Kamphonese War planning thread

General discussions about the Particracy web game.

Kamphonese War planning thread

Postby jamescfm » Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:47 pm

Below is a clear structure of the "Kamphonese War" role-play event:

Below is a list of nations which are authorised to take part in this event and the "lead coordinator" for that nation:
Cifutingan: jamescfm
Degalogesa: jamescfm
Dorvik: Auditorii/Farsun (with assistance from Pragma/QV73)
Indrala: WuHan
Kalkalistan: QV73
Lourenne: Luis1p
Luthori: Maxington
Medina: lewiselder1
Midway: jamescfm
New Alduria: colonelvesica
Noumonde: jamescfm
Ntoto: jamescfm
Ostland: Auditorii/Farsun
Tropica: Darkylightytwo
Utari Mosir: jamescfm
Utembo: jamescfm
Vanakalam: QV73
Vanuku: sisyphus
Xsampa: jamescfm
Last edited by jamescfm on Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:22 am, edited 23 times in total.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby Aquinas » Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:58 pm

jamescfm wrote:Separating this out from the international role-play thread so that that can remain a place of general discussion regarding international role-play. Below is a clear structure of the role-play event, which I am going to coordinate and refer to as the "Dovani Axis War":
  • Utari Mosir joins the "Axis of Dovani"
  • Far right movement seizes control of Istapali, with support from the Istapalian military, Suyu Llaqta and Liore
  • Istapali joins the "Axis of Dovani"
  • Utari Mosir experiences internal unrest in certain locations
  • Utari Mosir launches a surprise invasion of the island of Kamphon, declaring it a "special territory" of Utari Mosir
  • An international coalition (possibly with World Congress approval) will set a deadline for Mosirak withdrawal from Kamphon
  • The deadline will pass and the international coalition will launch a two-pronged attack against Kamphon: a Dorvik-Ostland force will attack from the west while a Lourenne-led Dovani force will attack from the south east
  • Kamphon will be liberated and control returned to Cifutingan
  • The scope of the coalition's objectives will shift to the overthrow of the regime in Utari Mosir, in response to ongoing genocide as well as Mosirak attempts to attack civilian populations across the border with Cifutingan
  • An invasion of Utari Mosir will be launched simultaneously from Ostland, Degalogesa and Cifutingan, the remaining Axis members will offer no response
  • The international coalition will quickly move through Utari Mosir and implement a transitional government overseen by various nations in Dovani (possinly through a new organisation

Vanuku, Cildania and New Endralon have all indicated to a certain extent that they would be willing to join, other nations are still welcome to do so at this stage. I would put the current potential international coalition as being composed of: Cifutingan, Dorvik, Lourenne, Midway, Ostland, Degalogesa, Indrala, Vanuku, Cildania and New Endralon. The next step is for players in these in-game nations to pass out-of-character motions which essentially reads the same as this one I have proposed in Lourenne- (though make sure you change the names!). Below I will create a list of nations which are authorised to take part in this event and the "lead coordinator" for that nation (please send me links with passed bills as soon as possible):
Cifutingan: jamescfm
Degalogesa: jamescfm
Midway: jamescfm
Ostland: Auditorii
Utari Mosir: jamescfm


I'm really pleased this RP is being organised. Due credit to the people involved - James, in particular. The RP will be affecting me (although only tangentially at the moment, I'm Vanuku's opposition party), and to be clear, I am supportive of it and consent to it.

The only issue I have relates to the OOC: Consent for Dovani Axis War template bill which James drew up. A version of this has just appeared in Vanuku, BTW, which is how this first came to my attention.

The final sentence in the template bill reads:

This motion requires a majority of players holding seats to vote in favour in order for it to pass.


Can I ask where the formula comes from about OOC RP consent bills needing the support of "a majority of players holding seats"?

The formula offered by section 6b of the Game Rules is that large-scale RPs should have the consent of all of the players involved:

If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.


The previous version of the Game Rules provided some protection against RPs breaking down due to someone withdrawing consent. I quote the relevant section in full below:

23. Role-play events.

The default rule is that role-play events can only be done with the consent of all of the players in the nation or nations concerned, and that if one of the players withdraws consent for the role-play, then the role-play becomes void. However, there are procedures available to overcome the risk of a role-play being brought down like this. These procedures cannot compel players to actively participate in a role-play, but they do oblige them not to stand in the way of them and to recognise their legitimacy under the rules. The procedures are:

23.1 Role-play events between nations, such as wars, will be officially recognised if before they are commenced, in all of the concerned nations a RP event bill outlining the event is approved 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. This bill must specify the necessary and possible consequences of the role-play event, as well as a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be interpreted in in-game terms.

