PARTICRACY CULTURE REFORMS CONSULTATION

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Polites » Fri Feb 02, 2018 3:05 pm

As I said, whatever is decided will be made public.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby jamescfm » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:03 pm

For the record, my view remains that these reforms will be extremely beneficial to role-play. I think it’s unfair to present this as a clandestine or shady minority agenda. Most of the game’s players are short-term or not especially involved in the deeper aspects of the game so (I’m sure I’ll be totally villainised for saying this) their views are largely irrelevant. In contrast, every single Moderator or former Moderator seems to have voiced their support for the changes. In my view, those who have experience the details of the rules and the game most are best placed to make decisions on them.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:06 pm

jamescfm wrote:I think it’s unfair to present this as a clandestine or shady minority agenda


A pattern has been developing of caricaturing my arguments. You use "clandestine or shady"; earlier Polites used "nefarious or weird". There was a fair bit of this (some of it much, much worse, actually) going on as well in threads/posts which have now been removed. It would be nice if we could stick to what I have actually said rather than misrepresenting it.

jamescfm wrote:Most of the game’s players are short-term or not especially involved in the deeper aspects of the game so (I’m sure I’ll be totally villainised for saying this) their views are largely irrelevant.


No, I would not "villainise" you for that, especially as I do not doubt you are well-meaning and sincerely hold that conviction. As, I am sure, do a few others here amongst us, although perhaps not all of them would be so willing to put it quite so baldly in public as you have.

What I would do is to argue that the philosophy you articulate about the views of most players not being worthy of consideration is not the philosophy that should determine how the game is managed. I do appreciate some of the concerns you have expressed, and for that reason, I support the measures which are already in place to address them, such as Moderation's discretion to turn down Cultural Protocol requests. However, what I could not bring myself to support is handing Moderation a mandate ("mandate" being the exact term Moderation used on the removed thread) to unilaterally determine the cultural make-up of every single nation in Terra. This, in my view, would be an unnecessary intrusion by Moderation into a sphere of the game which properly belongs to players, and would adversely affect the potential for committed, dedicated groups of players to be creative and innovative.

Honestly, though, James, I am not even convinced cultural centralisation would give its supporters the RP environment that they really want. There would be too much potential for the hand of Moderation to end up becoming a deadening dampener on the game and its RP, and also far too much potential for resentments, jealousies and disputes about cultures to end up becoming toxic and divisive. With just a very small group of people in control of the cultural aspect of the game, there would inevitably be both bias and the perception of bias involved. Those who would be most likely to be put in charge of determining cultures would most likely be those with the greatest interest in doing that, and that tends to mean those who approach these issues with your own perspective, meaning believing the preferences of most players are irrelevant.

jamescfm wrote: In contrast, every single Moderator or former Moderator seems to have voiced their support for the changes. In my view, those who have experience the details of the rules and the game most are best placed to make decisions on them.


It is true that some rather recent Moderators have endorsed the proposal, but even so, it is rather telling that whilst they support it now, they made no attempt to introduce it during their own tenures.

As you have noted, some current Moderators have been lobbying rather vigorously in various places in favour of the proposal, rather than playing more of a neutral arbiter role in the consultation. Speaking as someone who has spoken out against the proposal, I have seen most of my contributions to this debate completely removed from the forum without justification or explanation, despite the fact they were in no way offensive or inappropriate and took obvious time and effort to carefully think about and compose. I have found myself being ridiculed because of the way Moderators have pointedly snubbed me during the course of the discussion. I have also been on the receiving end of some unpleasant and hurtful private messages, as well as becoming aware of similar comments being made about me in other places. In short, not a particularly pleasant atmosphere to be having a consultation in. I cannot help but think that this situation would have been helped if Moderation had handled this consultation in a more even-handed way that made it easier for players to argue against the proposal without being branded as somehow "anti-Moderation" and enemies of "the best interests of the game" (whatever they happen to mean by that) and "the community" (again, whatever they happen to mean by that).
User avatar
Phil Piratin
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby FPC » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:17 pm

and would adversely affect the potential for committed, dedicated groups of players to be creative and innovative.


