CULTURAL MAP DEBATE THREAD

[Corvo Attano]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=545487 This is the cultural protocol of Malivia we have been running with it for the last 300 years and RPed as such.


I politely ask you to change it as nationmaster of Malivia because I can't be arsed to change a single line in the wikis.

I'm not saying that the culture you described doesn't exist right now, just that it doesn't make any sense at all. That's just my view and I'm happy to change it if you can provide a reasonable explanation of how it came to be the way that it is. Your post does nothing to discount the points I made, since the cultural protocol system is inherently flawed. The African groups in Particracy originated in Dovani, how did they come to be in Malivia? I'm not opposed to discussing or reaching a compromise but acting like you own Malivia because you talked a handful of players into voting for you isn't the best way to convince me.

http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Histor ... n_Collaspe plus all the prior RP players did to establish said cultural protocols.

Okay OOC time now.

I am the Nationmaster of Malivia and I was not consulted when this (admittedly a blueprint and as such subject to change new cultural protocols somebody wants to establish (I have no idea who came up with this idea and why)).

Now straight talk here change it or don't I can't make you do something you think is wrong but I sure as heck can't be asked to change the wiki so I will simply carry on rping with the passed cultural protocols.

[Phil Piratin]

I strongly agree. I think the supposed correlation between English speaking nations and high player averages is at best questionable and only superficial.

There is undeniably a strong general correlation.

Well I deny it. Countries like Indrala currently have about 7 players and Jelbania had 8 players just a few weeks ago. I maintain that any supposed correlation is weak. When player numbers rise, they rise everywhere.

Returning to this point, I've just done a quick look through the Nations list, and here are the players numbers for the English CPs:

Hutori - 8
Kalistan - 6
Kirlawa - 8
Likatonia - 8
Luthori - 8

Malivia (allows English names...) - 8
Mordusia - 8
Rutania - 6

These numbers are all higher-than-average, and point to the fact that there is significant player demand for English nations where English parties are welcome. This is why I am wary of reducing the number of English and Culturally Open nations too far. We need to get away from the attitude that English parties are a hindrance who should be crammed into as small a number of nations as possible. These players are an important part of the player-base, and it is important to the long-term success of Particracy that these players should have enough places to go.

Returning to an earlier point I made, do bear in mind that just as many of you here like to move from non-English nation to non-English nation, so too do some other players like to have a choice of which English nation to play in. One of the beautiful things about Particracy is that every nation is different. Different players, different parties, different ideological leanings, different backgrounds/histories, different everything. The majority of players are from English/Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, which unsurprisingly means we have a lot of players who prefer to go for English. This ought to be recognised and respected. Playing space for these players has been significantly squeezed already. To squeeze it too much further would, in my view, have consequences that would not be good for the long-term future of the game.

[Phil Piratin]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=545487 This is the cultural protocol of Malivia we have been running with it for the last 300 years and RPed as such.


I politely ask you to change it as nationmaster of Malivia because I can't be arsed to change a single line in the wikis.

I'm not saying that the culture you described doesn't exist right now, just that it doesn't make any sense at all. That's just my view and I'm happy to change it if you can provide a reasonable explanation of how it came to be the way that it is. Your post does nothing to discount the points I made, since the cultural protocol system is inherently flawed. The African groups in Particracy originated in Dovani, how did they come to be in Malivia? I'm not opposed to discussing or reaching a compromise but acting like you own Malivia because you talked a handful of players into voting for you isn't the best way to convince me.

http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Histor ... n_Collaspe plus all the prior RP players did to establish said cultural protocols.

Okay OOC time now.

I am the Nationmaster of Malivia and I was not consulted when this (admittedly a blueprint and as such subject to change new cultural protocols somebody wants to establish (I have no idea who came up with this idea and why)).

Now straight talk here change it or don't I can't make you do something you think is wrong but I sure as heck can't be asked to change the wiki so I will simply carry on rping with the passed cultural protocols.

Does everyone see now what the problems are with Moderation-imposed Cultural Maps?

[Corvo Attano]

Does everyone see now what the problems are with Moderation-imposed Cultural Maps?

I don't have a problem with the map I have a problem with them not consulting me even before they drew the map and now that they are changing it and wanting me to explain why they should change the map to fit my nations established RP. What is the point in saying your consulting the player base when the player base says: "Can you please change that to fit our nations lore?" And saying "Well I don't think that makes."

[jamescfm]

Does everyone see now what the problems are with Moderation-imposed Cultural Maps?

No, I see the benefits of the system and the problem with the current system. The system we have at the moment means that players assume that their currently decided culture is the undisputed culture of the country they play in. By granting credibility to illogical and nonsensical culture, we are encouraging conflict when players inevitably want to replace that with a map which make sense. Honestly, it seems you're making the same points again and again. You like English countries, we understand, however most countries in the real world are not England.

[Corvo Attano]

Does everyone see now what the problems are with Moderation-imposed Cultural Maps?

No, I see the benefits of the system and the problem with the current system. The system we have at the moment means that players assume that their currently decided culture is the undisputed culture of the country they play in. By granting credibility to illogical and nonsensical culture, we are encouraging conflict when players inevitably want to replace that with a map which make sense. Honestly, it seems you're making the same points again and again. You like English countries, we understand, however most countries in the real world are not England.

Will the changes I asked to be made be made?

[jamescfm]

Nothing to do with me, I’m not involved in the decisions. In my personal view, Afro-Caribbean shouldn’t be in Malivia, no explanation has been presented for that. As I’ve said, I may change my opinion if you actually care to explain how that happened.

[Reddy]

Returning to this point, I've just done a quick look through the Nations list, and here are the players numbers for the English CPs:

Hutori - 8
Kalistan - 6
Kirlawa - 8
Likatonia - 8
Luthori - 8

Malivia (allows English names...) - 8
Mordusia - 8
Rutania - 6

These numbers are all higher-than-average, and point to the fact that there is significant player demand for English nations where English parties are welcome. .

Fair enough but I'll do a similar cherry-picking exercise to prove that the supposed correlation is weak at best.

Badara - 7
Egelion - 8
Indrala - 7
Istalia - 8
Kazulia - 6
Sekowo - 7
Valruzia - 6

No one is denying that there are some very inaccessible cultures but cultural diversity on the whole is a positive for the game in my view. As for the reasons why players pick different countries, I think they are too complex and personal.

The majority of players are from English/Anglo-Saxon backgrounds, which unsurprisingly means we have a lot of players who prefer to go for English. This ought to be recognised and respected. Playing space for these players has been significantly squeezed already. To squeeze it too much further would, in my view, have consequences that would not be good for the long-term future of the game.

My point stands. Asking players to name characters in certain languages is not some kind of difficult imposition. There's literal nothing else that a cultural protocol imposes. You can have a Whig Party in Jelbania and no one will think less of you for it. You can have any kind of political system in any of the non-Anglo countries.

Playing space for these players has been significantly squeezed already. To squeeze it too much further would, in my view, have consequences that would not be good for the long-term future of the game.

Yet player numbers have virtually doubled in the past 18 months or so. At one point, we had more than 300 players. Clearly whatever squeeze has happened is having no effect on attracting players to this game. I think we can easily agree there that there's no need for any worries for the future of the game on that account.

[Phil Piratin]

Does everyone see now what the problems are with Moderation-imposed Cultural Maps?

No, I see the benefits of the system and the problem with the current system. The system we have at the moment means that players assume that their currently decided culture is the undisputed culture of the country they play in. By granting credibility to illogical and nonsensical culture, we are encouraging conflict when players inevitably want to replace that with a map which make sense.

Who decides whether a culture is illogical and nonsensical? If a culture is somehow illogical and nonsensical, might it maybe be even more illogical and nonsensical to suddenly replace it with something else with no explanation?

Honestly, it seems you're making the same points again and again. You like English countries, we understand, however most countries in the real world are not England.

I appreciate you are very invested in pushing this agenda forward, but I would be grateful if you would not keep trying to shove me out of the discussion (which you also did earlier with the "essays" remark).

As it happens, I almost always play in non-English nations and have not played in an English nation for a long time, but that does not stop me from recognising the needs of players who prefer to play in those nations.

Nothing to do with me, I’m not involved in the decisions.

We have already learned that you were involved with the production of the Cultural Map that is now being proposed. Respectfully, for the sake of transparency, I feel we should know who else (if anyone else) was involved, and be told a little bit more about how the decisions involved in creating it were taken.

[Corvo Attano]

Nothing to do with me, I’m not involved in the decisions. In my personal view, Afro-Caribbean shouldn’t be in Malivia, no explanation has been presented for that. As I’ve said, I may change my opinion if you actually care to explain how that happened.

First I was under the impression that you made the map so you would be making the changes because polites said the mods tasked you to make it.

Second You don't deserve and answer because I and the rest of the player base of my nation did not deserve to be consulted in the making of this culture map. Me saying do the change is more than fair