Feedback on changes to section 7 of the Game Rules

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

Feedback on changes to section 7 of the Game Rules

Postby Aquinas » Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:34 pm

If it is okay, I would like to offer my thoughts on the recently announced Changes to Section 7 of the Game Rules.

This is essentially a good change, making it a formal rules requirement to include the real-life equivalents in Cultural Protocol documents. As mentioned in the past, I personally believe the best long-term solution to sorting out issues relating to the presentation of Cultural Protocol documents would be for Moderation to centralise them in a list/document, a little like with the ex-colonies, and then allow players to petition to amend them. This is because once in-game Cultural Protocol bills have been passed, it is impossible for anyone - either the player who created the bill or Moderators - to then edit the bill description in order to correct error and omissions, whereas a centralised document maintained by Moderation could be amended as and when required.

Now for some more specific points:

(a) Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that...

Proposals for new cultural protocols (not updated cultural protocols) must have the support (voting "yes") of one party that has been continuously active (i.e: no inactivations) within the respective nation for 15 days


Has been changed to...

Proposals for new Cultural Protocols in Culturally Open nations must have the support (voting "yes") of one party that has been continuously active (i.e. no inactivations) within the respective nation for 30 days;


James' post, showing the "new" and "previous" versions of the rules, suggests this is not a new rule, but as I say, I have an intuitive hunch that there has actually been a rule change here. If the rule has been changed, then lets make sure its properly announced. If it has not been changed, my apologies (and so much for my intuitive hunches!).

(b) The OP for the Cultural Protocol Queries thread needs to be edited to reflect the rule change. Note also that the OP says 15 days, not 30 days, for new CPs in Open nations...

(c)
1. Cultural Protocols can be implemented or updated by passing a bill entitled "CP: Cultural Protocols of NATION - DATE" with the support of a two-thirds majority of players with seats, and then posting a link to the passed Cultural Protocol in the appropriate thread located HERE;


I would query the necessity of requiring players to give the date in the title of the Cultural Protocol bill. However, if this is to be required, then I suggest the rule should clarify whether the in-game date or the real-life date are required (I presume it is the latter).

Also, the link ("HERE") is broken.

(d)
2. Cultural Protocols implemented or updated will be reviewed by Moderation and left open for 48 hours for any community member to raise objections to the proposed Cultural Protocol. Moderation will also review the proposed Cultural Protocol for accuracy and continuity;


I would argue that in cases where a new Cultural Protocol is being created in an Open nation, the minimum consultation period should be a little longer than 48 hours, in order to provide more of an opportunity for discussion. 96 hours/4 days, perhaps?

Also, speaking more generally, one of the peculiar changes I have noticed is there has been a change in interpretation over time as to what the 48 hour wait means. Originally, it was the minimum consultation period, with the clock starting from the time the CP bill was posted on the thread, and with Moderation having the discretion to take longer to make a decision if more time is needed for discussion/consideration. The phrasing of the rule then was "no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval". Now we seem to have moved to a situation where the clock is considered to have started from the moment the Moderator acknowledges the Cultural Protocol request, with the assumption seeming to be that Moderation is obligated to make a decision 48 hours later. I feel the original interpretation was more sensible, and perhaps that's something you would give consideration to.

(e) Turning to section 7a of the Game Rules, on implementing Culturally Open status.

1. Players within any nation can request that an existing cultural protocol be overridden and the nation set to "Culturally Open" status. The thread for these requests is located HERE;


The link ("HERE") is broken.

3. Requests for "Culturally Open" status must be passed by a 2/3 (two-thirds) majority of active players in the nation. Players requesting Culturally Open status must have been present in the nation for 30 days continuously active (no inactivations, etc.);


I would make the case for dropping the 30 day requirement. My reasoning being that if a Cultural Protocol has made a nation inaccessible/unpopular, then it is unlikely anybody will stay there for as long as 30 days. In other words, all the 30 day requirement does is make it more difficult to remove extremely inaccessible/unpopular CPs than slightly inaccessible/unpopular ones! Also, there is no real "harm" in somebody putting in a request for Culturally Open status. If Moderation feels the request is unreasonable, Moderation can always turn it down.

