RP laws that ban parties

[Aquinas]

I would like to make the argument that RP laws which ban particular types of political parties (eg. socialist parties, liberal parties, fascist parties) should no longer be allowed.

My argument would be that where such laws have been enforced, the tendency has been for them to suppress/discourage RP more than to foster it. In some cases, the players introducing such laws have not had good histories in terms of their relationships with other players in the same nations as them, and it has looked like the intention of the law is more to make the nation "their" nation and discourage other players from joining and/or staying, as opposed to wanting to encourage other players to join.

My suggestion would be that in specific circumstances, Moderation should still be able to enforce a "ban" on a political party where there is a very strong RP case to do so. The most obvious example where this would be justified would be where a party is seriously breaking the law. However, these blanket bans on specific types/ideologies of parties are, in my view, not generally a very good idea.

I invite anyone interested in this topic to offer their thoughts.

[dannypk]

Isn't this actually more restricting of RP, apart from making it more unrealistic? If we're roleplaying a dictatorship, one cannot expect parties that oppose the dictator's ideology to exist and be allowed as if nothing.

This is yet another case of generalising, just because a few have used this in bad faith doesn't mean everyone will. And even, if a majority (or everyone) in the nation approves it, it's no different from any other RP law.

As someone who introduced an RP law that prohibited non-leftist parties, I had my reasons. With the purpose of making sure RP is protected and a right-wing wouldn't take over Trigunia and suddenly end all the RP we've been doing, I had to make sure right-wing parties didn't touch the nation. And if a party complained of this, I would make all the parties vote and let moderation officially approve it (and so far, we've had no complaints).

So, if no one's complaining, how are we restricting RP? There are also plenty of nations you can join instead, without taking into consideration that these RP laws aren't expected to last eternally.

I believe this will only restrict and ruin RP more than letting it happen. If we're going to ban this, then let's ban the possibility of making all parties factions of one only party, too, as following the same logic, it "restricts RP".

[Aquinas]

Isn't this actually more restricting of RP, apart from making it more unrealistic? If we're roleplaying a dictatorship, one cannot expect parties that oppose the dictator's ideology to exist and be allowed as if nothing.

This is yet another case of generalising, just because a few have used this in bad faith doesn't mean everyone will. And even, if a majority (or everyone) in the nation approves it, it's no different from any other RP law.

As someone who introduced an RP law that prohibited non-leftist parties, I had my reasons. With the purpose of making sure RP is protected and a right-wing wouldn't take over Trigunia and suddenly end all the RP we've been doing, I had to make sure right-wing parties didn't touch the nation. And if a party complained of this, I would make all the parties vote and let moderation officially approve it (and so far, we've had no complaints).

So, if no one's complaining, how are we restricting RP? There are also plenty of nations you can join instead, without taking into consideration that these RP laws aren't expected to last eternally.

I believe this will only restrict and ruin RP more than letting it happen. If we're going to ban this, then let's ban the possibility of making all parties factions of one only party, too, as following the same logic, it "restricts RP".

Thanks for your response, Danny. I actually quite like it we have a communist-themed nation, as I think it's nice to have at least one of those in the game. I am also impressed there are two of you playing together in Trigunia. Two players may not sound much, but to have two active RPers together in the same nation is no small achievement, especially with player numbers being what they are at the moment. I am a little envious, as I wish another active RPer would join me in Malivia...

Nevertheless, despite being something of a "fan" of communist Trigunia, I do find that when I look at what is going on in terms of your RP law, it raises questions for me.

Firstly, I can find no evidence of your RP law, which amongst other things bans non-socialist parties, ever having been approved by Moderation on the forum, as it was supposed to be under section 6.5 of the Game Rules.

The same section of the Game Rules states that "RP laws passed must be listed within the "Bills Under Debate" section under a bill entitled: "RP Laws of COUNTRYNAME" and must include a brief synopsis of the RP law and a link to its original passage". This has not been complied with either. All there is is a copy of the RP law sitting in your "Bills under Debate" section, and this does not even include a link to the bill that was originally passed. Also, there is no brief synopsis of the bill; a player would have to read through a fair chunk of text before getting to the important bit about non-socialist parties being banned.

Article 3 of the bill indicates that not only are non-socialist parties banned, but that "A socialist party and organisation may still be suspended if suspected of plotting against the socialist republic". This could easily convey the impression that a reformist socialist party which wanted to remove the ban on non-socialist parties would be banned if it attempted to do that, or even showed any indication of wanting to do that. In effect, this would establish a never-ending communist dictatorship which cannot be reformed, even if parties holding a majority of the seats wanted to do so.