Our philosophy is that this would minimise the need for players who want to RP in a certain culture etc from worrying about having to create and protect culture protocols and would remove the fear that all their hard word could be completely forgotten down the line as the culture of their nation would change. I believe this will allow players more freedom for innovation and creativity.


I have seen most of my contributions to this debate completely removed from the forum without justification or explanation


Two threads were removed the day after this new rule was proposed, there was less than 3 pages between them and all issues raised have been discussed here. As we explained we wanted to keep everything controlled and civil so we reduced the threads down to one.

As you have noted, some current Moderators have been lobbying rather vigorously in various places in favour of the proposal, rather than playing more of a neutral arbiter role in the consultation. .


Moderation believe that this is the best course of action and thus we are trying to push it through, additionally a survey we sent out to every player in the game showed us that the majority are in favour of the proposed reform. Whilst we do have a bias if the survey had not come out positive then we would have rethought this proposal.

I have found myself being ridiculed because of the way Moderators have pointedly snubbed me during the course of the discussion. I have also been on the receiving end of some unpleasant and hurtful private messages, as well as becoming aware of similar comments being made about me in other places. In short, not a particularly pleasant atmosphere to be having a consultation in. I cannot help but think that this situation would have been helped if Moderation had handled this consultation in a more even-handed way that made it easier for players to argue against the proposal without being branded as somehow "anti-Moderation" and enemies of "the best interests of the game" (whatever they happen to mean by that) and "the community" (again, whatever they happen to mean by that).


We do not mean to ridicule or offend you, we are trying to make our point of view clear and we apologise if it comes across as nasty or unpleasant.
Used to be relevant
User avatar
FPC
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:14 am
Location: Scotland

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:07 am

FPC wrote: Our philosophy is that this would minimise the need for players who want to RP in a certain culture etc from worrying about having to create and protect culture protocols and would remove the fear that all their hard word could be completely forgotten down the line as the culture of their nation would change. I believe this will allow players more freedom for innovation and creativity.


You are making a (probably false) assumption that after the reform is introduced, the cultural backgrounds of nations will no longer be changed and players will no longer be aspiring to change them.

FPC wrote:Two threads were removed the day after this new rule was proposed, there was less than 3 pages between them and all issues raised have been discussed here. As we explained we wanted to keep everything controlled and civil so we reduced the threads down to one.


Respectfully, this is simply not true; from what I recall, there were more posts than that (and some were quite long posts), there were important and valuable exchanges there, and not all of the points which were covered there have been covered in this thread. For my part, I simply do not have the energy or motivation to go over all of those points all over again, especially considering it has become so clear they count for nothing with you anyway.

FPC wrote:Moderation believe that this is the best course of action and thus we are trying to push it through, additionally a survey we sent out to every player in the game showed us that the majority are in favour of the proposed reform. Whilst we do have a bias if the survey had not come out positive then we would have rethought this proposal.


If you have already determined that the centralisation of culture is "the best course of action and thus we are trying to push it through", why are you wasting our time by consulting us on this principle? Would it not be more honest and more helpful to say "We have decided to centralise culture in the hands of Moderation, and we now want to consult with you about the details of how that is going to happen"?

I have personally been approached by several individuals who tell me they fully agree with me that centralising culture is not a good idea, but on the basis of Moderation's behaviour, they think you have already made up your mind to do it and that therefore coming to this thread to express views about it is more trouble than it is worth. Are they right?

As for the survey, I must say I am sceptical, not least because of how easy it is for those who are motivated enough (from either side of the argument) to vote multiple times, and also because it is not clear yet that the player-base sufficiently understands what the detail and the reality of this scheme actually is.

Moderation told us (in the removed thread) that they want a "mandate" to centralise culture. ie. To do something which would probably be the most drastic extension of Moderation's presence in the game in probably the game's entire history.

If there had been a surge of enthusiasm across the game which was sufficient to justify this "mandate", this thread would be flush with posts from dozens of players endorsing the principle of the scheme. This is not something that has happened at all.

Do the player-base understand that the intention behind centralising culture is not just to somehow simplify the whole process administration-wise, but to introduce somebody's so-called "coherent Cultural map" or whatever which involves radically altering the cultures of nations - not on the request of the players who actually play in those nations, but on the say-so of outside Moderators and Moderator appointees?

Do the player-base understand that the first draft of this "Cultural Map" was produced by a player who explicitly tells us the preferences of most players in the game are not deserving of consideration and that players who want to determine their own nation's culture are a problem?

Do the player-base understand that one of the Moderators pushing this whole scheme has exercised a disproportionate personal influence on the existing Cultural Protocols/in-game cultures already, and has openly admitted (on the removed thread) that part of the reason he supports the reform is because it would make it easier for him to pull off his favoured cultural engineering projects?

I am not convinced this is yet widely understood, If this is introduced, over time, it will begin to be. That is the point when you will start to hear more voices. The challenge for us now is to hear those voices, and to have the foresight and vision to hear them NOW, before it is too late.
Last edited by Phil Piratin on Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Phil Piratin
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby LukasV » Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:36 pm

ALRIGHTY THEN.

There are two recurring themes in the arguments that I see in this thread:

1) Cultures are going to be arbitrarily decided, changed, and/or modified, without any real established way of allowing natural drift.

2) We need more English nations, because English nations are more popular and more likely to be RP'd.

Let me deconstruct why both of these claims, as ludicrously paraphrased as they are, are as equally ludicrous in their misunderstanding of the presented concept.


First, this culture map, as was stated many times, is a proposed approximation of the most common cultural influences in the nations as they are. That doesn't mean that the written culture is inherently bound to them until the end of time, but it's generally accepted by way of RP and such that the proposed influences are there to perhaps direct RP for players in a certain way. Now here's the point that I think needs to be reinforced heavily: this map does not replace cultural protocols, nor does it railroad RP in any certain way. This is more of a way to solidify one element in a nation as kind of an identifier that players ought to be aware of and could use to maximize their RP potential in the game. Cultural protocols are still malleable enough for players to create minority classes, to break away from some of the traditional norms here and there, and ultimately players still have the ability to determine the general direction of their nation and culture in this way. I believe that this map is more of a nudge towards having a general idea of what cultures are where, so that it can be used as an RP tool for international affairs between nations, etc.

That being said, it's imperative that nationmasters, (pre-)existing Cultural Protocols, general direction of RP, and obviously player opinions are taken into fair account when this map is determined. I would be willing to doubt that any of the aforementioned cultures were arbitrarily decided against the current direction of play in the nations, and it would be a stupid and careless decision to just make such a decision without consultation and precedent. Therefore, this is an opportunity to hold a dialogue on the direction of each nation, culturally, so that we can at the very least perhaps produce a first batch of maps.

Now, why do I say first batch. This is because I would also presume that, not unlike cultural protocols, there would be an element of cultural drift that would be appropriate in each nation, based solely in RP, be it domestic or foreign. Of course, the determining factor would have to be the amount of time that would need to pass before each such change, but I'm sure we can settle on something reasonable that will work for all parties. But we must make a focus on the RP elements of this, so that, as was previously also mentioned, the preexisting cultural protocols aren't simply trashed at the whims of inactives and new arrivals and such. This game relies a lot on RP, and while there's certainly a way you can scrape by doing the bare minimum, I believe that even that bare minimum should be enforced so that we have the opportunity for some verve and colour in this game. More on that later though.

I believe that people panicked a bit when this was proposed, but the fact remains that this doesn't seek to change things a whole ton, so much as set up a minor facet in each nation as a stable source of national RP, which can obviously change over time. This is, beyond anything else, an RP device that is designed to help people figure out where their (inter)national roleplay will take them next.


Now, to the argument about English nations, or apparent lack thereof. This is a shoddy argument. As we all know, the primary language of this game is English. No matter which nation you go to, most of the RP and gameplay is conducted in English. In reality, the majority of our players have English as their first, if not at least second, language. That fact in of itself means that it would be obvious that predominantly Anglo nations are more attractive in a statistical sense because they stand as the default, the easiest of the nations to figure out RP for, just because the language, culture and such is so familiar to us in reality. Which is why I reject the so-called statistics presented earlier in this thread. Yes, you can argue that people like the English nations because more players play in them; however, why should that actually have to result in more English nations as a whole? There is no more dominant culture that spans over more nations than the in-game "Anglosphere", and it doesn't stand to reason to have to arbitrarily create more of them.

