PARTICRACY CULTURE REFORMS CONSULTATION

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby FPC » Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:49 pm

OK everything has clearly gotten out of hand a bit here. We want an open consultation where everyone is allowed to voice their opinion and we apologise if any negativity has got in the way of that.
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 Elf » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:11 pm

FPC wrote:OK everything has clearly gotten out of hand a bit here. We want an open consultation where everyone is allowed to voice their opinion and we apologise if any negativity has got in the way of that.

You really have nothing to apologise for.

Keep up the good work! :)
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 LukasV » Mon Feb 05, 2018 6:47 pm

CCP wrote:
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.


I'll be honest, my guess is as good as yours. However, it would be absolute madness to assume that this sort of thing will replace Cultural Protocols entirely as "the next best thing". I believe that it stands to reason to have the map based off several factors in a nation, including CPs as the main tool used for determination. However, based on several comments in this thread and a general reaction thus far, I have reason to believe that insufficient consultation and care was taken in ensuring that nations are duly represented properly, as clearly the current crop of players in many nations seem as though their resultant culture on the map is incongruent with the culture that has been RP'd as of late. That being said, it would be necessary to revisit and consult with players on that so that we avoid actually railroading RP contrary to the preexisting culture.
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 Polites » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:00 pm

Ok, let's all take a breather for a moment. Clearly this is something that a lot of people feel very strongly about, and on my part I apologize if I've come across as rude or disrespectful.

Now, I'd like to address some of the points that have been brought up:

1) Under the proposed system, Cultural Protocols would end up replaced with some rather minimal and simple descriptions, and in many cases this may end up overlooking some of the more complex and detailed cultures. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed reform. A lot of Cultural Protocols (some of them actually introduced by myself as a player, but that should not be relevant to this discussion) we believe are overly detailed, making them hard to understand at a glance and thus making the nations in question less accessible to players that do not care much for world-building. In moving to a brief and simple description there is the risk that years of detailed world-building and cultural RP may be underestimated. However, we feel that the elaborate details in question are best left to those players that are committed to working on said details, without the need for Moderation involvement. In practice, for the average player that just wants to play as the Social Democratic Party in Hulstria (to give a random example) it makes no difference whether the Hulstrians are a direct copy of RL Austrians or a German-speaking colonial minority revolting against Victorian Britain thousands of years ago and then imitating the latter's political system. If anyone cares about where exactly Hulstrians came from, what music they listen to and what food they eat, what their relations with the Kunihito are, how they see the former metropolis, etc., they can find all of that on the wiki, and I don't think Moderation should get involved in determining and/or protecting these details. If they don't matter for day-to-day RP and gameplay, then they only matter for a small number of players.

2) As you may have noted, the very detailed Cultural Protocols (and as a matter of fact most Cultural Protocols) are the work of a small but dedicated minority of players. Most players are here for the political simulation, not the world-building. Under the proposed reform we believe that those players that do not care about world-building can have a greater voice in determining the cultural makeup of their nations.

3) Cobura actually is a good example of the problems that arise from the current system. As it stands, it is a mix of Ethiopian, Byzantine, Egyptian, and Serbian cultures, until recently with relatively equal weight for each of them. It is a fascinating nation (which I helped develop myself), but the problem is, that ethnic mix is not something most people could easily wrap their head around, and Cobura's player number throughout its history reflects that. And as it turns out, the current makeup of Cobura is the result of Cultural Protocols rules which allow minute changes and only after considerable RP, which means that difficult cultures can only be modified after a (very) long period of time and in practice only by the small minority of players that care about such things. The current makeup I think owes more to the fact that Coburan RP has been boxed in a particular combination stemming from the very first Cultural Protocol (that included Slovak, Celtic, Spanish, African, Arabic, Russian, and German cultures), gradually modified over the years, than from the desire of Coburan players to establish an Ethiopian-Byzantine-Egyptian-Serbian mix.

4) If you check the Base Culture Documents you will see that we are in fact trying to maintain RP continuity in most if not all nations.

5) The final number of English-speaking (and English-culture) nations will be slightly larger than the current Base Culture Documents.

6) The survey - we called it a survey and not a referendum, because we're not looking at the final vote count to determine the winner, precisely because it can be manipulated and it is not clear how much each individual player may have understood from what is being asked from them. We wanted to see if there is broad consensus for the proposed reform, and we believe that consensus exists. We provided additional details (including a link to this very thread) to all players and/or nations, and we answered a lot of questions that we received privately. So we're confident we have a pretty broad and informed consensus.

7) Yep the point of this reform is to replace the Cultural Protocols with centrally-defined brief nation descriptions. We are using the current Cultural Protocols as one source of information, but not exclusively so.

8) We did our best to emphasize those cultures and languages that would be accessible to the average player with a brief Google search (and mainly languages found on Google Translate), what "exotic" cultures are still there in the descriptions?
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby jamescfm » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:12 pm

With regards to my earlier remarks, I was simply referring to the tone of the thread. I’ve no concerns about people knowing my age but to bring it into this discussion was irrelevant and unfair, I felt. I’m glad Moderation have sought to refocus the discussion.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5472
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby LukasV » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:14 pm

Polites wrote:Ok, let's all take a breather for a moment. Clearly this is something that a lot of people feel very strongly about, and on my part I apologize if I've come across as rude or disrespectful.

Now, I'd like to address some of the points that have been brought up:

1) Under the proposed system, Cultural Protocols would end up replaced with some rather minimal and simple descriptions, and in many cases this may end up overlooking some of the more complex and detailed Cultural Protocols. This is a feature, not a bug of the proposed reform. A lot of Cultural Protocols (some of them actually introduced by myself as a player, but that should not be relevant to this discussion) we believe are overly detailed, making them hard to understand at a glance and thus making the nations in question less accessible to players that do not care much for world-building. In moving to a brief and simple description there is the risk that years of detailed world-building and cultural RP may be underestimated. However, we feel that the elaborate details in question are best left to those players that are committed to working on said details, without the need for Moderation involvement. In practice, for the average player that just wants to play as the Social Democratic Party in Hulstria (to give a random example) it makes no difference whether the Hulstrians are a direct copy of RL Austrians or a German-speaking colonial minority revolting against Victorian Britain thousands of years ago and then imitating the latter's political system. If anyone cares about where exactly Hulstrians came from, what music they listen to and what food they eat, what their relations with the Kunihito are, how they see the former metropolis, etc., they can find all of that on the wiki, and I don't think Moderation should get involved in determining and/or protecting these details. If they don't matter for day-to-day RP and gameplay, then they only matter for a small number of players.

2) As you may have noted, the very detailed Cultural Protocols (and as a matter of fact most Cultural Protocols) are the work of a small but dedicated minority of players. Most players are here for the political simulation, not the world-building. Under the proposed reform we believe that those players that do not care about world-building can have a greater voice in determining the cultural makeup of their nations.

3) Cobura actually is a good example of the problems that arise from the current system. As it stands, it is a mix of Ethiopian, Byzantine, Egyptian, and Serbian cultures, until recently with relatively equal weight for each of them. It is a fascinating nation (which I helped develop myself), but the problem is, that ethnic mix is not something most people could easily wrap their head around, and Cobura's player number throughout its history reflects that. And as it turns out, the current makeup of Cobura is the result of Cultural Protocols rules which allow minute changes and only after considerable RP, which means that difficult cultures can only be modified after a (very) long period of time and in practice only by the small minority of players that care about such things. The current makeup I think owes more to the fact that Coburan RP has been boxed in a particular combination stemming from the very first Cultural Protocol (that included Slovak, Celtic, Spanish, African, Arabic, Russian, and German cultures), gradually modified over the years, than from the desire of Coburan players to establish an Ethiopian-Byzantine-Egyptian-Serbian mix.

