CULTURAL MAP DEBATE THREAD

[Phil Piratin]

The Global Role Play Accord (GRA) is an opt out index of nations. There are two types of membership in the GRA: A full membership allows the RP team to determine the nation’s culture as well as its economic and military characteristics. Whereas a partial member allows the nation to choose one option or the other.
To opt-out of the GRA a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats stating whether they are opting out of the whole accord, or part of it in which case they should specify which part.
To opt back in a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats and state what part(s) of the GRA they wish to opt into.

Could you provide more precise details on what this would entail?

[Polites]

The Global Role Play Accord (GRA) is an opt out index of nations. There are two types of membership in the GRA: A full membership allows the RP team to determine the nation’s culture as well as its economic and military characteristics. Whereas a partial member allows the nation to choose one option or the other.
To opt-out of the GRA a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats stating whether they are opting out of the whole accord, or part of it in which case they should specify which part.
To opt back in a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats and state what part(s) of the GRA they wish to opt into.

Could you provide more precise details on what this would entail?

We're still ironing out the details, but short story is culture will be centralized under the RP Accord, with an opt-out option and two types of membership.

[Phil Piratin]

The Global Role Play Accord (GRA) is an opt out index of nations. There are two types of membership in the GRA: A full membership allows the RP team to determine the nation’s culture as well as its economic and military characteristics. Whereas a partial member allows the nation to choose one option or the other.
To opt-out of the GRA a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats stating whether they are opting out of the whole accord, or part of it in which case they should specify which part.
To opt back in a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats and state what part(s) of the GRA they wish to opt into.

Could you provide more precise details on what this would entail?

We're still ironing out the details,

That's fine, of course, but speaking for myself, at least, I really do feel a lot more detail is needed before this proposal can be meaningfully considered.

but short story is culture will be centralized under the RP Accord, with an opt-out option and two types of membership.

Would you talk us through what Moderation's thinking/reasoning is behind pursuing/proposing this reform? ie. What are the objectives you are aiming to achieve?

I won't comment much on the RP Accord proposal for the moment, partly because I'd rather wait for more detail, but the one thing I will do is to query the formula that has been proposed for ratification/de-ratification. ie.:

a nation should pass a bill with a ⅔ majority of seats

As most of us here know, Particracy elections, besides being unpredictable, can often result in large disparities between the amount of seats won by the different parties. This means that a party or coalition of parties which represents 2/3rds of the seats may not represent more than half of the players who are playing in that nation. To give just one example, let me show you the current situation in Solentia, where the 3 largest parties hold a 2/3rds majority of seats between them:



This means, for example, that theoretically speaking, you could have a situation where the controllers of the 3 largest parties voted to de-ratify the RP Accord, but the 6 other players voted to keep it. In this scenario, the "2/3rds of the seats" formula would mean the nation would be withdrawn from the RP Accord, despite the wishes of 2/3rds of the players. At least to me, a situation like this would seem a little odd and unfair. Could the formula be reconsidered?

I am 100% agreed with Elf that it would be desirable to have a shorter Game Rules document, with simpler language. However, at the same time, I am concerned that if the new document is too vague/imprecise then we will end up with a situation where both Moderators and players find themselves regularly having to refer to the old (ie. the current) Game Rules. I hope we can all agree that's not what we ideally want; the new Game Rules needs to "stand on its own", as it were.

At least to my eyes, the document has come along a lot since I first saw it, although to be honest, I think there is still a problem with a degree of imprecision/vagueness, and some important things not even being included at all (although I appreciate it's not finished yet and there is more to come, so I don't want to judge that too harshly yet).

Take early elections as just one example. As most here will know, the convention is:

10.2 In nations where no parties have seats, a player in the nation may request an early election on the Early Election Requests thread.

Yet when you read the draft, this has not been communicated as well as it might have been. Part 6h says "Users can ask Moderation to trigger early elections using the Early Elections thread", which is a little vague, and may give players the impression they can go to the forum to ask for early elections even if there are parties with seats in their nation. Then, later on, in part 7g, the reader is offered a different formula: "Users can request early elections on the Early Election Requests thread if they are the only active party in their nation". That is more precise than 6h, but still not really quite precise/accurate enough. It may result, for example, in players thinking they can't petition Moderation for an early election if there are multiple active parties in the nation without seats, or even assuming that if they are the only party in the nation but have seats, then they need to ask Moderation for an early election instead of using the game mechanics to call one themselves.