(f) Speaking more generally I feel the two largest components of the Cultural Protocol rules should probably be (i) one section explaining the process of drafting Cultural Protocol bills and getting them approved and (ii) another section explaining the requirements for players of playing in a Culturally Protected nation.

With regards to (i), I'm really glad the rules have improved with the requirement to state the Real Life Equivalents. However, I am still not sure they are covering everything they should do. As an example, they do not set out a requirement to express a nation's ethnic and religious demographics in percentage terms. I assume this is something the current team of Moderators would want to insist on for Cultural Protocol bills (although please correct me if I am wrong).

With regards to (ii), section (7b) goes to considerable (and in my view, excessive/unnecessary) detail about the process of punishing players for Cultural Protocol violations, but does not actually address the issue of what the requirements are for playing in Culturally Protected nations or what constitutes a violation of a Cultural Protocol.

In both of these area (ie. how CP bills are presented and how CPs are enforced) I would argue more detail would be helpful. Below I have copied some of the previous rules, which I feel it would be helpful to look at. Obviously there is no need to necessarily reintroduce all of those exact same rules and formulations, but as I say, I do feel a review of them could be helpful.

6. Culture.

Some nations in Particracy have Cultural Protocols, meaning they are "Culturally Protected" and bound by this section of the rules, whilst others are "Culturally Open" and are not. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation.

6.1 All role-play must respect the established cultural background in Culturally Protected nations.

6.1.1 The players in a nation have an individual and collective responsibility to be mindful of the nation's cultural complexion and take it into account in their role-play decisions. For example, it would usually be unreasonable for a party to present itself primarily as the representative of a minuscule ethnic or religious minority, since realistically such a party would be unlikely to win significant electoral support. Similarly, for example, in a nation split between 2 ethnic communities and with 4 players, it would be reasonable to have 2 cross-ethnic parties and an ethnic-based party for each ethnic group, but it would usually be unreasonable for all 4 parties to be ethnic-based parties representing the same ethnic group. In cases where too many parties belong to one cultural or religious group and Moderation is brought in to arbitrate, the onus will generally be on the more recently-established party to amend its identity.

6.1.2 Special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically.

6.2 The constitutional variables listed below must be in either English or a language authorised for the nation in the Nation Renaming Guide:

- Constitutional variables introduced not through the game mechanics, but through constitutional role-play laws (see section 19).

- National motto.

- Head of State title.

- Head of Government title.

- Legislative assembly title

- National sport.

- National animal.

- National anthem.

- Title of subnational entities.

Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented.

When one of these constitutional variables appears in English in a non-English nation, it should be interpreted as an English translation of the actual official variable. The actual official variable should be presumed to be in the language most appropriate to the culture of the nation. This reality must be respected by players in role-play. Similarly, when a bill proposes to translate one of these constitutional variables directly from the native language to English, the bill should be treated as an OOC matter about the aesthetic appearance of the nation page, to be determined through game mechanics.

6.3 Party names must be in either English or a language appropriate for the cultural background of the nation. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented. When an English party name appears in a non-English nation, the name should be interpreted as an English translation of the actual party name, which should be presumed to be in an appropriate language. This reality must be recognised by players in role-play.

6.4 Character names and especially Head of State, Head of Government and Cabinet minister names must be appropriate for the cultural background of the nation.

Please remember it is the responsibility of players to ensure the candidate boxes on their Party Overview screens are filled in with appropriate names. If a player is allotted seats in a Cabinet bill and has not filled in names for the relevant candidate position, then the program will automatically fill in the positions with names which might not necessarily be appropriate for the Cultural Protocol.

Whilst a few character names may be permitted to come from small cultural minorities, the broad spread of a party's character names should be plausibly realistic. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented.

6.4.1 In nations where English is present as an in-game culture, but not the majority, English character names must not be too disproportionately prevalent. For example, if 10% of the population are English, English characters should not make up half of a party's Cabinet ministers or list of candidates. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented.

6.5 As per section 11, in Culturally Protected nations, nation, region and city renaming requests which do not reflect the culture of the nation will not be implemented. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented.


16. Updating existing Cultural Protocols

16.1 In order to become official, Cultural Protocol updates must first be passed in a bill 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 one of the players sponsoring the update must have been currently continuously active in the nation (ie. no inactivations) for at least 1 month.

16.2 A request for approval of the update should then be posted on the Cultural Protocol Approvals thread. In order to become official, they must then be approved by Moderation, which will approve them if the changes are judged to be realistic. Where the changes are significant, adequate role-play justification must be be provided.

16.2.1 Moderation will not approve a Cultural Protocol request within the first 48 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. Moderation may be approached for advice on a proposed change, but any advice proffered should always be understood under the provisio that no final decision will be made until at least 48 hours after the request has been formally submitted for approval.

16.3 Whilst Cultural Protocol bills may contain information about a nation and suggestions about how to play in it, the parts of the Cultural Protocol which are officially binding are specifically:

- cultural demographics (eg. Luthori/English)

- linguistic demographics (eg. Luthori-speaking/English-speaking)

- religious demographics (e.g. Hosian/Christian)

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.

16.4 Cultural Protocol updates must contain a percentage breakdown of the cultural and religious demographics. These percentage breakdowns must add up to exactly 100, meaning that no overlaps are allowed. A maximum of 5 percentage points may be allocated to an unspecified "Other" category. The linguistic demographics, if not directly provided, will be assumed to be based on a reasonable interpretation of the cultural demographics.

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.

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.

16.6 Cultural Protocol bills must provide descriptions of the cultures, languages and religions which would be easy for an unfamiliar player to understand (eg. "Dundorfian = German"). Where appropriate, they should also provide guidance to players on where to find help with translations and character names. This might include, for example, links to Google Translate, Behind the Name's Random Name Generator and Fantasy Name Generators.

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.

16.8 Once approved, players should copy the Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the actual Cultural Protocols bill which was approved by Moderation, the Game Rules and the Cultural Protocols Index.

16.9 The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to prevent confusion by ensuring unofficial or outdated bills labelled as "Cultural Protocols" are removed from their nation page.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Feedback on changes to section 7 of the Game Rules

Postby jamescfm » Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:12 pm

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'll respond in the order that they are raised.

a) Section 7 did indeed previously mention a 15 day minimum period of activity, but this was an error because Section 7a always referred to a 30 day period. A few days ago, the error was spotted and the Rules were amended to remove the contradiction but it seems the Cultural Protocol Queries thread wasn't updated at the same time (hence it still said 15 days). The Rules that I cite as "the previous version" were the Rules at the time that the change was made.

b) The thread was actually updated this morning to link directly to the Game Rules, so that we don't have to remember to update the thread every time the Rules change.

c) I think I have now fixed all the links in Section 7. Thanks for spotting those. In terms of the dates, that's really just a suggestion to make it easier to keep track of various updates to Cultural Protocols (since they can often look very similar). Players aren't punished for not including the date in the Cultural Protocol update bill.

d) I think we can consider these suggestions. The fact of the matter is that it is uncommon at the moment for any issues to be raised within the 48 hour period from outside of Moderation. For this reason, Moderators usually approve the Cultural Protocol at the end of the 48 hours but there is no reason that they have to do so if concerns left unresolved. In fact the same section reads:
4. Moderators will approve after 48 hours and any answers to reasonable questions provided, once approved players are required to leave a copy of the Cultural Protocols in the "Bill under debate" section of their nation;

The highlighted section makes clear that Moderation won't provide approval until they are confident that any queries raised have been addressed.

e) I think it's fair to say that the 30 day period probably does not add much to the process, given the discretion afforded to Moderation by the process already. We'll consider reviewing this too.

f) In response to these general concerns, you're probably right that there is a lack of clarity in the rules at the moment. The change we approved yesterday was aiming to improve this. In all honesty it is unlikely now that we will make major changes to the rules until we have completed the process of updating the Cultural Protocols Index. Once that process is complete though we will definitely address these issues. Let me know if you have further queries.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5470
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests