Feedback: Political protocols

[Auditorii]

I'm going to leave this open for a few more days to discuss and get feedback. We appreciate everyone who has contributed.

[robmark0000]

Open letter to Particracy Moderation.

In the name of the protection of active roleplayers of Particracy Classic, we, the signatories of this letter re-requesting the creation of political protocols based on original plans. We have enough that inactive, don't roleplaying, new players trolling out our RP without Forum-posts, ruin our detailed political systems without Forum-posts, and forming the country's history with absolute ignoring of our RP, empowered by the stupid game-mechanics.

The political protocols would make possible for the actively roleplaying new players to change the political system, if they showed serious RP of their own, and would make impossible for ignorant and inactive new players to ruin the RP of the latter ones and the old players. We, the signatories think that political protocols should be just as important like the
Cultural Protocols.

We hope Moderation will hear our voice as it did with Liu Che's letter about Particracy Rankings.

Thank you in advance!

Signatories:
1. RobMark
2. The Moderates
3. ChengerRares1
4. Bálint
5. Lucipher
6. Augustus Germanicus
7. QV73
8. Mr. F47
9. LC73
10. DueWizard70
11. XanderOne
12. Doc

[Aquinas]

We have enough that inactive, don't roleplaying, new players trolling out our RP without Forum-posts, ruin our detailed political systems without Forum-posts, and forming the country's history with absolute ignoring of our RP, empowered by the stupid game-mechanics.

Could you provide any evidence for the bolded part of your statement?

Also, we already have a rule against "nation raiding", in section 4.9 of the Game Rules:

"Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned.

I do not happen to like the way this rule is framed, but nevertheless, it provides protection against attempts to disrupt RP which are motivated by "trolling". Shouldn't this be sufficient to address the problem?

[Lucipher]

Also, we already have a rule against "nation raiding", in section 4.9 of the Game Rules:

"Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned.

I do not happen to like the way this rule is framed, but nevertheless, it provides protection against attempts to disrupt RP which are motivated by "trolling". Shouldn't this be sufficient to address the problem?

I don't think that's what he's addressing here. The complaint is more about players that come into a nation and (malevolently or not) alter the current direction and government of a nation, without any sort of role-play involved. Frequently they inactivate shortly after, and whether in an empty nation or a multi-party popular one, it's obnoxious to say the least. The political protocols would help some nations that are RP intensive in their government (e.g. Hutori, Dorvik, Istalia, Likatonia, Yingdala, and Endralon to name a few) not get ruined as soon as a player gets 67% of seats.

On another note, it would be nice if at least the nation rp categorization list would be updated every month with the dynamic rankings, just to provide some updated info to players based on what's happening. Addition categories for "empty" and "very intensive" would be nice too, although I'd prefer "very intensive" as it allows people to understand that nations like Istalia and Yingdala have very strict systems that people can't just run into, make a fool of, then leave. Just putting in my part here.

[Aquinas]

Also, we already have a rule against "nation raiding", in section 4.9 of the Game Rules:

"Nation raiding" or a malevolent coordinated effort by a single user or group of users to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation is strictly prohibited. Players interacting in nation raiding will be sanctioned.

I do not happen to like the way this rule is framed, but nevertheless, it provides protection against attempts to disrupt RP which are motivated by "trolling". Shouldn't this be sufficient to address the problem?

I don't think that's what he's addressing here.

It clearly is. The letter which robmark wrote and 11 others (yourself included) "signed" specifically referred to "inactive, don't roleplaying, new players trolling out our RP without Forum-posts, ruin our detailed political systems without Forum-posts, and forming the country's history with absolute ignoring of our RP, empowered by the stupid game-mechanics".

The complaint is more about players that come into a nation and (malevolently or not) alter the current direction and government of a nation, without any sort of role-play involved. Frequently they inactivate shortly after, and whether in an empty nation or a multi-party popular one, it's obnoxious to say the least. The political protocols would help some nations that are RP intensive in their government (e.g. Hutori, Dorvik, Istalia, Likatonia, Yingdala, and Endralon to name a few) not get ruined as soon as a player gets 67% of seats.