Also completely agree with Arapaima13 that the RP rules need a lot of close attention, and that radically slashing them down would be imprudent. That said, I don't doubt there is scope for both improving and simplifying them. Although I have to say I question the necessity and the desirability of the proposed RP Law Dismissal procedure (5eii), which involves players being required to notify Moderation on the forum every time a RP law is voted out.

Anyway, to sum up, along with others who posted before me, I'm really grateful to the Moderators for looking into redrafting the rules, as some things could do with changing. As far as the draft goes, there are some things I'm unsure about and some things I really like. Honestly, I think this has probably still got quite a long way to go, but we've got a talented and dedicated team of Moderators and a lot of really good players who take an interest in helping with these things as well, so I've every confidence we're gonna get to where we need to go.

[Polites]

That's fine, of course, but speaking for myself, at least, I really do feel a lot more detail is needed before this proposal can be meaningfully considered.

Fair enough, and we'll provide as much detail as possible while the consultation is ongoing.

Would you talk us through what Moderation's thinking/reasoning is behind pursuing/proposing this reform? ie. What are the objectives you are aiming to achieve?

It's mostly by analogy with the existing RP Accord. Since we don't let players unilaterally declare their nation to be a great power or an economic powerhouse, then by the same reasoning it makes sense to not let players in a nation (almost) unilaterally define their culture, as the current Cultural Protocols rules allow. We're aiming to have a more bird's eye view on cultures, defining them in a more coherent manner and allowing us to see which cultures are more or less popular, what is accessible and what is not, and what "makes sense", as it were. Same as with the economic and military aspects, culture is probably something that would have been defined beforehand in a fully completed game.

Since this is a pretty drastic change, given that for more than a decade culture has been something that players themselves define, we're considering the opt-out option. So if players in a nation strongly disagree with the culture defined by Moderation/the RP Team or they simply do not want a pre-defined culture, they can just opt out of the cultural GRA.

This means, for example, that theoretically speaking, you could have a situation where the controllers of the 3 largest parties voted to de-ratify the RP Accord, but the 6 other players voted to keep it. In this scenario, the "2/3rds of the seats" formula would mean the nation would be withdrawn from the RP Accord, despite the wishes of 2/3rds of the players. At least to me, a situation like this would seem a little odd and unfair. Could the formula be reconsidered?

A 2/3 majority of players with seats might be a more workable option.

Yet when you read the draft, this has not been communicated as well as it might have been. Part 6h says "Users can ask Moderation to trigger early elections using the Early Elections thread", which is a little vague, and may give players the impression they can go to the forum to ask for early elections even if there are parties with seats in their nation. Then, later on, in part 7g, the reader is offered a different formula: "Users can request early elections on the Early Election Requests thread if they are the only active party in their nation". That is more precise than 6h, but still not really quite precise/accurate enough. It may result, for example, in players thinking they can't petition Moderation for an early election if there are multiple active parties in the nation without seats, or even assuming that if they are the only party in the nation but have seats, then they need to ask Moderation for an early election instead of using the game mechanics to call one themselves.

This is a very early draft and by no means the final document. Thanks for highlighting this, and we'll make the rules on early elections clearer.

Anyway, to sum up, along with others who posted before me, I'm really grateful to the Moderators for looking into redrafting the rules, as some things could do with changing. As far as the draft goes, there are some things I'm unsure about and some things I really like. Honestly, I think this has probably still got quite a long way to go, but we've got a talented and dedicated team of Moderators and a lot of really good players who take an interest in helping with these things as well, so I've every confidence we're gonna get to where we need to go.

Thanks for your support! You are right that this is still has a long way to go, which is why we're expecting this consultation to last a long time before we implement any new rules. We've decided to go with a rough unfinished draft rather than a completed set of rules to avoid the impression that this is a "take it or leave it" kind of deal. As players provide their feedback, we will change/amend/clarify/remove quite a few of the proposed rules.

[Phil Piratin]

Would you talk us through what Moderation's thinking/reasoning is behind pursuing/proposing this reform? ie. What are the objectives you are aiming to achieve?

It's mostly by analogy with the existing RP Accord. Since we don't let players unilaterally declare their nation to be a great power or an economic powerhouse, then by the same reasoning it makes sense to not let players in a nation (almost) unilaterally define their culture, as the current Cultural Protocols rules allow. We're aiming to have a more bird's eye view on cultures, defining them in a more coherent manner and allowing us to see which cultures are more or less popular, what is accessible and what is not, and what "makes sense", as it were. Same as with the economic and military aspects, culture is probably something that would have been defined beforehand in a fully completed game.

