play.

CCP wrote:A big part of the problem with enforcing the RP Accords game-wide is that players frequently disagree with the views of the RP Team members. Whether those disagreements are resolved to players' satisfaction is currently a function of whoever happens to be on the RP Team at that time. There have been instances where RP Team members outright refused to consider any changes to specific nations' rankings, despite the fact that RP Team members' reasoning when reaching their conclusions is as prone to faulty thinking as anyone else's.

Yeah, this is a very valid point and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. Nonetheless, I feel that it's not necessarily a good enough argument not to enforce them at all. Essentially I think it's better to have some kind of uniform regulation (even if it's not perfect) than to have none at all.

CCP wrote:Also lately, since Discord has become popular with some Particracy players, RP Team and Moderation decisions have become increasingly prone to group-think and cliquishness. I'd bet that if we searched recent Discord archives, we'd find that similar group-think is driving some of the apparent urgency to change the RP Accord rules too.

I think that, because most players don't use the Discord chatrooms nor participate in the RP Accords as Lucca pointed out, the Moderators and RP Team Members should be very cautious of being seduced into thinking that the views of themselves and their friends reflect the views of any large number of players. If most players thought this were an important problem, they probably would've rallied their nations to pass the Accords. But as Lucca pointed out, very few have done so.

Given that I get the feeling this is supposed to be some kind of dig at me as being part of the "their friends" group, I think it's relevant to note that I'm not involved with the Particracy Discord and haven't been for a while now. Aside from that, I don't think that the idea of rallying their nations to pass the accords is relevant because the RP Accord is, honestly, pointless. It's an example of only punishing those who abide the rules. Players who want to have a game-world which is realistic and fair will play in such a way that makes it so, they don't need the RP Accord to make them do so. The problem is the minority of players who act like their nation is some isolated piece of land on its own rather than part of a much larger, more complex world.

Maxington wrote:In conclusion, the RP Accord should remain optional and efforts be made by everyone to educate newer players.

Fair enough, Max. Honestly, in an ideal world I would agree but I would suggest that both of us know that educating newer players is a lot harder than it sounds.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests