Third World Changes

[Auditorii]

Sorry. Just seeking clarity; wasn't sure. Thanks

No worries. I'm sorry that wasnt clear. We resolved the issues prior and I thought I'd said you were good to go. My apologies if I gave off a different impression, I've been busier.

[Auditorii]

As a note I'm working through updating the Third World Information topic and making sure everything lines up with what was changed, edited and makes sense. I hope to have it done within the week as part of the continued effort to improve house keeping.

[Rogue]

I have been in discussion with several other players considering the name "Third World". It seems as if many that currently play in a third world nation do not play it as that. A third world country. I think this is only fair, since in our current day world Africa, generally categorized as the "Third World" is also slowly moving away from that terminology as economies grow and governments stabilize. Therefor would it be appropriate to change the name of the "Third World Nations" to simply "Non-Playable nations" or something similar? It fits the current style of the nations more as most of them arent RPed as third world.

Would like to hear any opinions on this

[Auditorii]

The "Third World" was the changed term from "Colonies" and "Former Colonies". The term "Non-playable Nations" doesn't quite make sense since they are literally playable just not in the traditional sense.

And as a note, the TW nations don't scale the same as the normal in-game nations. Vesica and I have recently chatted about that and were firmly of the belief that the TW should remain on a slightly different scale compared to the rest of the game.

[Reddy]

I have been in discussion with several other players considering the name "Third World". It seems as if many that currently play in a third world nation do not play it as that. A third world country. I think this is only fair, since in our current day world Africa, generally categorized as the "Third World" is also slowly moving away from that terminology as economies grow and governments stabilize. Therefor would it be appropriate to change the name of the "Third World Nations" to simply "Non-Playable nations" or something similar? It fits the current style of the nations more as most of them arent RPed as third world.

Would like to hear any opinions on this

Eh I have no strong feelings about this. I just wanted to say that, originally, all third world nations ie the ex-colonies were indeed very poor and underdeveloped and as far as I see it, located beyond the New World (Dovani) and the Old World (Artania and the rest) so the name fit quite well. I suppose it could be said that much of the Third World is part of Dovani so maybe it's actually part of the New World? I think a large number of TW nations are still ranked as underdeveloped so perhaps it is not that inaccurate a description when you use the term TW as it is commonly applied. We should keep in mind that the term "third world" in RL originally referred to non aligned nations in the Cold War era and only later became a term reserved for underdeveloped nations (hardly surprising most non-aligned nations were underdeveloped)

[jamescfm]

I don't like the "Third World" name either, for a couple of reasons. As has been noted, the lines are increasingly blurred between the two sets of countries and there are several non-playable countries that are more economically developed than playable countries. I don't really understand the view that the non-playable countries must retain a position of being less developed than the rest of the world, there's no compelling reason for that as far as I have seen.

The primary reason I don't like the label though is the kind of role-play that it seems to generate in these countries. While there is a general trend for unnecessary conflict in Particracy anyway, there seems to be a particular recurring theme of players taking control of a non-playable country, role-playing some kind of ethnic violence, involving an interventionist playable country and then pretty much leaving the country when they're done. I don't think it would be fair to say that this is just because of the name but I do think that it tends to reinforce a particular cliché that adopting less loaded terminology may help to avoid.

[Auditorii]

I don't like the "Third World" name either, for a couple of reasons. As has been noted, the lines are increasingly blurred between the two sets of countries and there are several non-playable countries that are more economically developed than playable countries. I don't really understand the view that the non-playable countries must retain a position of being less developed than the rest of the world, there's no compelling reason for that as far as I have seen.

The primary reason I don't like the label though is the kind of role-play that it seems to generate in these countries. While there is a general trend for unnecessary conflict in Particracy anyway, there seems to be a particular recurring theme of players taking control of a non-playable country, role-playing some kind of ethnic violence, involving an interventionist playable country and then pretty much leaving the country when they're done. I don't think it would be fair to say that this is just because of the name but I do think that it tends to reinforce a particular cliché that adopting less loaded terminology may help to avoid.

I mean, I can state that has been taken into account with recent discussions on approvals of TW nations. Some TW nations have much greater stability than others and I think that should be kept as its much harder to replicate in playable nations sometimes.

[Pragma]

I think it's wrong to keep 'third world nations' in a permanently subservient position to the 'first world' nations. I think they should be treated as simply an alternative way of playing the game. Maybe these nations have a longer climb up, but I still think if a nation demonstrates the proper RP over a long period of time it should be able to become a truly developed and internationally powerful nation. I also think we'd be sending a really bad message if we kept these primarily non-white nations in a perpetual state of lesserness, while the white nations retained their positions. Frankly Dorvik, Lourenne and Kazulia are three of the game's superpowers and they might as well be forum-based only because they are perpetually in the control of one person for hundreds of IG years. If it's the number of players in each country that causes the concern, that simply doesn't stand up. If it's because they were historically poor and underdeveloped, I'd like to introduce you to South Korea. Yes I am biased on this, but that doesn't make me wrong

In terms of terminology, I would prefer that we referred to them as 'forum-based nations'. That's what they are at this point.

[Rogue]

Eeeh sorry but that is just kinda wrong Pragma. The reason for keeping the third world less powerfull has nothing to do with them being mostly "non white" its ridiculous to state it is. And honestly involving that into the discussion will only degrade your main argument. No one has ever suggested this is the case. Neither should you. Lets stay to the facts.

[Reddy]

This is a very difficult topic. In RL colonies have only been ex for about 60 years on average and clearly the vast majority are nowhere near South Korea. It is quite impossible to predict how they might be a century from now. IG colonies have been independent for at least a thousand years, is it reasonable to assume that most should have moved up by now? What allowances should be made for the fact that game time is so fast moving ie a thousand IG years is probably about 5 RL years? I think Moderation's current case by case approach is reasonable - some TW countries have been upgraded and in any case, we still have many underdeveloped countries in the Old World.