4) If you check the Base Culture Documents you will see that we are in fact trying to maintain RP continuity in most if not all nations.

5) The final number of English-speaking (and English-culture) nations will be slightly larger than the current Base Culture Documents.

6) The survey - we called it a survey and not a referendum, because we're not looking at the final vote count to determine the winner, precisely because it can be manipulated and it is not clear how much each individual player may have understood from what is being asked from them. We wanted to see if there is broad consensus for the proposed reform, and we believe that consensus exists. We provided additional details (including a link to this very thread) to all players and/or nations, and we answered a lot of questions that we received privately. So we're confident we have a pretty broad and informed consensus.

7) Yep the point of this reform is to replace the Cultural Protocols with centrally-defined brief nation descriptions. We are using the current Cultural Protocols as one source of information, but not exclusively so.

8) We did our best to emphasize those cultures and languages that would be accessible to the average player with a brief Google search (and mainly languages found on Google Translate), what "exotic" cultures are still there in the description?


I thought this whole thing was to help establish a dominant culture in these nations to ease the RP in that manner. Summarizing the CPs in a more understandable way seems much more preferable than to just assume "yeah, things are overly complicated, let's just wipe things and open it up a bit so that people can just determine their own direction." Seems overkill to bother with such a thing. But if that's the intended purpose of this map and this proposed ruling, then I have clearly misunderstood and stand opposed to have something like this replace that which can be considered as centuries of work and RP.
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 Polites » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:21 pm

To be clear, what this reform would end up enforcing is the Descriptions, not the Map.

LukasV wrote:I thought this whole thing was to help establish a dominant culture in these nations to ease the RP in that manner. Summarizing the CPs in a more understandable way seems much more preferable than to just assume "yeah, things are overly complicated, let's just wipe things and open it up a bit so that people can just determine their own direction." Seems overkill to bother with such a thing. But if that's the intended purpose of this map and this proposed ruling, then I have clearly misunderstood and stand opposed to have something like this replace that which can be considered as centuries of work and RP.


It's a bit of both really. We're making the descriptions simple and understandable, and we're taking RP and current CPs into account. And we're definitely not aiming for a full map reset. On the other hand we also want to make it a lot easier to change the descriptions.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:21 pm

Okay, some points...

LukasV wrote: 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.


Nobody in this thread has argued for the number of English nations currently in the game to increase. What has happened is that I have made an argument for the number of English nations not to be reduced so drastically as has been proposed.

LukasV wrote: 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.


In the thread that has now been removed, Polites wrote at some length about how the aim of the proposed system is to remove the connection between changing nation's culture and RP. ie. Players will just be able to lobby Moderation to change the cultural backgrounds of nations, without being expected to do RP in order to justify it.

CCP wrote: 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.


I am not going to personally comment on the views expressed there, but I do want to make the point - again - that the new system will involve decisions about nation's cultures being taken by a very small group of people, and that will inevitably mean there will be biases involved - and just as importantly - perceptions of bias as well. This is one of the reasons I am wary of centralising culture. There is too much potential for the whole thing to become divisive and toxic.
User avatar
Phil Piratin
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:31 pm

Polites wrote:A lot of Cultural Protocols (some of them actually introduced by myself as a player, but that should not be relevant to this discussion) we believe are overly detailed, making them hard to understand at a glance and thus making the nations in question less accessible to players that do not care much for world-building.


Agreed, although I point out that the current rules do give Moderation authority to insist on simpler Cultural Protocol bills, and that as a result of this, the problem is not as big as it was a few years ago. To quote from the Game Rules:

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.


***

Polites wrote: 2) As you may have noted, the very detailed Cultural Protocols (and as a matter of fact most Cultural Protocols) are the work of a small but dedicated minority of players. Most players are here for the political simulation, not the world-building. Under the proposed reform we believe that those players that do not care about world-building can have a greater voice in determining the cultural makeup of their nations.


