A worrying new rule?

[robmark0000]

In the spirit of an engaged community, I would like to offer a feedback for Moderation and the player community of Particracy Classic about my opinion on a worrying (at least for me) proposed rule, which is, in my opinion, particularly directed against me and my role-play. Some might consider this a desperate screaming from me to protect my "power-playing" position in Endralon, however I do think if such a rule would be implemented that would mean this game became more authoritarian, more controlled and more unenjoyable; not even mentioning that (older players correct me if I am wrong) this rule is unprecented in the history of the game.

But what am I talking about? Today evening on the official Particracy Classic discord server, Rogue introduced a "rule proposal", which would force several nations (including mine) to "face the consequences" of their actions (I will later talk about why "facing the consequences" is not actually means "facing the consequences" in this context). In my interpretation, this rule would allow Moderation to force role-play on players they don't want to do, or sanction them if they fail to producing such a role-play; I don't know how to interpret this in an another way. Just to make clear again; this rule would allow Moderators to FORCE role-play on players.



Of course it is just a suggestion from a simple player, it not necessarily means it will be implemented anytime. However, when I asked Moderation to publicly say this stupid rule won't be added to the Game Rules, they ignored my messages; and when I privately contacted a Moderator about this, he said he "will neither confirm or deny." And at that point, considering that one of the Moderators is one of the loudest speakers against my "unrealistic" RP, I started to believe such a rule really can make it to be implemented. And this is the main reason why I am writing this post right now, however I have no desire to enter an another drama.

Why is this rule entirely stupid?

As I stated several times on Discord before, and I will say here proudly, publicly too, while I am playing in Endralon, I will never allow anyone to militarily invade or harm it, given by my rights through Section 6.2 of the Game Rules. Why is that? Is that because I do my usual "power-playing? The answer is: no. I am simply not interested and never was in military role-play, I finding it totally boring, although I respect if someone good in it and loves it. Because there is no fun for me if you just come to Endralon and with 5-6 well-written military post do a war, while I am sitting in the background or writing posts I totally do not enjoy to write.

This does not mean I am "power-playing". During my player career, I wrote several posts regarding economic regression, diplomatic defeat or even terrorist attacks seriously affecting Endralon. Maybe they are not written too often, however there are plenty of them, proving that I am interested in defeats I am enjoying to write and makes me having fun. As I said, military defeat is NOT one of them, since military RP itself is not attractive for me. I did try to purchase military equipment, I did try to make some order around my military, but this was not because I would enjoyed it, but because I felt it is a necessity for the administration of Endralon.

Some example for my "defeat" posts in the past:
~ 4855 global recession
~ 4860s Security Council election loss
~ Terrorist attack against Endralonians
~ Operation Unitatis in Kundrati

But me being a "power-player" or not, is not something should be relevant considering the debate on this rule. Maybe I am, maybe I am not; however this rule still the most authoritarian and controlling rule in the history of the game regardless. Because this suggestion fundamentally goes against Section 6.2 of the Game Rules, that provides our most basic rights as players; to determine how we want to role-play. To determine what, when and with who we want to role-play. If Particracy Game Rules would be the Declaration of Human Rights, this would be the first article in it.

2. Large scale RP planning (such as wars, regional/continental conflicts, economic collapse, etc.) should be planned (as best as it can be) and should have consent of a majority of players involved. It is possible to RP smaller events without the consent of all players or others;
-- 2a. Players are required to pass a bill authorizing the RP which must be passed by a majority of players with seats within the nation (for major, large-scale roleplays such as civil wars, wars, significant economic or RP-related political reforms, etc.) Players are required to create an OOC RP planning bill or forum post discussing the general outline and discussion for planned RP; it needs to include a link to the passed RP authorization bill (for all players);
-- 2b. Players who engage with RP via newspaper posts, in-game messages or other forms of in-character communications are generally accepted to be consenting to the RP. In the event that consent or authorization comes into question, players who have engaged will be counted as voting for or authorizing the RP.

This is the rule that makes and keeps the game free, for everyone. I think any future rules that would sacrifice this on the altar of "realism", are destructive and controlling by nature, hence they're ruining the game. Countries with unrealistic role-play could be placed lower at the rankings (that is about to be made obligatory once again)? Sure. But this and these kind of oppressive stupid rule(s) are completely unnecessary and just ruining the experience. Not talking about enforcing the "power-playing" of the "elite", the players who has significant real-life experience regarding military or economics, hence they could produce "realistic" role-play far more easier than those who have no such experience.

What am I expecting now?

To be totally honest, I would like to invite both Moderators currently in office, and want them to openly promise no such a rule will be implemented in the game while they're serving their term. If they're not capable of doing it, I am afraid I can no longer invest my time in this game. I left this game several times, however I always returned; but if this suggestion of Rogue's would become reality, I don't think I can return to this community, knowing that my basic rights as a player are ultimately sacrificed. I hope other players feel this too, but of course I can't be sure, maybe I am just speaking for myself.

I hope a lot of players will join this discussion, sharing their opinions on the topic freely.

[Auditorii]

Phew. That's a lot to unpack. I think you're going to regret some of the responses you're going to get and the topics that are going to be brought up.

First and foremost, I welcome the recognition that you play Endralon as a highly unrealistic nation in which you "power play", and I would say really god mod . I also welcome that you feel this rule is personally targeting you and your unrealistic role play. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to people given the fact that this is Terra, not Earth but nevertheless some people just play the game to be wildly outlandish and unrealistic; Endralon being chief among them.

Second, what you're talking about is a "rule" that is being "proposed" by a player (Mr. God/Rogue) that literally means nothing to Moderation. You are in fact making this such a big deal that I can see you're going the route of "If I make it a big enough deal someone will pay attention to me!" or the "If I threaten Moderation they have to pay attention to me!" I guess if thats the route you want to take, you can now deal with the consequences.

Third, Moderation can do as it pleases. The rules provide a framework for Moderation but they are not entirely bound by it nor is Wouter, so in theory, they can ret-con RP as they see fit or alter it as they see fit but luckily, they don't do that and ret-cons have generally been rare and isolated.

Fourth, why does Moderation require to answer you and your demands to them? I think its ludicrous to state that everything everyone suggests needs a response from Moderation or a de facto public statement on if they support it or not. If Moderation chooses to do so, they will. I reiterate my second point in which you're now drawing attention to yourself and something that you've now openly admitted is something you do: power play and imho god mod.

Fifth, thank you for further confirming that nothing ever bad will happen in Endralon while you are there.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[jellybean]

I obviously do not speak for moderation, but my impression from the conversation on Discord is that actually implementing a rule such as this would take such a massive effort from moderation as to make it infeasible. Again, I don't have any special insight into moderation, but I would not be very worried about this.

[robmark0000]

First and foremost, thank you for proving that the one who starts to take things personal is you

First and foremost, I welcome the recognition that you play Endralon as a highly unrealistic nation in which you "power play", and I would say really god mod . I also welcome that you feel this rule is personally targeting you and your unrealistic role play. I usually give the benefit of the doubt to people given the fact that this is Terra, not Earth but nevertheless some people just play the game to be wildly outlandish and unrealistic; Endralon being chief among them.

Thank you for your compliments! Next time you could give a base for your nice words, but of course I was honored regardless.

Second, what you're talking about is a "rule" that is being "proposed" by a player (Mr. God/Rogue) that literally means nothing to Moderation. You are in fact making this such a big deal that I can see you're going the route of "If I make it a big enough deal someone will pay attention to me!" or the "If I threaten Moderation they have to pay attention to me!" I guess if thats the route you want to take, you can now deal with the consequences.

I think everyone, who is a little active on Particracy Discord knows that I am maybe the biggest meme figure this game ever had (just a little statistics, my name mentioned 1276 times on the official discord so far). So no, I don't need to post a writing criticizing Moderation to get attention; and frankly, sometimes the last thing I would need in this game is the attention of others. I really do this because I will want to prevent to anyone would even consider taking this stupid rule suggestion seriously.

Third, Moderation can do as it pleases. The rules provide a framework for Moderation but they are not entirely bound by it nor is Wouter, so in theory, they can ret-con RP as they see fit or alter it as they see fit but luckily, they don't do that and ret-cons have generally been rare and isolated.

Yes, Moderation can do as it pleases, we learned this from you very well.

Fourth, why does Moderation require to answer you and your demands to them? I think its ludicrous to state that everything everyone suggests needs a response from Moderation or a de facto public statement on if they support it or not. If Moderation chooses to do so, they will. I reiterate my second point in which you're now drawing attention to yourself and something that you've now openly admitted is something you do: power play and imho god mod.

Well I hope, unlike you, your successors will actually be accountable for the Community. I know its strange to believe, even for me, after your big big reigning at the top, but it could happen this time.

Fifth, thank you for further confirming that nothing ever bad will happen in Endralon while you are there.

Your welcome, let me know if I can help in anything else.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

It was my pleasure

[Auditorii]

I obviously do not speak for moderation, but my impression from the conversation on Discord is that actually implementing a rule such as this would take such a massive effort from moderation as to make it infeasible. Again, I don't have any special insight into moderation, but I would not be very worried about this.

You'd be correct but Rob requires attention because he's guilty of power playing and god modding and wants to ensure he can continue to do so.