The old Game Rules specifically forbade the following:

22.3.3 RP laws which cannot be revoked or can only be revoked by a higher majority than was required to create the law in the first place. There must be a clear mechanism through which a RP law can be overthrown.

This is an important principle. Any RP law which conveys the impression there is no clear mechanism through which it can be reformed is problematic.

The last sentence of your bill reads:

Modifying the constitution requires the approval of a majority, including, necessarily, the ruling party.

The reference to the consent of the "ruling party" being required is ambiguous, and may convey the impression this means the RP law cannot be amended without the consent of the specific party controlled by you - Krasnoye Dvizheniye/the Red Movement - which created the bill in the first place and is referred to in the preamble of the text as follows:

Led by the Red Movement, this Constitution pretends to make the nation stable and invulnerable to any internal and external force.

Again, this may convey the impression the Constitution is the "property" of your party.

So to sum up, whilst I happen to like the RP going on in Trigunia generally, in introducing a RP law to this nation, I feel, with respect, that you have not been scrupulous either to follow the requirements of the Game Rules or to ensure the system you are attempting to enforce is clearly communicated to and easily "accessible" to new players. Please do not take this criticism too hard because you are not, unfortunately, alone in this. There has been a pattern of this kind of thing going on for a long time, and this is one of the reasons I have come to believe allowing RP laws like this tends, in general, to do more harm than good and create more confusion than clarity.

More generally, it feels rather like the OOC message RP laws like this send out is "This is my nation and you have got to do things my way if you want to play here". That may not always be the intention (although in several cases I have seen, I feel it almost certainly has been, unfortunately!) but nevertheless that is how it tends to come across. That does not really create a positive and welcoming player environment, and I would suggest that in a game with 464 playing spots and scarcely more than 100 players, this is not something we can afford to be doing.

[dannypk]

As I said before, the law is not official and I just expect new players to follow it. If by any chance a new player in Trigunia complained, I would make the law be voted again, and if passed, make moderation officially approve it. The Constitution isn't OOC and therefore can't be considered an RP law in this case (which is why all the messages in the bill are IC and not OOC).

Article 3 says that leftist parties trying to end the socialist republic will face consequences. This doesn't mean changing the Constitution, as the Constitution itself is just a specific way of organising the socialist republic based on my party leader's published theses. The Constitution is just a mirror of these theses, and someone changing the Constitution is, in any case, attempting against the theses and not against the socialist republic. Similar to how attempting against Marxism-Leninism didn't necessarily mean attempting against the USSR.

And as the Constitution says, "These articles are subject to change. Modifying the constitution requires the approval of a majority, including, necessarily, the ruling party." The Constitution can be changed by any party, and the ruling party needs to necessarily approve it. The reason for this is precisely to avoid the "eternally stuck as a socialist republic", if all parties left and a new party joined, with the purpose of ending the socialist republic, it would totally be able to with just repealing certain articles and finally dissolving the socialist republic. This makes RP more realistic (avoiding a new party suddenly joining and out of nowhere dissolving the socialist republic and possibly making a radical change, especially if not backed by another realistic RP they may come with).

Also, just an irrelevant note, it wouldn't require my approval since I'm not even the ruling party, now at least. Anyone has the chance of becoming the ruling party/faction and manage to tear down the socialist republic. But it shouldn't be something really easy and simple to do, as it'd make the RP more unrealistic.

[Aquinas]

As I said before, the law is not official and I just expect new players to follow it. If by any chance a new player in Trigunia complained, I would make the law be voted again, and if passed, make moderation officially approve it. The Constitution isn't OOC and therefore can't be considered an RP law in this case (which is why all the messages in the bill are IC and not OOC).

Article 3 says that leftist parties trying to end the socialist republic will face consequences. This doesn't mean changing the Constitution, as the Constitution itself is just a specific way of organising the socialist republic based on my party leader's published theses. The Constitution is just a mirror of these theses, and someone changing the Constitution is, in any case, attempting against the theses and not against the socialist republic. Similar to how attempting against Marxism-Leninism didn't necessarily mean attempting against the USSR.

And as the Constitution says, "These articles are subject to change. Modifying the constitution requires the approval of a majority, including, necessarily, the ruling party." The Constitution can be changed by any party, and the ruling party needs to necessarily approve it. The reason for this is precisely to avoid the "eternally stuck as a socialist republic", if all parties left and a new party joined, with the purpose of ending the socialist republic, it would totally be able to with just repealing certain articles and finally dissolving the socialist republic. This makes RP more realistic (avoiding a new party suddenly joining and out of nowhere dissolving the socialist republic and possibly making a radical change, especially if not backed by another realistic RP they may come with).

Also, just an irrelevant note, it wouldn't require my approval since I'm not even the ruling party, now at least. Anyone has the chance of becoming the ruling party/faction and manage to tear down the socialist republic. But it shouldn't be something really easy and simple to do, as it'd make the RP more unrealistic.

<deep breath> ... A lot of muddle here ...

As I said before, the law is not official and I just expect new players to follow it.

Your previous post stated you "introduced an RP law that prohibited non-leftist parties". Nowhere in the RP law itself or in the reference bill for it your Bills under Debate section is there any indication whatsoever that the law is "not official" or voluntary. I am curious as to what right you feel you have to "expect" players to obey this law when you apparently know full well it has no grounding under the Game Rules. It is difficult not to come to the conclusion you are purposely misleading players.

The Constitution isn't OOC and therefore can't be considered an RP law in this case (which is why all the messages in the bill are IC and not OOC).

Since when have IC constitutions been OOC, and since when have IC RP laws been OOC? This is nonsense. Many players, especially new and unfamiliar ones, would assume your law is a RP law enforceable under the Game Rules. You have done nothing whatsoever to give them any indication otherwise.

Article 3 says that leftist parties trying to end the socialist republic will face consequences. This doesn't mean changing the Constitution, as the Constitution itself is just a specific way of organising the socialist republic based on my party leader's published theses. The Constitution is just a mirror of these theses, and someone changing the Constitution is, in any case, attempting against the theses and not against the socialist republic. Similar to how attempting against Marxism-Leninism didn't necessarily mean attempting against the USSR.

Besides the fact this explanation is convoluted and seems of limited relevance, it is not mentioned in the bill at all.

And as the Constitution says, "These articles are subject to change. Modifying the constitution requires the approval of a majority, including, necessarily, the ruling party." The Constitution can be changed by any party, and the ruling party needs to necessarily approve it. The reason for this is precisely to avoid the "eternally stuck as a socialist republic", if all parties left and a new party joined, with the purpose of ending the socialist republic, it would totally be able to with just repealing certain articles and finally dissolving the socialist republic. This makes RP more realistic (avoiding a new party suddenly joining and out of nowhere dissolving the socialist republic and possibly making a radical change, especially if not backed by another realistic RP they may come with).

The ambiguity persists, since you have made no clear explanation in the bill as to what the term "ruling party" means. A player could easily assume it is a direct reference to your own party.

Also, just an irrelevant note, it wouldn't require my approval since I'm not even the ruling party, now at least. Anyone has the chance of becoming the ruling party/faction and manage to tear down the socialist republic. But it shouldn't be something really easy and simple to do, as it'd make the RP more unrealistic.

Your law, which even you now admit is "not official", has no basis in the Game Rules to make the transfer of power from a socialist government to a non-socialist government more difficult for other players to achieve.

With respect, you are all over the place, and what you are essentially doing is using the cover of the RP law system in order to potentially manipulate players in to playing in Trigunia the way you personally believe they should play. It is difficult to imagine a more powerful argument for why these types of RP laws should no longer be allowed, because at least then it would no longer be so easy for this kind of confusion and nonsense to be perpetuated.

[robmark0000]

I am not against this proposal from Aquinas, and I think it is ruthless that this is the only solution if we want to enforce the protection of our RP. (Watch the debate about political protocols.) I would propose the deleting of bills what want to change the country's name, HoS, HoG, legislature or regions, and enforce the political protocols and RP-protection like this, rather than banning political parties.

I agree that all active parties and players has worth, and none of them should be banned. We both have to enforce the realistic RP and securing the right to play.

[jamescfm]

We'll have a discussion about this within the Moderation team and get back to you with a proper response. For obvious reasons this is linked to the previous discussion of political protocols and we'll consider the two matters at the same time.

[jamescfm]

Having discussed this matter a little more within the Moderation team we have decided to continue with the current rules as they exist at the moment. The concerns that are raised here and demonstrated in the case that was brought up are reasonable and we understand them. Role-play laws of all kinds necessitate a balance between interesting and realistic role-play and ensuring openness and fairness for all players.

In spite of this we are reasonably confident that mechanisms exist that help to prevent the system of role-play laws being abused. In addition to the ability for players to overturn these through a simple majority vote, Moderation also regularly rejects role-play laws of this kind if it is felt that they are being introduced in order to stifle role-play. Like with any area of the game we'll continue to keep an eye on role-play laws and if something changes then we may reconsider our view.