Personally, I like the fact that there is a wealth of culture and language in game. Granted, I also recognize that certain ones are a bit more daunting than others, especially if they're not as familiar. For example, I'm less likely to play in a, say, Asian-themed nation like Indrala, mainly because the language is foreign and the traditions are not as relatable as a more European nation. However, in the current state of how the game is run, with or without this RP map, that really doesn't stand as that much of a barrier for RP. And there are more than enough players willing to help out or assist to make decent RP happen. But the point remains that it's done in English regardless, and that familiarity is more or less in every nation in the game, albeit at varying levels in comparison to an Anglo nation such as Luthori.

If we have an RP map, it would serve as a tool for players to see what they were getting into, which would definitely help with their decision on which nation to go to. And if we experience 8/8 party nations with the trend being decidedly Anglo, then the RP map could help us set a precedent as to where we might be able to find some leeway to make that happen as painlessly as possible. But for the current state of the game, it is a pointless endeavour and a useless gesture to suggest that English players are unfairly underrepresented in the game in such a way.


What we need to do here is to make a proper consultation with players in each nation as to how to properly define the cultures therein. There are a wealth of bills, RP, news posts, etc that aids the RP team and Moderation staff, but ultimately it's still up to at least the current players as to how things are properly played out, so that there aren't any drastic changes implemented that railroads players by force. This RP map would be a great tool for RP, as well as even for new players so that they get an idea of what kind of nations they're dealing with and where they could go and experience which culture, a feature which I feel we should definitely have in our game tutorials for just that purpose. But most importantly, we need to figure out how "Cultural Drift" will work, and what the time frames are, and potentially how the RP for that should be done. I feel once these things have been fleshed out, this RP map business should be a lot smoother.
Get All That You Deserve In This World

Free Speech Fundamentalist
Classical Liberal/Libertarian
A Necessary Evil
Haterz Gon' Hate

"You believe you have dominion
So you force your lame opinions on me
And my eggshell mind"
User avatar
LukasV
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:47 pm
Location: Poland

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby CCP » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:05 pm

FPC wrote:Our philosophy is that this would minimise the need for players who want to RP in a certain culture etc from worrying about having to create and protect culture protocols and would remove the fear that all their hard word could be completely forgotten down the line as the culture of their nation would change. I believe this will allow players more freedom for innovation and creativity.


That philosophy has not been on display in this thread or in your map. In Talmoria, you're proposing to throw away 3 years of Mandé and lately Hausa development in favor of Igbo despite the fact that no long-term Talmorian player has ever tried to construct an Igbo-centric society there. In Cobura, ethnic cleavages have been exquisitely worked and heavily leaned on to develop a governing system with varying levels of 'ethnic federalism' so to speak, much like real-world contemporary Ethiopia. But you're planning to reduce to an afterthought the precise minority populations whose presence Cobura's delicate and deep stories have been built on -- for 1,000 game years in fact. In Hawu, Phil Piratin had to point out at least 3 times that you were proposing to wipe it off the map. When you finally responded to his point that players' work there should be preserved, you proposed a radically reductionist version of the society that would be Hawu in-name-only. When I told you that your proposal would excise all the contributing ethnicities from Hawu Mumenhes in favor of glomming onto it a real-world ethnicity that has no presence in Terra, Polites told me that "simplicity and straightforwardness" justified obliterating the historical basis and backstory for the country. So now the hard work of Resurgence, and Eagle, and me, and Allvince, and JessyVarya, and in the predecessor country (Ibutho) Eel, and Colonel Vesica, and Aquinas and on and on, all of that work which we present players have tried to build upon to help explain why Hawu has a pharaoh instead of a "king," and why its citizens speak Ancient Egyptian, and why its presidents look like US politicians, all those four years of hard work are being set aside for "simplicity and straightforwardness" sake.