An inactive nation, meaning a nation with no players with seats, clearly cannot give consent to role-play, which means players outside the nation should not attempt to role-play with it in in any major or controversial way.

23.1.1 Role-play events within a nation, such as a financial crash or a civil war, will be officially recognised if before they are commenced, a RP event bill outlining the event is approved 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. This bill must specify the necessary and possible consequences of the role-play event, as well as a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be understood in in-game terms.

23.2 It is permitted to use a RP event bill to institute a referendum. The RP event bill should specify:

- the result of the referendum or a full description of how the result will be determined. The bill could arrange for the result to be simulated by applying a simple formula to the outcome of an upcoming election. For example, the RP event bill might list what percentage of voters for each party will vote "Yes" and "No". Alternatively, as an example, the bill might delegate authority for determining the result to a designated player.

- the RP event bill should specify the in-game date at which the referendum will be held. For example, it might be held simultaneously with the election, or it might be held a year after the election.

- whether the bill is recommendative (ie. the legislature and/or government considers the referendum result and then takes a decison on what to do next) or enactive (ie. the referendum could potentially immediately enact a piece of legislation).

However, bear in mind that it is not possible for RP laws to over-ride game mechanic laws, so no referendum RP will be legal under the rules if it conflicts with this principle.

23.3 A RP event bill will be considered void if it contravenes the rules or would not be reasonably easy for an inexperienced player to understand.


However, obviously this is no longer in the Game Rules, so there is no possibility of protecting RP with a "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" formula.

Going by how the rules are framed at the moment, I would suggest the sentence "This motion requires a majority of players holding seats to vote in favour in order for it to pass" be replaced with something like:

This RP requires the OOC (out-of-character) consent or presumed consent of all players holding seats in order to be considered valid under the Game Rules. Please vote yes to indicate your consent or no to indicate you do not wish to be considered to have consented at this stage. Jamescfm and others involved in this RP will be very happy to chat to you if you would like to raise any suggestions, questions or concerns. Thank you.


As it happens, I do not regard this situation as ideal, and I would like to see the return of something along the lines of the old section 23. However, with the rules as they are currently stated, this seems, at least to me, to be the sensible thing to do.

I encourage Moderation to please review this situation here and advise if/where they feel appropriate.
https://discord.gg/cdcmWk8
Terra Nations, an upcoming forum role-playing game set in the world of Particracy Classic's Terra
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9230
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby jamescfm » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:10 pm

Given that there is no rule stipulating what proportion of players need to provide consent and that we know from experience that certain players will seek to "block" role-play from happening, I didn't want to impose unnecessary stipulations on countries which did want to be involved. Like you, I would favour a return to the old Game Rules but at the moment I'm going to take advantage of what we currently have.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby Aquinas » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:26 pm

jamescfm wrote:Given that there is no rule stipulating what proportion of players need to provide consent and that we know from experience that certain players will seek to "block" role-play from happening, I didn't want to impose unnecessary stipulations on countries which did want to be involved. Like you, I would favour a return to the old Game Rules but at the moment I'm going to take advantage of what we currently have.


As I outlined in my previous post, there is such a rule (6b):

If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.


I completely agree with you about the inadequacy of the current rules in the area of RP consent, but nevertheless, these are the rules as they currently stand, and it is important players should not be misinformed about what the consent requirements are.
https://discord.gg/cdcmWk8
Terra Nations, an upcoming forum role-playing game set in the world of Particracy Classic's Terra
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9230
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby Yolo04 » Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:53 pm

Aquinas wrote:
jamescfm wrote:Given that there is no rule stipulating what proportion of players need to provide consent and that we know from experience that certain players will seek to "block" role-play from happening, I didn't want to impose unnecessary stipulations on countries which did want to be involved. Like you, I would favour a return to the old Game Rules but at the moment I'm going to take advantage of what we currently have.


As I outlined in my previous post, there is such a rule (6b):

If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.


I completely agree with you about the inadequacy of the current rules in the area of RP consent, but nevertheless, these are the rules as they currently stand, and it is important players should not be misinformed about what the consent requirements are.


Fortland should be invaded in this war :D
Despacito, Eat ain’t Burrito
User avatar
Yolo04
 
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:03 pm
Location: West Virginia, USA

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby jamescfm » Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:04 pm

Aquinas wrote:
If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.


I completely agree with you about the inadequacy of the current rules in the area of RP consent, but nevertheless, these are the rules as they currently stand, and it is important players should not be misinformed about what the consent requirements are.

Apologies, not sure how I missed that. I'm honestly still not clear on how this particular rule fits into international role-play and how the "RP that will affect other users" should be interpreted. Perhaps a Moderator could provide some clarity and prioritise amending these rules to be closer to the previous version, quoted here by Aquinas.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby Aquinas » Thu Dec 13, 2018 11:32 pm

jamescfm wrote:
Aquinas wrote:
If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.


I completely agree with you about the inadequacy of the current rules in the area of RP consent, but nevertheless, these are the rules as they currently stand, and it is important players should not be misinformed about what the consent requirements are.

Apologies, not sure how I missed that. I'm honestly still not clear on how this particular rule fits into international role-play and how the "RP that will affect other users" should be interpreted. Perhaps a Moderator could provide some clarity and prioritise amending these rules to be closer to the previous version, quoted here by Aquinas.


Section 6 seems to indicate this applies to international RP, and this is reinforced by 6f, which reads:

RP between multiple nations (ie. more than one) follow the same rules as internal RP.


The omnishambles rules rewrite earlier in the year left behind a lot of problems and muddles. This area (ie. the rules surrounding RP and consent) is just one of them.
https://discord.gg/cdcmWk8
Terra Nations, an upcoming forum role-playing game set in the world of Particracy Classic's Terra
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9230
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby jamescfm » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:01 am

Aquinas wrote:Section 6 seems to indicate this applies to international RP, and this is reinforced by 6f, which reads:

RP between multiple nations (ie. more than one) follow the same rules as internal RP.


The omnishambles rules rewrite earlier in the year left behind a lot of problems and muddles. This area (ie. the rules surrounding RP and consent) is just one of them.

I agree on that front but just unclear on who is deemed to be affected by international role-play, it doesn't really seem logical that players with no seats would be impacted by such role-play? As I said, if we could get some form of Moderator verdict that would be helpful. On the topic of this thread, I am hoping to be back on track with it tomorrow.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby Luis1p » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:22 am

The game rules read:

If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.


and

RP between multiple nations (ie. more than one) follow the same rules as internal RP.


I'd say who ever decides to role play in the war must have "consent" to participate in what they are about to enter. Which would in fact mean a nation would have to create a bill saying that they accept to participate. International role play, such as a war, could affect any player who is participating in it.

The rules are rather messy in that section and will most likely be changed. However, I do think that some form of consent from different players should be made befpre entering any international conflict/role play.
I mean look at us. We're just air conditioners. I mean after after all. We're just walking around on the planet breathing,CONDITIONING THE AIR.

-Ongo Gablogian, The Art Collector
User avatar
Luis1p
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:01 pm

Re: Dovani Axis War planning thread

Postby Aquinas » Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:06 am

Luis1p wrote:The game rules read:

If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.


and

RP between multiple nations (ie. more than one) follow the same rules as internal RP.


I'd say who ever decides to role play in the war must have "consent" to participate in what they are about to enter. Which would in fact mean a nation would have to create a bill saying that they accept to participate. International role play, such as a war, could affect any player who is participating in it.

The rules are rather messy in that section and will most likely be changed. However, I do think that some form of consent from different players should be made befpre entering any international conflict/role play.


Based on the way the rules are currently framed, I would broadly agree with Luis' interpretation, although I disagree with the suggestion "a nation would have to create a bill saying that they accept to participate". The current Game Rules make no mention whatsoever of OOC RP consent bills, so it would seem unreasonable to me for Moderation to strike down an international RP just on the basis there was no OOC RP consent bill. The more reasonable option (at least to me) would be for Moderation to only intervene to strike down an international RP when an affected player makes clear he does not consent to it. And even then, the objecting player should only be able to halt the RP in specific circumstances. As an example of what I am getting at here, there is 6d, which says "Players should make an effort to keep to their word and not back out of RP which they originally consented to by RP post or otherwise", or as another example, there is a convention that if a player joins a nation, they are generally assumed to consent to any RP ongoing at the time they join.

All of this said, when it comes to more complicated international RPs involving multiple nations and players, it really is a nice idea to have an OOC consent bill so everybody knows what is going on, so I most definitely believe Luis and James are thinking along the right lines in wanting to encourage this.
https://discord.gg/cdcmWk8
Terra Nations, an upcoming forum role-playing game set in the world of Particracy Classic's Terra
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9230
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests