CULTURAL MAP DEBATE THREAD

[FPC]

Link to the map we are working with at the moment.

Key:

1= Prussian
2= Belarusian
3= Kalmyk
4= Spanish Filipino
5= Danish
6= Anglo-Irish
7= Corsican
8= Sardinian
9= Caribbean Hispanic
10= Chinese
11= Bulgarian-Macedonian
12= Chewa
13= Mixtec
14= Mix of surrounding cultures
15= Assyrian
16= French
17= Maori/Aboriginal Australian
18= Pashtun
19= Somali
20= Egyptian
21= Romanian
22= Serbian
23= Croatian
24= Bosniak
25= Albanian
26= Hawaiian

That is the current image we are working with.. sorry for my absence on this thread recently I have been quite busy in real life.

[Elf]

That is the current image we are working with.. sorry for my absence on this thread recently I have been quite busy in real life.

Impressive!

Can't fully judge it without know what's behind those numbers, of course, but it looks very promising to me...

[Reddy]

I really like that map and hope to see the rest of it (Dovani and colonies etc) soon. I strongly support simplifying the Game Rules. I find the ideas you guys are presenting on Cultural Protocols and a few other things to be very interesting. I think the proposed system will go a long way into reducing the very arbitrary nature of the whole institution of Cultural Protocols while also (going by the colour scheme) making Terra less culturally mixed up.

[jamescfm]

As should be obvious, I am an enthusiastic supporter of these proposed changes. While I feel they don't solve the problems I would argue exist entirely, they are a fantastic initial step. In a general counter to some of the points raised, I'd like to highlight the serious flaw of the current system of cultural protocols. Under this system, an entirely arbitrary group of players determine the culture of a country for the entire history of the game. Who these players are is based on who happens to be in the country at the time they decide to create a cultural protocol. Why should future players be bound by these decisions, potentially years after the players who made them are gone? The only argument you can make for why culture should be "forced" on players is that it is feasible, coherent and realistic. Players should not have to adhere to nonsensical, illogical rules. Keep up the good work, gentlemen!

[FPC]

Link to the map we are working with at the moment.

Key:

1= Prussian
2= Belarusian
3= Kalmyk
4= Spanish Filipino
5= Danish
6= Anglo-Irish
7= Corsican
8= Sardinian
9= Caribbean Hispanic
10= Chinese
11= Bulgarian-Macedonian
12= Chewa
13= Mixtec
14= Mix of surrounding cultures
15= Assyrian
16= French
17= Maori/Aboriginal Australian
18= Pashtun
19= Somali
20= Egyptian
21= Romanian
22= Serbian
23= Croatian
24= Bosniak
25= Albanian
26= Hawaiian

That is the current image we are working with.. sorry for my absence on this thread recently I have been quite busy in real life.

Fixed map so you can now see all of it and added a key

[Phil Piratin]

I'd like to highlight the serious flaw of the current system of cultural protocols. Under this system, an entirely arbitrary group of players determine the culture of a country for the entire history of the game. Who these players are is based on who happens to be in the country at the time they decide to create a cultural protocol. Why should future players be bound by these decisions, potentially years after the players who made them are gone?

Under section 15 of the Game Rules, players can petition Moderation to remove their nation's Cultural Protocol:

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.

Moderation also has the discretion to change Cultural Protocols which are not accessible enough:

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.

[jamescfm]

Accessibility should not be the primary criteria on which cultures are judged. Obviously it has to factor in but if we make decisions based only on accessibility we end up with 50 English-speaking countries and a handful of other European languages.

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.

These provisions highlight the problem I'm referring to. Most countries don't have enough players who have been active long enough to pass this. Even if they do, you're lucky if more than a handful of players vote on any given bill in Particracy.

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.

It's clear from the wording that this is supposed to be a last resort measure. If Moderation implemented the sort of changes indicated by this map, I've no doubt that there would be serious protest from players. Amending the rules provides a mandate, of sorts, for the changes.

[Phil Piratin]

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.

These provisions highlight the problem I'm referring to. Most countries don't have enough players who have been active long enough to pass this. Even if they do, you're lucky if more than a handful of players vote on any given bill in Particracy.

There is an argument for making it easier for players to pass motions requesting Culturally Open status. If the requests were considered unreasonable or whatever, Moderation could always turn them down.

Anyway, my point was that it is not the case that the current system permits "an entirely arbitrary group of players determine the culture of a country for the entire history of the game", which is what you suggested. There are opportunities to remove Cultural Protocols, and there are also, of course, opportunities to change them by increments over time.

Also, bill vote skipping is not quite so common as you suggest; we do have 3 day inactivations on request and a rule against "party-sitting".

There are a number of points to be made about the proposed "Cultural Map", but I do not have time right now, so I may return to that later. One thing I will mention now, though, is that at least two of the English-speaking nations (Solentia and Mordusia) have been removed. Given that such a large proportion of players prefer English-speaking nations, I am not entirely sure that further reducing the number of them is a great idea.

[jamescfm]

One thing I will mention now, though, is that at least two of the English-speaking nations (Solentia and Mordusia) have been removed. Given that such a large proportion of players prefer English-speaking nations, I am not entirely sure that further reducing the number of them is a great idea.

Currently, there are a total of twelve countries whose head of state name is literally just the English word "President" (to name and shame: Mordusia, Rutania, Solentia, Telamon, Vorona, Beiteynu, Beluzia, Davostan, Kalopia, Likatonia, Lodamun and Hobrazia). I'm going to suggest that we do not need to worry about protecting English in the game.

[Phil Piratin]

One thing I will mention now, though, is that at least two of the English-speaking nations (Solentia and Mordusia) have been removed. Given that such a large proportion of players prefer English-speaking nations, I am not entirely sure that further reducing the number of them is a great idea.

Currently, there are a total of twelve countries whose head of state name is literally just the English word "President" (to name and shame: Mordusia, Rutania, Solentia, Telamon, Vorona, Beiteynu, Beluzia, Davostan, Kalopia, Likatonia, Lodamun and Hobrazia). I'm going to suggest that we do not need to worry about protecting English in the game.

If you want to join in the the tired old completely unconstructive moaning about Presidents and Prime Ministers, there is a whole thread dedicated to that elsewhere.

My concern, which I feel is a legitimate concern, is that we have a large number of players who prefer playing in English-themed nations. Their "playing space" has been squeezed already, and I am not convinced it is either fair or beneficial to squeeze it too much further. You play your game, and let them play theirs. That's all I'm asking, and I don't think that's unfair.