So your philosophy as displayed in this thread and your map is very clearly not rooted in protecting players' hard work for years down the line. In fact, your map actively searches out countries where years of RP have been done and arbitrarily reworks those countries. The only play styles that seem to be protected by your map are those of players who prefer a RP stasis (meaning that Terra's societies basically never change ethnically, culturally, economically, or militarily) and players who like to jump from country to country inserting new (and often historically esoteric) ethnicities often without any RPed basis like Polities and lately James tend to do. Apparently the rest of us will be stuck negotiating with whoever you and Wouter decide to choose as moderators. And when those moderators tell us "we're going to wipe out all your hard work for the sake of simplicity and straightforwardness" or "we're going to wipe out all your hard work for the sake of sense and realism" or whatever the story happens to be that day, we players are just going to be shit out of luck.

EDIT:
LukasV wrote:this map does not replace cultural protocols, nor does it railroad RP in any certain way. This is more of a way to solidify one element in a nation as kind of an identifier that players ought to be aware of and could use to maximize their RP potential in the game. Cultural protocols are still malleable enough for players to create minority classes, to break away from some of the traditional norms here and there, and ultimately players still have the ability to determine the general direction of their nation and culture in this way. I believe that this map is more of a nudge towards having a general idea of what cultures are where, so that it can be used as an RP tool for international affairs between nations, etc.


You seem very sure of this. What gave you this impression? Have the moderators stated somewhere that CPs will be preserved if this new rule and their map go into effect? Can you link me to those statements if so? I have understood that the moderators are proposing to remove CPs from the game. If they're just proposing a guideline map instead, this whole thing seems unnecessary because we already have such a guideline in the Cultural Protocals Index thread.

Polites, FPC, and CM9777, could you also clarify for me what will happen if a country opts out of this map. Will an opt-out country have its preferred culture story protected by moderators or will opting out of moderators' map be basically equivilant to "culturally open?" If a country opts out of your map, will players in that country no longer be required to abide by any culture rules within the country?
Global Roleplay Committee Chair(until March 2019)
Ity ꜣḥwt xꜣdt, Hawu Mumenhes
Movement for Radical Libertarianism, Talmoria
Enarekh Koinonia, Cobura
Sizwe Esintsundu Amandla Inhlangano, Ibutho
Christian Communalist Party, Rildanor
CCP
 
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 4:24 am

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby jamescfm » Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:51 pm

It's a shame that the legitimate concerns of some players are being hijacked by those who are only interested in using hyperbole and personal attacks. I've said most of what I wish to say in relation to this issue but I really believe Moderation should limit this thread to relevant comments rather than to players engaging in behaviour which could easily be classed as doxxing.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Elf » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:13 pm

jamescfm wrote:It's a shame that the legitimate concerns of some players are being hijacked by those who are only interested in using hyperbole and personal attacks. I've said most of what I wish to say in relation to this issue but I really believe Moderation should limit this thread to relevant comments rather than to players engaging in behaviour which could easily be classed as doxxing.
Hear, hear!
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
User avatar
Elf
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:01 am
Location: Kali Yuga

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:22 pm

jamescfm wrote:It's a shame that the legitimate concerns of some players are being hijacked by those who are only interested in using hyperbole and personal attacks. I've said most of what I wish to say in relation to this issue but I really believe Moderation should limit this thread to relevant comments rather than to players engaging in behaviour which could easily be classed as doxxing.


Your age is no secret; you have openly referred to it on the forum, on Discord and in-game.

I did not intend to make you uncomfortable by referring to your age, and I apology that it had that effect. The post has now been edited, to remove that reference.

The intention was actually to help you rather than to attack you, because I was pointing out that the rather extreme views you were expressing (which many would find somewhat arrogant, frankly) can be set against the context of your youth (no disrespect intended).

It is not at all accurate to suggest you have somehow been personally attacked or even "doxxed" on this thread, and if you really still feel that, I urge you to take a time-out, then read the discussion through again and have another think about it.

I do personally respect you, James, and I do not doubt you mean well, but we are seeing some of the issues in this consultation from different perspectives, and it's sad this is causing friction between us at the moment. Regardless, I hope we can put it behind us and move on.
User avatar
Phil Piratin
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

cron