GAME RULES REDRAFT CONSULTATION

[FPC]

Please keep it civil xoxox

Link to the doc with the rules: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vo1 ... sp=sharing

[jamescfm]

[Arapaima13]

Firstly, thanks for putting your time into this. The work you guys do is greatly appreciated.

I think that the Role Play rules shouldn't be as radically cut down. For example, the rules regarding RP Bills have been significantly reduced and, in my opinion, over simplified. Although the rules must be accessible, because of the evolution of the current rules, it is just too big a topic to have reduced down to such a small size. I might suggest splitting the document and having Role Play rules, and Moderation and Conduct rules separate, in order to allow more detail to be put into both of them, without overwhelming the reader. Whilst there is obviously quite a bit of overlap, I don't think that repetition is a particularly bad thing, as it does just reinforce the rules, and clarifies them better.

Once again, thank you for all the hard work you have put in.

[jamescfm]

I'll admit that I haven't read through the entire document yet so these are just some initial thoughts from me. Firstly, I'm glad the RP Accord will become opt-out though some further explanation of those procedures may be needed. I think the last section, which deals with the Third World needs to be improved. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced by the idea of "colonising requests". Role-play in the Third World seems to be based on a small number of themes: civil war, ethnic conflict or anti-colonialism. I highly doubt the re-introduction of colonialism would improve this RP and it seems like it would just be a source of controversy. The nationmaster section also seems very vague.

My primary comments are in regard to Cultural Protocols, though. In the current version of the document, these aren't even mentioned which I assume means you have not yet made a decision on them. With that in mind, I would like to share some of my thoughts. Obviously, we're all aware that CPs tend to split opinion within the community and thus it is unlikely that everyone (or even anyone) will agree with me on the matter. If anybody does disagree then I'd ask that they do so in a manner which addresses my proposals as opposed to my person.

Generally and ultimately, I am in favour of a completely top-down system of Cultural Protocols. Moderation, assisted by the RP Team (and members of the community to a lesser extent), should define the culture of every Particracy country and enforce these definitions on players. Under the present system, we have a ethno-linguistic map which is completely absurd and patently manufactured. Nobody is to blame for this because it's the result of all of the various countries in the game developing separately of one another although there are numerous players who should receive praise for their attempts "fix" it.

Inevitably imposing such a system would receive severe criticism from certain players, who feel it is their inalienable right to be totally isolated from the rest of the game. In my view, Moderation should ignore these players. Speaking generally, they add very little to the community and it would not long before their objections disappear. There would likely be further protest from players who disagree with the details of the map Moderation draw up, especially those whose countries have been redefined or changed in terms of their culture. Unlike the first instance, these players are likely to have good reason for their concerns and Moderation should endeavour to accommodate them as far as possible but in the end, such a task cannot please everyone (it will probably struggle to please anyone entirely).

Despite all the apparent drawbacks, the result- a game culture which is coherent, diverse, accessible and feasible- would significantly improve the player experience in a variety of manners. Players would be incentivised to produce quality role-play, knowing that it wouldn't be arbitrarily overruled in future and the entire section of the rules which deals with the procedures for creating, updating and repealing cultural protocols could be removed making the document significantly more concise. It would make updating the Particracy Wiki considerably easier and perhaps enable it to actually become a source of information for players new and old. On top of all that, we actually get a game world we can look at and say "this is good".

I appreciate this would be a daring move if Moderation decide to go with it and I understand if you don't want to take the risk. Nonetheless, it would demonstrate a fantastic ability to innovate and prioritise player experience if you did. Regardless, if the entire system above cannot be implemented then the new rules must substantially increase the role of Moderators in the approval of Cultural Protocols. At present, the power is there for a creative Moderation team to engage in CP reform but it's sufficiently vague that doing so would create a serious backlash. Frankly, if a country's cultural protocol is nonsensical, doesn't fit with its neighbours or just bad then Moderation should be able to replace it.

[FPC]

. I might suggest splitting the document and having Role Play rules, and Moderation and Conduct rules separate, in order to allow more detail to be put into both of them, without overwhelming the reader.

Not sure I agree with that. I think it will cause unnesccersary confusion and extra work for players, eg. they would have to skim through three different documents trying to find the right rule. However I can work on the RP rules a bit and "beef them up".

In the current version of the document, these aren't even mentioned which I assume means you have not yet made a decision on them

You assume correctly, this was an area I've spent a lot of time considering and I wasnt sure what I wanted to do. Personally I quite like your ideas, however I need to wait and see what the rest of the community think. Potentially what we could do is implement a set of CP placeholder rules at the moment, which are very similar to the current ones, and then hold a seperate consultation about your idea.

With regards to the Nationmaster section I'll be adding some more to that aswell. Personally I think the Third World is finem, I like the idea of colonilisation (more regulations may be needed. eg. cant change culture dramatically or whatever), but if I recieve similar feedback from the rest of the community we can change it.

[thewiseoldowl]

1. NATIONMASTERS - I think its a shame that currently, if you have been playing in a nation for over one month but then deactivate your party - in my case for about 12 hours after which I then changed my mind and returned back to the country I left - I must then wait for another month before I am eligible to become a nationmaster. I have still been there for 1 month and okay, I did leave, but for a very insignifcant amount of time (which I regretted). Given the state that, for example, Luthori is currently in, this rule can be damaging since we are lacking an active nationmaster at a time when we really need one. To require someone to wait 1 month due to a 12 hour inactivity period is quite petty in my opinion.

2. NATIONMASTERS - they should be booted if all they are doing is logging in to vote and fail to read messages, debate on bills, request parties be deactivated after 24 hours etc. Luthori has been at a standstill of late despite having 9 players recenty.

[Liu Che/Zhuli]

The restoration of colonies, although this rule makes it limited, needs to be more explicit. Personally, as a player who helped lead the charge against colonies in the past, I am against the rule. However, if the rule remains, I suggest establishing time limits and the ability of the RP team to take over at certain times. In the age of nationalism, no empire can last forever. Rebellions eventually occur and the invader is eventually kicked out.

[Auditorii]

The restoration of colonies, although this rule makes it limited, needs to be more explicit. Personally, as a player who helped lead the charge against colonies in the past, I am against the rule. However, if the rule remains, I suggest establishing time limits and the ability of the RP team to take over at certain times. In the age of nationalism, no empire can last forever. Rebellions eventually occur and the invader is eventually kicked out.

I think bringing back colonies is a problem, I concur with Liu. I haven't chimed in as much but I eventually will, however, colonies returning would be a large problem I believe.

[FPC]

The restoration of colonies, although this rule makes it limited, needs to be more explicit. Personally, as a player who helped lead the charge against colonies in the past, I am against the rule. However, if the rule remains, I suggest establishing time limits and the ability of the RP team to take over at certain times. In the age of nationalism, no empire can last forever. Rebellions eventually occur and the invader is eventually kicked out.

If it sticks I will definelty implement those suggestions. However the general feedback at the minute suggests the rule will not be in the final draft

[FPC]

1. NATIONMASTERS - I think its a shame that currently, if you have been playing in a nation for over one month but then deactivate your party - in my case for about 12 hours after which I then changed my mind and returned back to the country I left - I must then wait for another month before I am eligible to become a nationmaster. I have still been there for 1 month and okay, I did leave, but for a very insignifcant amount of time (which I regretted). Given the state that, for example, Luthori is currently in, this rule can be damaging since we are lacking an active nationmaster at a time when we really need one. To require someone to wait 1 month due to a 12 hour inactivity period is quite petty in my opinion.

2. NATIONMASTERS - they should be booted if all they are doing is logging in to vote and fail to read messages, debate on bills, request parties be deactivated after 24 hours etc. Luthori has been at a standstill of late despite having 9 players recenty.

I agree with what you have to say on point 2, there should be easier ways to remove an inactive nationmaster, I will work on something tommorow.

However I think there is some confusion with point 1, you can be appointed nationmaster no matter how long you've been active in your country. You just need one player who has been active for a month to vote for the nomination. However that is something I can also look at for you