On another note, it would be nice if at least the nation rp categorization list would be updated every month with the dynamic rankings, just to provide some updated info to players based on what's happening. Addition categories for "empty" and "very intensive" would be nice too, although I'd prefer "very intensive" as it allows people to understand that nations like Istalia and Yingdala have very strict systems that people can't just run into, make a fool of, then leave. Just putting in my part here.

All players, new and old alike, need to come to terms with the fact that the transfer of power from one party or coalition of parties to another is a feature of the game. You may regard it as "the stupid game mechanics" (the term used in the letter you signed) or "obnoxious" (the term you used above), but in a political simulator based around parties and elections, this is simply a fundamental part of the game.

Role-playing on the forum, whilst (in my personal view) something to be encouraged, is not a requirement for playing the game and never has been. Those who do role-play on the forum need to be able to adapt their role-play for when the in-game circumstances change - such as when a new party or coalition of parties comes to power, or alterations are made to the political system and the laws.

For those who want to be able to control a nation without the risk of losing "power", the ex-colonies are a better option for you than in-game nations where your party can lose an election to a newcomer.

To be honest, I have to say I found the tone of the letter rather negative and disrespectful towards new players and players who do not role-play on the forum. I am surprised and disappointed by some of the individuals who appear to have "signed" it. Ironically, the insight it sheds in to the attitude of its writer and signatories actually ends up presenting a rather convincing argument against the very thing it is arguing for.

[moderates]

To be fair, I don't think that new players who change RP rules are maliciously trolling. However I understand that some people might see them as passively "trolling", without meaning too and completely un-maliciously, by ruining RP they have set up. One negative of political protocols enshrining a certain form of government is that this could be seen as stopping certain parties (Republican parties in monarchical systems and vice versa for example), but this isn't the case as if the nation's players really wanted to change it it would be assumed that there would be a party of those already mentioned ideologies in the nation already.

I think new players should be able to change the form of government, but only after 5 IG years or something like that, so that they have a chance to develop RP (can be via bills/debate) and learn about the game and the country. This time limit would also mean that "old" players don't have a monopoly on the nations government (which they would if there wasn't a time limit, but that a party couldn't just come in, win an election, change the government and leave. If they spend a while RPing then they are more likely to want to stay in that nation to reap the rewards of their labour (RP).

Also, I don't think they should have to post on forum (that would be good but shouldn't be compulsory) as some people are solid RPers on the game via bills and debate and messages etc but don't post on the forum. I also think that "acitve roleplayers" as mentioned by RobMark should mean players who pass and debate bills/vote on them regularly. Also, it's true that new player usually win an election, though not a majority which usually puts them into coalition with an older player, so it is probably unlikely that without the "consent" (i.e votes) of the older player they will change any of the governmental institutions (Monarch/President).

[jamescfm]

As evidenced by the existence of this feedback thread, the idea of political protocols has been something that Moderation considered in the past and welcomed player feedback on. If you read the earlier comments in the thread, you'll see that the response to the idea was mixed (at best) and generally players seemed cautious about the idea. Although I was not part of the Moderation team at the time, the current team have had a couple of conversations about the idea and in general have felt that it is not something that we are interested in pursuing at the moment. In future we might reconsider this view and players are always welcome to express their opinion on the matter.

With that said the open letter that has been presented here does not appear to provide any real justification for the political protocols system. At no point does it explain how or why political protocols would be beneficial to role-play nor does it explain the problems that not having a political protocols system creates. For over a decade the game has operated with an active role-play community (varying and fluctuating in size) without political protocols, it would appear to require some justification for players to assert that in the past few weeks things changed substantially such that the current system is no longer appropriate.

I have to admit that I am extremely disappointed with the number of players who have put their name to a letter that takes such a rude and disrespectful attitude towards new players. In particular I find this frustrating because I had a conversation with two of these players yesterday about describing the behaviour of new players who want to role-play a country in a different manner as "trolling".

In clear and explicit terms I told these players that it was unfair to accuse players (especially new players) of being trolls simply because they do not agree with your particular vision of how a country's political system should operate. Politics is the act of disagreeing with other people about governance, so it would seem obvious that if you are going to play a political simulation game then you need to accept that disagreement and not denigrate the players who are on the other side of the debate.

In a sense I regret that the issue of political protocols has become intertwined with this kind of attitude to new players because in the past I have supported the idea myself as a way to enhance role-play in certain countries. Frankly though if the system is going to be exploited to punish players who are new to the game or who don't understand the principles of role-play yet then that will not be something that Moderation could realistically consider enforcing.

As has already been mentioned there are specific sections of the Game Rules that prohibit players from engaging in "a malevolent coordinated effort [...] to interrupt the gameplay, significantly alter the culture or direction of a nation". If players feel that trolling is happening then that's already against the Game Rules and we don't need political protocols to enforce it. Ultimately if you want the political protocols system to be implemented then you need to provide some pretty compelling evidence that you're not just going to use it to target new players who disagree with you about the functioning of government.

[Augustus Germanus]

It feels a little cheap to join a country with player(s) enjoying the RP built there and then receive more than 2/3rds of the vote and completely change the political system as if that was a normal and realistic thing to do. When you think about it, wouldn't it be more compelling for players to find out that you need to build a realistic RP around why you want to change the political system. For example the realism in Luthori is not really high, since in one term the right-wing parties manages to restore the "Holy Empire" and in the next term (e.g. after four years) the left-wing parties manages to restore the "Republic", and then it continues like this. Realistically speaking I don't think the people of Luthori would just sit and watch this unfold. Now I'm not saying that Luthori specifically should have political protocols, that is up to its players, but what I am saying is that for example the Monarchy of France wasn't removed by newcomers it had extensive background to support the establishment of the French First Republic through their revolution, the directory was overthrown by Napoleon with good background that could motivate it and motivate the establishment of the consulate. Napoleon didn't just out of the blue make himself First Consul for life and then Emperor of the French, both of these were given reasoning and a good way of implementing them, that being through referendums approved by a large majority of the French people.

To change the political system in a country here in PT is like the case with Yuan Shikai (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Shikai), were he helped create the Republic of China (which had a very good explanation for its creation) then just out of the blue made himself Emperor as if the Chinese were just going to accept it. Yuan Shikai's transition to "Emperor of China" in 1915 contradicts every (RP) event that had just been before them, the Revolution of 1911 that deposed the Qing dynasty and so forth.

Most if not all of the signatories sees the political protocols as a way to protect the political system of their respective country, and for that political system and its possible successors to be able to rise and fall with good explanation for why. I do also want it to be something that can remain in force even when a party has received over 2/3rd. BUT the inclusion of political protocols gives us something else as well. And that is the introduction of more RPers. When a new player arrives in a country that has a political protocol and has some sort of plan of how he/she wants the country to be, they will learn that to accomplish their plan they have to work for it by making realistic RP that justifies it. A new player will find out that if he/she wants to alter the political system he/she will have to present a good realistic case for it by RPing. This will make it more fun for the new player as he/she will be able to say that he/she did it by their own work. I believe I would find it more interesting with a challenge when I enter a new country instead of something that could be done the moment I enter it without any reasonable explanation to why it was able to be done.

I think we who wants the implementation of the political protocols should focus more of what we can give the new players instead of trying to restrict them. Through political protocols we can give them more experience and a way in to the larger world of RP that many new players of the game are not so aware of. Political protocols for us is to protect our work in our respective countries, while they are for the new players a good way to train for or be given the chance for good RP. If new players AND old players wants to change the political system in a country with political protocols, they should try to RP for it as the player before them did.

I hope my reasoning makes sense. Thank you.

[robmark0000]

OK, just see one situation.

There is 4 parties in a very intensively RPed country. 3 players want a republic, and they built that republic together (hundreds of Forum-posts, thousands of Wiki-edits, hundreds of IG-bills) for months or years. But they parties are not really popular on game-mechanics, and the 4th party (who is inactive on Forum, Wiki and it visit the Particracy Game on every 3rd day to not being inactivated) is really popular, got one time 2/3. How good! (s)he say and delete the republic (without Forum or Wiki) in a bill, what's description simply is "X", with changing the HoS name, the HoG name and the legislative assembly's name. Further he write a bill about changing the country's name. After this heroic and active, and RPful action he is guarding his new anti-republic form of state, with visiting the page in every 3rd days to not being inactivated. Is this good? Is this something what Moderation and Game Rules should assist?

You always speaking about encourages new players, and what about old ones? Old players not deserving their work to be respected? Especially if they're the OOC-majority of a PT Community of a country? Because some events in Endralon (especially in the last month), I was really thinking to leave the game, and leave the permanent fight with those players who don't respecting my work. Thanks God, the majority of players in Endralon do (Thank you, Novas, Bálint, Rosalux, VoidWeller!), but there is always a new player who want to destroy it just-for-fun. And I think many of other old players have this feeling, even if I do not want to list names. So active roleplayers, who literally building PT world, can leave, can be disrespected, just to encourages new players?

And to be honest, I am really on the part of new players. Even if they're don't RPing very much. You can ask them, I always sending them a message when they arrive, about showing them where is Endralon currently in the world (map, rankings, history, economy etc.) and send them a link to the Discord server what I created to new players to communicate and joking, and u know. And this political protocols also in the side of those new players. What tool we have right now to prevent the destruction of our detailed and old RP? Ban parties. Fucking BAN parties. Political protocols wouldn't ban them, just prevent to create their inactive and not-RPed political system without good and lot RP. Which is better morally? Banning them, or just prevent somethings, and leave them to play with the ideology, creed they want with?

And about the petition, we expect real change. Liu Che made the rankings advisory again with 13 signatories. Then Auditorii said that the PT Community lost faith in rankings. Now, we have 12 signatories, I hope he will say the same. Because we lost faith in the status quo, and the disrespecting of our RP and hard work.

#OldRPersMatters

[jamescfm]

In your original post and the one that you just posted, you draw a comparison to the open letter authored by Liu Che but I reject the relevance of this comparison. In Liu Che's letter he outlines the reasons why the signatory players feel that the advisory rankings are problematic and draws particular attention to issue of plagiarism which triggered the players to lose confidence in the system. At no point in that letter are the words "trolling", "stupid" or "ignorant" used.

In your letter though there's no explanation of why the political protocols system is necessary and there are a series of rude comments about players. For example the phrases "new players trolling out our RP [...] empowered by the stupid game-mechanics" and "ignorant and inactive new players" make it pretty clear that this is motivated by a desire to restrict the ability of new players to play in a way that is different to your own role-play.

Moderation is open to discussing political protocols but repeatedly attacking new players is not a compelling reason to radically change the way in which the game is played. As I stated clearly in my previous response, the Game Rules already have provisions for dealing with malicious behaviour by players. The example that you just provided for example could be easily dealt with under Section 5.3c (bold below).

3. Users can request on-time or early inactivations of other parties HERE for the following reasons:
-- 3a. They have not logged in for 2 days (48 hours) and have not updated their party description or their party name or their party color or have not voted on any bills currently active for voting;
-- 3b. They are "Party Sitting" which means that they log on, do not vote on bills in order to avoid being activated by automatic sweeps or by reporting, inactivation will only happen when this behavior has been on-going for 4 or more days;
-- 3c. Similar to "Party Sitting" a player will be inactivated when logging in every 3 days and voting this is known as "Dodging inactivation";
-- 3d. Moderation reserves the right to inactivate players who are breaking the rules, contribute negatively to the gameplay of others, present a block to RP without reasonable objection or for any other reasonable cause.