On the removed thread, you made the point (which I fully concur with) that some players struggle with the technical requirements regarding submitting Cultural Protocol updates. (The requirements are objectively hardly difficult/unreasonable, actually, but all the same, a lot take the process casually, make mistakes and understandably become frustrated with the ensuing delays).

However, I felt you did not adequately explain why the system being proposed would necessarily make the process smoother and simpler for players. At the end of the day, even with the new system, you will still have players lobbying Moderation to authorise changes to the cultural backgrounds of their nations, and you will still have Moderators who want to be helpful, but will not always be able to give every player everything they want all of the time. What I am saying is, even under the new system, there will still be a process of some kind. What I think we need to know is: how exactly will that work? What will be the considerations by which Moderation/RP Team/whatever determines whether a player's petition regarding a nation's culture is accepted? And how confident are you that less experienced players and players who are less involved with "world-building" will fare better under this new regime?

Polites wrote: 3) Cobura actually is a good example of the problems that arise from the current system. As it stands, it is a mix of Ethiopian, Byzantine, Egyptian, and Serbian cultures, until recently with relatively equal weight for each of them. It is a fascinating nation (which I helped develop myself), but the problem is, that ethnic mix is not something most people could easily wrap their head around, and Cobura's player number throughout its history reflects that. And as it turns out, the current makeup of Cobura is the result of Cultural Protocols rules which allow minute changes and only after considerable RP, which means that difficult cultures can only be modified after a (very) long period of time and in practice only by the small minority of players that care about such things. The current makeup I think owes more to the fact that Coburan RP has been boxed in a particular combination stemming from the very first Cultural Protocol (that included Slovak, Celtic, Spanish, African, Arabic, Russian, and German cultures), gradually modified over the years, than from the desire of Coburan players to establish an Ethiopian-Byzantine-Egyptian-Serbian mix.


There are provisions in the current rules for dealing with inaccessible cultures:

(a) Moderation can reject such Cultural Protocols, or amend them if they have been accepted and it has turned out they were not sufficiently accessible:

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.


(b) Moderation can permit players to make larger-than-usual changes in order to make the culture more accessible:

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.


But even putting aside these special allowances, the conventional terms for changing cultures in nations are actually not that rigid. You have to move at a modest pace, but its hardly a snail's pace, and you can make changes over time. To quote the rules:

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.


In practice, Moderators are quite liberal with these guidelines. From my observation, it is very, very rare for changes under 10% to be rejected, and even changes between 10% and 15% are approved a lot of the time, even when not that much RP has been involved to justify it.

(c) If players find a Cultural Protocol too inaccessible, they can petition to remove it:

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.


***

Polites wrote: 4) If you check the Base Culture Documents you will see that we are in fact trying to maintain RP continuity in most if not all nations.


This is not true; significant changes have been proposed. Going by the current edition of the document, here are some examples:

- Baltusia, which has largely been RPed so far as English, becomes Hispanic.

- Beluzia, which has also largely been RPed so far as English, becomes more than half Dutch/Frisian.

- Davostan, another usually-English currently Open nation, becomes Finnish and Welsh, which it has never been before.

- Dranland/Dankuk is turned into a majority Korean country, eliminating the traditional balance between Koreans, Spanish and Welsh.

- Hawu Mumenhes has been significantly changed in a way the main long-term player there has already strongly objected to.

- Keymon's Greek/Roman theme is completely removed so it can become Corsican and Sardinian, which it has never been before.

- Kirlawa's historical English population is suddenly reduced from 30% to 5% without explanation (somewhat buggering things up in terms of my New Englia backstory...).

- Mordusia, which has always been English, become Filipino.

- Solentia, which has always been mainly English and sometimes English-with-Arab, suddenly becomes Italian and Greek.

- Vorona, another nation which has spent most of its time as English, suddenly becomes Igbo.

