Nation Categorization and Political Protocols (August 2019)

[Rogue]

Hi everyone!

I am talking to you all today to announce a new system moderation will be implementing soon named "Nation Categorization"
In this system all nations in Terra will be categorized based of RP activity over the duration of the game as well as current RP activity.
Nations will be categorized in two categories which will be "Casual Nations" and "RP Intensive Nations" in Casual Nations you will be able to play the game casually, simply making a party and proposing bills/contesting in elections without much RP etc. In these nations you can still RP but it is not required.

In RP Intensive Nations players are required to actively participate in Forum RP through making articles etc. If players in RP Intensive Nations do not do this they will face inactivation. In addition to this RP Intensive Nations will also get the possibility of passing politicial protocols. Political Protocols allow a player or players to document the form of government in the same way that cultural protocols document the culture of a nation. Moderation will enforce PP's just like it enforces CP's. The final form of how the Political Protocols will look is still to be determined and will be revealed in a week or so.
The reason for this decision is our aim to make classic based around RP. As the Alpha and the new PT game will likely be a more casual experience we believe that making classic more RP based perfectly compliments the new game as well and gives people the chance to have two different experiences.

We have created a temporary list of possible "Casual Nations" and "RP Intensive Nations". In these lists we have tried to give both categories a variety of cultures so players can still choose where they would like to play and how they would like to play.

Casual Nations:

Badara, Alduria, Aloria, Beluzia, Barmenistan, Cildania, Cobura, Davostan, Dolgava, Egelion, Endralon, Gaduridos, Hobrazia, Hawu-Ikradon, Jakania, Kalopia, Kanjor, Kirlawa, Kundrati, Likatonia, Lodamun, Luthori, Malivia, Mordusia, Pontesi, Rutania, Solentia, Talmoria, Telamon, Tukarali, Deltaria Nova


RP Intensive Nations:

Aldegar, Baltusia, Beiteynu, Narikaton and Darnussia, Deltaria, Dorvik, Dankuk, Dundorf, Hulstria and Gao-Soto, Hutori, Indrala, Istalia, Jelbania, Kafuristan, Kalistan, Kazulia, Keymon, Lourenne, Kizenia/New Endralon, Rildanor, Saridan, Sekowo, Selucia, Sekowo, Trigunia, Valruzia, Vanuku, Zardugal

We encourage feedback so feel free to comment on this thread and let us know what you think of the list and if you would change up certain nations their category!

[Cirith]

This does not seem very fleshed out, and I worry Moderations activity will not allow it to be fully realised.

That said, I welcome any attempt to keep RP going and to even enforce it.

Perhaps nations should have to sign in/out of these with majority player votes as they used to the Accords, or at least they should the PPs to stop them being forced on players by experienced members.

[Rogue]

This does not seem very fleshed out, and I worry Moderations activity will not allow it to be fully realised.

That said, I welcome any attempt to keep RP going and to even enforce it.

Perhaps nations should have to sign in/out of these with majority player votes as they used to the Accords, or at least they should the PPs to stop them being forced on players by experienced members.

Its not hard to enforce such a system as it would just mean checking RP intensive nations every once in a while.
We do not want nations to be able to sign in and out of this system since it would undermine the core idea of the system which is to encourage RP.

PP's work the same in this system as Cultural Protocols. Meaning that players can make them but also change them with sufficient RP to back it up.

[Uhtred]

To be honest, Political Protocols just seem like a way for existing players to restrict access to certain nations and control narratives.

Moderation will enforce PP's just like it enforces CP

It is already the case that Moderation will act against players violating CPs in otherwise vacant nations. With PPs are we suggesting that if a player starts a party in an empty nation which previously passed a PP designating it as a communist nation that Moderation is going to instruct the new player to play that way or face deactivation?

PP's work the same in this system as Cultural Protocols. Meaning that players can make them but also change them with sufficient RP to back it up.

Does this mean that they will have to play in a way they don't want to for 15 continuous days in order that they can change the PP (as is the rule with CPs)?
Moderation already allows players to create one party states, so I don't see where the need for PPs is coming from.

With RP casual/intensive nations I see the intention, but I'm not sure whether creating 2 tiers of players is going to create the activity you are hoping for. I think it will lead the same players who like RP going to the RP intensive nations and the players that are there being deactivated. Which will probably result in the same amount of RP as now. I think your previous suggestion of inclusive RP in another post was a stronger way to go

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8529

Me and Vesica are excited to take on the responsibilities of the former GRC as we have many things planned which include events like Natural Disasters, Third World Wars, Diseases and many many more. Because of this decision we will work in the coming days to remove any references to the GRC in the rules and change them so that these responsibilities now fall upon moderation.

[Rogue]

To be honest, Political Protocols just seem like a way for existing players to restrict access to certain nations and control narratives.

