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!
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?!...