So the reality is, there are drastic changes being proposed here, and if this new scheme is introduced, you can probably bet there will be further similar such drastic changes imposed in the future. It will all be in the hands of whoever is in Moderation/RP Team at the time.
User avatar
Phil Piratin
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: PARTICRACY CULTURE MAP CONSULTATION

Postby Phil Piratin » Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:58 pm

Polites wrote: 6) The survey - we called it a survey and not a referendum, because we're not looking at the final vote count to determine the winner, precisely because it can be manipulated and it is not clear how much each individual player may have understood from what is being asked from them. We wanted to see if there is broad consensus for the proposed reform, and we believe that consensus exists. We provided additional details (including a link to this very thread) to all players and/or nations, and we answered a lot of questions that we received privately. So we're confident we have a pretty broad and informed consensus.


Since this consultation began, it has been puzzling and disappointing to watch how Moderators seemingly lack the self-awareness to understand how they have skewed the consultation by the way they have used their position as Moderators to lobby as vigorously as they have in pursuit of the objective FPC outlined earlier: "Moderation believe that this is the best course of action and thus we are trying to push it through".

As we have seen, some of the issues involved with this proposal are complicated, many of the details are not yet clear and some important details have been altered just over the course of the consultation so far. With the greatest respect, it is disingenuous, disrespectful and an abuse of process for Moderators to publicly declare, as they have done, that a meaningful consensus of support for the proposal has somehow emerged. We are at too early a stage for that to happen. The details are not yet clear enough and people have not had time yet to get their heads around what is going on. The consultation has been going for less than 2 weeks, and we were promised the consultation will last until at least April 3rd.

Polites and FPC are claiming they have received private feedback convincing them there is a consensus for what they propose to do. Now, that is very interesting, and it's obviously a very big claim to make, so I hope they can back it up some more. I would not expect them to breach player confidentiality by naming names or quoting correspondence, but some facts/figures would be helpful. For example, can Moderation tell us how many players they believe both reasonably understand what the proposal is (so far as anyone can reasonably understand it at the moment...) and have expressed their informed support of it?

The sad thing is, though, that even if Moderation could provide us with some statistics like that, given the way the consultation has been conducted so far, I am not sure I could personally trust them to have solicited the private feedback in an objective and balanced manner. After writing my post yesterday, I received an unsolicited, out-of-the-blue message from one of the Moderators on Discord, demanding I "chill out about all of this" and that the proposals "are just changes that the majority of the playerbase supports". I am citing this here as it is very much in the community interest, and also very, very relevant to the issues concerning how this consultation has been conducted. I wonder how many other players have had this kind of Moderator pressure applied to them behind-the-scenes during the course of this consultation.

There has been very limited support expressed for the proposal so far on the forum. On this thread, I have counted FPC, James and Polites expressing support. On the removed thread, I recall support also being expressed by Arapaima13, Auditorii, Elf, Reddy and stuntmonkey (please correct me, everyone, if I've made any mistakes or left anyone out, as obviously I can only go by memory here).

That is just 8 people. Without meaning any offence, some of those individuals can in objective "political" terms be reasonably considered to have a potential conflict-of-interest, in that they stand to gain unprecedented authority in the game if the proposal is introduced. So we should probably remove FPC and Polites from the list, because they are both Moderators, and also Arapaima13 and stuntmonkey, who are RP Team members. And we should probably remove James too, since he devised the scheme whilst he was in Moderation and was the author of the "Cultural Map". Again, no disrespect intended to any of those individuals; I respect all of them, value their opinions and also sincerely hope to hear much more from all of them as the consultation continues.

So who does this leave us with? Auditorii, Elf and Reddy. Just three people.

On the other hand, there have been others of us who have contributed to the consultation who sound like they have yet to be persuaded. By my reckoning, that would include 7 people, that being myself, CCP, Govenor12, Kubrick (on the removed thread), Lucca, Roosevelt, Sean and SlavaD (again, everybody please feel free to correct/clarify this). There are more too who would have come to the consultation to express their opposition to the proposal if the process had not been so one-sided and the climate so toxic.
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 15 guests