Since this is a pretty drastic change, given that for more than a decade culture has been something that players themselves define, we're considering the opt-out option. So if players in a nation strongly disagree with the culture defined by Moderation/the RP Team or they simply do not want a pre-defined culture, they can just opt out of the cultural GRA.

Moderators already have significant authority to pursue all of the objectives you have mentioned (ie. accessibility, realism, "making sense" etc.). I would like to invite you and your fellow Moderators to make the case for why these existing powers are not sufficient to pursue the objectives you are hoping to achieve.

Let me give some examples of the authority Moderation has at the moment:

- Moderation has the authority to reject Cultural Protocol update requests that make changes deemed to be too radical or unrealistic, or which are not sufficiently accessible.

- Moderation has the authority to unilaterally amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to be too inaccessible and have failed to attract sufficient player interest (16.7).

- Moderation has the authority to reject proposals to create Cultural Protocols in Culturally Open nations if there are serious enough concerns about it not being suitable for that region of the game map (17.1.2).

- Moderation has the authority to reject proposals to make nations Culturally Open if that nation's culture is deemed to be under-represented in the game world.

Just so everybody can see, I will quote below the parts of the current Game Rules dealing with updating Cultural Protocols, creating new Cultural Protocols and requesting Culturally Open status:

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.

16. Updating existing Cultural Protocols

16.1 In order to become official, Cultural Protocol updates must first be passed in a bill 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 one of the players sponsoring the update must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month.

16.2 A request for approval of the update should then be posted on the Cultural Protocol Approvals thread. In order to become official, they must then be approved by Moderation, which will approve them if the changes are judged to be realistic. Where the changes are significant, adequate role-play justification must be be provided.

16.2.1 Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 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. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval.

16.3 Whilst Cultural Protocol bills may contain information about a nation and suggestions about how to play in it, the parts of the Cultural Protocol which are officially binding are specifically:

- cultural demographics (eg. Luthori/English)

- linguistic demographics (eg. Luthori-speaking/English-speaking)

- religious demographics (e.g. Hosian/Christian)

16.3.1 The Cultural Protocol bill should be presented in such a way that a new player could glance at it and very quickly be able to identify the key demographic data. Cultural Protocol bills should be short and simple. They should not include an excessive amount of text and extraneous information.

16.4 Cultural Protocol updates must contain a percentage breakdown of the cultural and religious demographics. These percentage breakdowns must add up to exactly 100, meaning that no overlaps are allowed. A maximum of 5 percentage points may be allocated to an unspecified "Other" category. The linguistic demographics, if not directly provided, will be assumed to be based on a reasonable interpretation of the cultural demographics.

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 the grounds for justification are exceptional.

16.5.1 Whilst significant changes should always be justified by role-play, where certain factors are present, Moderation reserves the discretion to adopt a more restrictive or a more relaxed approach to proposed changes. These factors include:

- Where it is deemed to be desirable to protect or promote cultures regarded as under-represented in the game world.

- Where it is deemed to be desirable to limit or reduce cultures regarded as over-represented in the game world.

- Where there are issues involved with a culture not being sufficiently accessible to players.

- Where players not present in the nation but with a strong connection to it are deemed to have presented a strong case. In particular, the nation's recent players, as well as players in the surrounding nations, may be deemed to have a legitimate interest.

16.6 Cultural Protocol bills must provide descriptions of the cultures, languages and religions which would be easy for an unfamiliar player to understand (eg. "Dundorfian = German"). Where appropriate, they should also provide guidance to players on where to find help with translations and character names. This might include, for example, links to Google Translate, Behind the Name's Random Name Generator and Fantasy Name Generators.

16.7 Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with.

16.8 Once approved, players should copy the Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the actual Cultural Protocols bill which was approved by Moderation, the Game Rules and the Cultural Protocols Index.

16.9 The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to prevent confusion by ensuring unofficial or outdated bills labelled as "Cultural Protocols" are removed from their nation page.

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 10.

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 additional qualifications:

17.1.1 At least 2 players with seats must support the bill, 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.

[Polites]

Moderators already have significant authority to pursue all of the objectives you have mentioned (ie. accessibility, realism, "making sense" etc.). I would like to invite you and your fellow Moderators to make the case for why these existing powers are not sufficient to pursue the objectives you are hoping to achieve.

Moderation does have wide authority, but since the onus of creating and updating Cultural Protocols ultimately falls on the players, we cannot really make full use of our authority without inviting controversy. And there are several things that are not actually in our power under the current rules. For instance, if we came to the conclusion that it would be in the best interests of the game for a culturally protected nation to have a drastically different culture, there isn't much we can do about that. We also cannot unilaterally amend existing Cultural Protocols if they are not suitable for the region of the game map, we cannot really introduce new cultures, and we cannot introduce new CPs in culturally open nations.

And if ultimate authority for creating and updating CPs rests on Moderation, then the current system is a very roundabout way to achieve that. We figure it would be easier if, instead of the complex CP rules we have in place (which I might add a considerable number of players, even experienced ones, fail to grasp), concerned players would directly voice their concerns and preferences to the RP Team and/or Moderation, who'd then be willing to implement their preferred culture.

But I think the greatest advantage of the proposed reform is that it would to a large extent separate culture from RP. Right now CP updates require a considerable amount of RP, which creates an incentive for players to RP with the end goal of altering their nation's culture, which I find a bit too teleological (and I say this as one who as a player has spent considerable effort and time RPing with the end goal of updating CPs). The current rules also incentivize nation-raiding, and although the new rule will not eliminate nation-raiding entirely, it will remove one of its primary causes.

[jamescfm]

With respect to the conditions to opt-out, I think a "majority of players with seats" (probably a two-thirds rather than a simple majority) would be a reasonable stipulation.

Moderators already have significant authority to pursue all of the objectives you have mentioned (ie. accessibility, realism, "making sense" etc.). I would like to invite you and your fellow Moderators to make the case for why these existing powers are not sufficient to pursue the objectives you are hoping to achieve.

In this sense, Moderators have the power within the rules but it's difficult to argue that they have the "authority". If Moderation were to begin unilaterally proposing changes to cultural protocols under the current rules then it's highly likely that a great number of players would kick up a fuss. Changing the rules in consultation with players seems like a practical way to esnire that they don't receive such criticism.

[Phil Piratin]

Thank you for that last post, Polites, which to me at least, is probably the most significant and helpful post on this thread so far, and takes us some steps forward in terms of understanding the objectives behind the proposed RP Accord/cultures reform.

Moderation does have wide authority, but since the onus of creating and updating Cultural Protocols ultimately falls on the players, we cannot really make full use of our authority without inviting controversy.

How confident are you that centralising Cultural Protocols in the hands of Moderation would reduce the controversy surrounding Moderation's role re: in-game cultures? Is there a risk that giving Moderation such direct control would make Moderators more of a target for player's frustrations in this whole area?

And there are several things that are not actually in our power under the current rules. For instance, if we came to the conclusion that it would be in the best interests of the game for a culturally protected nation to have a drastically different culture, there isn't much we can do about that. We also cannot unilaterally amend existing Cultural Protocols if they are not suitable for the region of the game map, we cannot really introduce new cultures, and we cannot introduce new CPs in culturally open nations.

Could you say some words about how you would envisage going about doing any of this? As an example, lets imagine a hypothetical case where a nation's players are committed to retaining their nation's existing (Culturally Protected) culture and have been RPing with it for some time. Lets also imagine that several players from outside the nation want to completely change its culture, because it is not in line with their vision of Terra's "cultural map". Could you talk us through the process by which Moderation would go about assessing and resolving this situation?

We figure it would be easier if, instead of the complex CP rules we have in place (which I might add a considerable number of players, even experienced ones, fail to grasp), concerned players would directly voice their concerns and preferences to the RP Team and/or Moderation, who'd then be willing to implement their preferred culture.

I have also witnessed player confusion over the CP update rules, and I think this would be a good moment to thank you and the other Moderators for the time you put into dealing with all of that.

My question, though, is: would centralising Cultural Protocols in the hands of Moderation reduce the complexity and the potential for confusion/frustration? As we all know, quite a few players love the culture development/nation-building aspect of Particracy, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Ultimately, surely - even under the proposed new system - you will still have a situation where players are petitioning Moderation to change their nation's cultures, and presumably there will still be occasions when Moderation feels it needs to reject the proposed changes, or to reject or at least query the scale of the proposed changes. In other words, in practice, would there still not be a set of rules/conventions/guidelines involved in the culture-changing process, even if they are not actually "official" or written down anywhere?

But I think the greatest advantage of the proposed reform is that it would to a large extent separate culture from RP. Right now CP updates require a considerable amount of RP, which creates an incentive for players to RP with the end goal of altering their nation's culture, which I find a bit too teleological (and I say this as one who as a player has spent considerable effort and time RPing with the end goal of updating CPs).

Could you explain how the proposed system would be less likely to lead to players using RP in order to try to bolster their chances of persuading Moderation to implement their preferred cultural changes? Or is it that under the new system, it would no longer be possible to RP significant changes to nation's cultural backgrounds?

The current rules also incentivize nation-raiding, and although the new rule will not eliminate nation-raiding entirely, it will remove one of its primary causes.

Could you talk more about what you mean here, and if possible, provide some examples?

[Polites]

How confident are you that centralising Cultural Protocols in the hands of Moderation would reduce the controversy surrounding Moderation's role re: in-game cultures? Is there a risk that giving Moderation such direct control would make Moderators more of a target for player's frustrations in this whole area?

Not at all confident, which is why we're having this consultation. But if a consensus emerges that centralizing culture is a good idea, and if we leave an opt-out option, I'm sure things will go smoothly.

Could you say some words about how you would envisage going about doing any of this? As an example, lets imagine a hypothetical case where a nation's players are committed to retaining their nation's existing (Culturally Protected) culture and have been RPing with it for some time. Lets also imagine that several players from outside the nation want to completely change its culture, because it is not in line with their vision of Terra's "cultural map". Could you talk us through the process by which Moderation would go about assessing and resolving this situation?

It would rather work like how the military and economic rankings work now. If players in a nation RP it as being very powerful militarily or economically but the RP Team judges that said RP is unrealistic, then there is no guarantee that the nation in question will be moved up in the rankings. And if players in said nation strongly disagree with the ranking, they can either introduce RP that is more in line with the Team's recommendations, or withdraw from the Accord.

Same will presumably work with culture: the RP Team and/or Moderation will evaluate all cultures, maybe make a map or something, and will then implement said cultures for all nations. We don't have anything specific in mind yet, since this is way too soon for that, but my gut feeling is that we'd do our best to retain as much continuity as possible. And in the end, if players in a nation are strongly committed to the "old" culture, they will have the option of either amending their RP and characters in line with the new one, or withdrawing from the GRA.

My question, though, is: would centralising Cultural Protocols in the hands of Moderation reduce the complexity and the potential for confusion/frustration? As we all know, quite a few players love the culture development/nation-building aspect of Particracy, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Ultimately, surely - even under the proposed new system - you will still have a situation where players are petitioning Moderation to change their nation's cultures, and presumably there will still be occasions when Moderation feels it needs to reject the proposed changes, or to reject or at least query the scale of the proposed changes. In other words, in practice, would there still not be a set of rules/conventions/guidelines involved in the culture-changing process, even if they are not actually "official" or written down anywhere?

I'm thinking that we will end up providing more vague descriptions of nations than the current CPs, maybe even without percentages for ethnic/religious groups (maybe, we really don't know for sure), and this will provide a lot more flexibility. We also haven't worked out a procedure for changing the cultures, but I'd say that a periodic evaluation (like how we have for military and economic rankings, or maybe similar to the periodic evaluation of Cultural Protocols we used to have a while ago) would be a better idea than ad-hoc updates. So if the descriptions are vague enough, that leaves a lot of wiggle room for introducing small minorities, for instance, without the need to petition Moderation. But at the end it will have to be a judgement call, I'd say.

Could you explain how the proposed system would be less likely to lead to players using RP in order to try to bolster their chances of persuading Moderation to implement their preferred cultural changes? Or is it that under the new system, it would no longer be possible to RP significant changes to nation's cultural backgrounds?

RP wouldn't necessarily be required for changing cultures. If someone comes to Moderation and/or the RP Team arguing that a major RL culture is missing from the game and would fit best in whatever nation, there would be the possibility of introducing said culture without the need to RP it. So basically we'd be able to use OOC arguments for changing cultures as much as RP ones. So what we're hoping to achieve by this is to free RP from CP updates and encourage players to RP for the sake of RP and not for changing their culture.

The current rules also incentivize nation-raiding, and although the new rule will not eliminate nation-raiding entirely, it will remove one of its primary causes.

Could you talk more about what you mean here, and if possible, provide some examples?

Since culture wouldn't be defined by current players in a nation, then there would no longer be an incentive to move to a nation specifically to change its culture, which might often require a nation raid if the player(s) in the nation resist the change. It's something that I've done myself countless times in PT, if you want I can give some examples of that. A similar argument I believe was made when colonies were abolished, since more often than not colonies changed hands through nation raiding.

[Phil Piratin]

How confident are you that centralising Cultural Protocols in the hands of Moderation would reduce the controversy surrounding Moderation's role re: in-game cultures? Is there a risk that giving Moderation such direct control would make Moderators more of a target for player's frustrations in this whole area?

Not at all confident, which is why we're having this consultation. But if a consensus emerges that centralizing culture is a good idea, and if we leave an opt-out option, I'm sure things will go smoothly.

Can I query whether we we are being consulted just about the principle of centralising Cultural Protocols under Moderation via the RP Accord, or whether we will also be consulted about which existing Cultural Protocols will be subject to significant Moderation-imposed change? If the latter, then can I ask how confident you are this consultation can be reasonably/realistically concluded by the current target date of March 13? I say this because March 13th is less than 2 months away, and the new proposed "cultural map" (or whatever we are going to call it) has still not yet been made available for us to see.

And in the end, if players in a nation are strongly committed to the "old" culture, they will have the option of either amending their RP and characters in line with the new one, or withdrawing from the GRA.

How about a third option of being able to continue as they are, with their current Culturally Protected culture? As you say, under the proposed system, they could withdraw from the GRA and disregard the culture Moderation recommends for them. However, that would mean them suddenly having to face the challenges involved with RPing a culture in a nation which lacks official cultural protection. I wonder whether it might also leave those players feeling somewhat isolated both from Moderation and the more actively RPing part of the community.

I'm thinking that we will end up providing more vague descriptions of nations than the current CPs, maybe even without percentages for ethnic/religious groups (maybe, we really don't know for sure), and this will provide a lot more flexibility. We also haven't worked out a procedure for changing the cultures, but I'd say that a periodic evaluation (like how we have for military and economic rankings, or maybe similar to the periodic evaluation of Cultural Protocols we used to have a while ago) would be a better idea than ad-hoc updates. So if the descriptions are vague enough, that leaves a lot of wiggle room for introducing small minorities, for instance, without the need to petition Moderation. But at the end it will have to be a judgement call, I'd say.

A potential issue with "vague descriptions" of cultures as opposed to the percentage breakdowns we have at the moment is that they may lack precision when it comes to communicating to players what the expectations are in terms of playing in that nation. For example, let us suppose that under the new system, Indrala was given a vague description which just read "Indralan (Chinese)". Now lets say I now go to Indrala and RP a Luthori (English) party with all Luthori (English) characters names etc., and assert that I am a Luthori party representing a Luthori minority in Indrala. Next, the other Indrala players insist to me that there is no sizeable Luthori minority in Indrala, and that the Luthori party I am RPing is unrealistic and goes against the GRA. I, in turn, protest that Indrala's official description is vague, only saying "Indralan (Chinese)" and that it says nothing to rule out the possibility of there being a significant Luthori minority. Inevitably, Moderation then ends up being dragged in...

Do you have any thoughts on how the new system could avoid potential debacles like this?

RP wouldn't necessarily be required for changing cultures. If someone comes to Moderation and/or the RP Team arguing that a major RL culture is missing from the game and would fit best in whatever nation, there would be the possibility of introducing said culture without the need to RP it. So basically we'd be able to use OOC arguments for changing cultures as much as RP ones. So what we're hoping to achieve by this is to free RP from CP updates and encourage players to RP for the sake of RP and not for changing their culture.

Does this mean Moderation would change nation's cultures against the will of the players actually playing in those nations, and at the behest of players who are not even playing there (and indeed, may not even have any serious long-term intention of ever playing there at all)? Also, what about the disruption to RP and immersion players would experience as a result of these Moderation-imposed changes?

Since culture wouldn't be defined by current players in a nation, then there would no longer be an incentive to move to a nation specifically to change its culture, which might often require a nation raid if the player(s) in the nation resist the change. It's something that I've done myself countless times in PT, if you want I can give some examples of that. A similar argument I believe was made when colonies were abolished, since more often than not colonies changed hands through nation raiding.

The incentive could still be there if players felt they could reasonably expect that their views on what a nation's culture should be would carry more weight with Moderation if they were actually playing in that nation on a reasonably long-term basis as opposed to being an outsider. To what degree do you envisage that expectation would be dampened under the new proposed way of doing things?

For the minority of players with "world building" agendas, the system being proposed is indeed more convenient than the current one, because it gives them opportunities to implement their preferred cultural visions of Terra just by lobbying Moderation as opposed to working for it the hard way. My concern is that in the rush to pursue all of this, a larger but less vociferous array of players might find their aspirations and interests somewhat brushed aside. What assurances/guarantees can be offered that this would not end up happening?