As Classic moves in a different direction due to the new game likely becoming more casual we feel Political Protocols will enhance the experience of any player. It just does not make sense for a nation to change regimes and entire structures 4 times in a span of 50 years which currently is the case. By allowing PP's we create consistency within the world. Making it actually feel like a living world.

It is already the case that Moderation will act against players violating CPs in otherwise vacant nations. With PPs are we suggesting that if a player starts a party in an empty nation which previously passed a PP designating it as a communist nation that Moderation is going to instruct the new player to play that way or face deactivation?

The intention of these new ideas and policies is to encourage a move towards more RP on both the forum and in the game. If a nation is vacant and a player joins it. They would, with sufficient RP, be allowed to change the PP of the nation in question. It is not our intention to scare players away but there needs to be some consistency in the experience.

Does this mean that they will have to play in a way they don't want to for 15 continuous days in order that they can change the PP (as is the rule with CPs)?
Moderation already allows players to create one party states, so I don't see where the need for PPs is coming from.

We will roughly follow the same policies as with the CP's. However the 15 day mark is not set in stone and with a good amount of decent quality RP posts someone could possibly change the PP. And the policy of PP's is not meant to fascilitate one party states. PP's can be used to register a specific form of government for example a Republic. It can also outline the general ideological trend in a nation but it is not intended to serve as a tool to fascilitate one party states. That is what RP laws are still for. Players that want to play casually can also pick a nation in the list of casual nations, where the PP policy does not apply. The lists are roughly equall in size, so there is lots to choose from.

A overall point i want to make that i have made before. In its core Classic has become a Roleplay experience mostly centered around the Forum. The new PT in its Alpha state is likely to become a casual experience and we want to make the distinction between the two clear. The reason for Classic being centered around RP is simple, its unfinished and barely any of its features are properly working. Therefor it is unrealistic to continue to view it as a "casual experience supported by RP" and with these policies we want to make that clear.

For any further questions feel free to ask them.

[Uhtred]

When PPs were previously brought up as an idea it was in the context of "I have spent a lot of time in country X and whenever I leave people come in and change it or do things that I don't like. This shouldn't be allowed." It was about protecting RP, not improving RP or facilitating RP. How is this new PP proposal different? For example, will there be a sunset clause on PPs?

I'm currently in Saridan, which before I arrived was vacant for 10 IG years. What the new proposals mean is that instead of generating activity in an empty nation and creating narratives/RP, either on my own or with other players, I would have to please Moderation, either by the quality or quantity of RP (quality and quantity determined by Moderation), and use the narrative of another player(s) who may well be long gone.

Do vacant nations or nations which appear to be "locked" by PPs make it actually feel like a living world?

Now the answer to that might be, well don't play in Saridan then go and play in one of the "casual" nations. But is that really the environment we want to foster?

[Rogue]

When PPs were previously brought up as an idea it was in the context of "I have spent a lot of time in country X and whenever I leave people come in and change it or do things that I don't like. This shouldn't be allowed." It was about protecting RP, not improving RP or facilitating RP. How is this new PP proposal different? For example, will there be a sunset clause on PPs?

I'm currently in Saridan, which before I arrived was vacant for 10 IG years. What the new proposals mean is that instead of generating activity in an empty nation and creating narratives/RP, either on my own or with other players, I would have to please Moderation, either by the quality or quantity of RP (quality and quantity determined by Moderation), and use the narrative of another player(s) who may well be long gone.

Do vacant nations or nations which appear to be "locked" by PPs make it actually feel like a living world?

Now the answer to that might be, well don't play in Saridan then go and play in one of the "casual" nations. But is that really the environment we want to foster?

In a living breathing world a nation does not change overnight. It does not change from a democratic regime to a all out fascist dictatorship in just one click. It takes time to do that. It takes time for a party to erode democratic institutions and then eventually, after some effort, make it into a dictatorship for example (by changing the PP's after prolonged RP). Anything is possible. But not in a single post. Not without any effort put into it because in a *real* world, nations dont change overnight either.

The new system allows for as much RP intensive nations as Casual nations. Every side has a variety of options to choose from. PP's will not be used as a personal tool to stop players from doing anything to a nation. But they will serve as a way for the world to feel at least slightly more realistic and alive.

[Uhtred]

I understand that in a living breathing world structural and political change does not happen with one click. However, in a living breathing world nations which go without a central government for 10+ years do not remain trapped in amber, radical changes in those circumstances would not be unrealistic. And I do not think it should be incumbent on the new player to RP 10+ years worth of change to justify the change in system.

[Rogue]

I understand that in a living breathing world structural and political change does not happen with one click. However, in a living breathing world nations which go without a central government for 10+ years do not remain trapped in amber, radical changes in those circumstances would not be unrealistic. And I do not think it should be incumbent on the new player to RP 10+ years worth of change to justify the change in system.

As ive said multiple times. It isnt set in Amber. With a decent amount of RP the player can change the country.