Name of the "Third World" countries

[jamescfm]

The purpose of this thread is to provide an informal place for players to discuss the name of the "Third World" countries (i.e. those countries that cannot be interacted with through the game mechanics). Although it has been discussed before the immediate precursor to this thread was a post by Wu Han. The relevant section reads:

I've long thought we should move away from the term "third world" to describe the non-mechanic countries in the world; I refer to them as such because it relates to the most fundamental base dynamic between those countries which exist between the forum and the base game. In other words, they are not subject to the mechanics of the base game. If we're being honest, we cannot ignore the imprecise and frankly contested implications of using the term "third world" to describe a group of imaginary countries of diverse and distinct roleplay lore-based contexts: the principle here has often been "Vascania isn't third world," in discussion (and in praise of Pragma's work). If players choose to use this term to describe these countries OOC or IC I think that's perfectly acceptable as well, but surely Moderation's terminology shouldn't be so imprecise.

In that thread, I responded with the following:

The matter of the naming of the Third World is something that we have discussed multiple times in the Moderation team. Personally I understand the point that you make about the term "Third World" and why we might want to avoid using it, given the real world connotations. Over time the countries have been known by at least half a dozen names including my own (largely failed) attempt to brand them as the "forum-based countries".

On the other hand, "Third World" is actually somewhat precise in the sense that most players know which countries you are referring to when it is used even if it isn't a very accurate label. Finding another term that works both in-character and out-of-character would be difficult, which is why it might be better to adopt terminology that is explicitly out-of-character (like forum-based countries or non-mechanic countries).

Another alternative would be to invent and adopt an entirely fictional term to refer to this group of countries. Either this could refer to some genuine part of their position, for example calling them the "Group of 26", or it might just be an entirely made-up term like the "Otras countries" with some invented meaning. In an in-character context the only real unifying feature of all of these countries is that they all joined the World Congress Security Council at a later date than the ordinary playable countries.

Please share your thoughts on the matter and I have included a poll at the top of the thread to gauge general opinion on the matter.

[Pragma]

I don't like the name. I prefer to use 'far east' to refer to these nations. It's practical, accurate and naturalistic.

[John Cracker]

There not third world any-moore, most are more developed than most of African, South American and Southern Asian countries.

[Wu Han]

As I'm slowly circling this game for an inevitable return from my hiatus, I will continue here what I started.

Respectfully, I don't think the response given by James really addressed the specific change I was trying to propose: namely, that it is moderation which should cease calling these non-mechanics countries "third world," as my suggestion was made within the context of proposing changes to the rules. To this end, briefly, I also object to the framing of the poll question in that "we" implies a much broader, more strictly enforced change and policing of language. This is not the intent.

As James wrote:

'Third World' is actually somewhat precise in the sense that most players know which countries you are referring to when it is used even if it isn't a very accurate label. Finding another term that works both in-character and out-of-character would be difficult, which is why it might be better to adopt terminology that is explicitly out-of-character (like forum-based countries or non-mechanic countries).

Agreed. Many players are used to calling these countries "third world," and so be it. Players are (and should be) free to call them whatever they want.

Further, I think if there are any terms which players want to adopt either IC or OOC to refer to these countries (like those which James has proposed), that is quite alright as well. There would be no need for any strict enforcement of terminology or sanctions. The point is that the Game Rules, and official terms used by moderation, should be more strictly mechanistic and less imbued with thorny political terminology. In my initial comments, I wrote:

If players choose to use this term to describe these countries OOC or IC I think that's perfectly acceptable as well, but surely Moderation's terminology shouldn't be so imprecise.

If we agree that the use of the term "third world" is contested in terms of its accuracy, and/or problematic in the context of its "real world connotations," (see: John Cracker's comment, or mine, or James' for that matter) why keep it in the game rules? Just change it administratively to something mechanistic and let the community refer to these countries by any name they choose, as James had suggested.

[jamescfm]

Critiquing the framing of the discussion is probably a fair thing to do, I probably did not make it clear what the scope of this question was supposed to be. From my point of view there is no situation in which Moderation would force players to adopt particular terminology, the question should only be considered in relation to "official" Moderation documentation (i.e. the Game Rules and Moderator communications).

Several good reasons exist to change the name of these countries within that context and I don't think there are any compelling reasons not to do so. Once I have spoken properly to Auditorii and Pragma about the matter then I think we will be ready to pull the trigger and make the change.