[robmark0000]

I obviously do not speak for moderation, but my impression from the conversation on Discord is that actually implementing a rule such as this would take such a massive effort from moderation as to make it infeasible. Again, I don't have any special insight into moderation, but I would not be very worried about this.

Considering one of the Moderators actively bringing the case of my RP into the spotlight, it is still worrisome, and maybe if we speak about it in public and shows dislike, then Moderation will not introduce this rule. This is what I am hoping for.

You'd be correct but Rob requires attention because he's guilty of power playing and god modding and wants to ensure he can continue to do so.

I thought the Ted Talk is over now

I can confirm I was warned for "God Modding" (which is not even have a role in the Game Rules though), only once during my entire player career. In the initial post, I tried to argue whether I am a "power-player" or not, if that didn't convinced you that I am not, I am sorry, but I can't do anything more for you then. My original point, that this is against Game Rules Section 6.2 fundamentally, is still valid, and it looks like you are not capable of bringing a good point to combat mine on this. Accusations with "crimes" not even mentioned in the Game Rules are not productive in my humble opinion, but its up to you though.

[Auditorii]

You'd be correct but Rob requires attention because he's guilty of power playing and god modding and wants to ensure he can continue to do so.

I thought the Ted Talk is over now

I can confirm I was warned for "God Modding" (which is not even have a role in the Game Rules though), only once during my entire player career. In the initial post, I tried to argue whether I am a "power-player" or not, if that didn't convinced you that I am not, I am sorry, but I can't do anything more for you then. My original point, that this is against Game Rules Section 6.2 fundamentally, is still valid, and it looks like you are not capable of bringing a good point to combat mine on this. Accusations with "crimes" not even mentioned in the Game Rules are not productive in my humble opinion, but its up to you though.

"3. Players are reminded that Particracy is loosely based on the real world, RP must be kept with that in mind. RP must be realistic, grounded in real life and not in fantasy or "futuristic" technologies and other items;"

Since it appears that you are incapable of understanding the difference between rules and Roleplay general conventions, I'll spell it out for you: Godmodding (sometimes Godmoding) is when a player in RP conducts themselves in a manner in which they are invincible, without fault or have no "equal". You can see some further, different definitions here, here and here. So no, not everything needs to be codified in the rules, somethings are just basic etiquette that shouldn't need to be explained and I would argue those that require explicit definitions of such would require that information to see what they could do to get around it.

[jamescfm]

Evidently there are a number of issues at play here and it would be useful to separate them out. In relation to the stated purpose of this thread, Moderation should clearly not implement a rule of this kind. For a number of years we have had a problem with the ability of Moderation to assess and measure role-play in an impartial or objective manner: this is the reason that dynamic rankings are voluntary and why they should remain voluntary. Moderation should state unambiguously that this rule is not going to be implemented and that will resolve any confusion.

Now there is clearly a broader issue that underlies robmark's bringing this issue to player attention (which he is entitled to do). Personally I would like this issue to be openly discussed by players without resorting to the kind of tit-for-tat that has already cropped up on this thread. In order for this to happen though both sides have to be willing to treat the other with respect. Rob objecting to the way that he is treated by the community does not make him an "attention seeker" and I find it very troubling the way that some players are quick to engage in this.

From my point of view it seems clear that there is a group of players who have weaponised accusations of "power playing", "meta-gaming" and "god modding" against robmark and that these players include current and previous Moderators. Personally I do not see any evidence that the role-play that rob produces constitutes anything like these three terms. As he correctly points out, he has role-played a number role-play narratives and story arcs that involved Endralon facing economic, diplomatic or societal problems and I believe he has done so far more effectively than some other players.

The truth is that any accusation made against robmark on these grounds could quite easily be thrown straight back at the players involved in this. Rob has repeatedly made clear he would not consent to a role-play narrative in which Endralon was militarily defeated and this is proposed to be some kind flaw with his role-play. Personally I am not familiar with any role-play conflict in the past five years of playing the game in which Hutori or Dorvik have emerged on the losing side while Farsun/Auditorii and colonelvesica have played there.

Perhaps I have missed some example, and I would be open to being corrected, but it seems clear that the players making these accusations are just as "guilty" of the things they are accusing rob of doing. In the case of Hutori and Dorvik though the issue is compounded by the fact that both countries have been consistently ranked as the most powerful economic and military powers in the game. Now this is not to say that Auditorii and colonelvesica are completely at fault or that they are the only player guilty of doing this, they just happen to be the easy examples to point to.

No player can provide an impartial assessment of their role-play and most players have a preference for certain types of role-play. Players like Auditorii, colonelvesica and Mr.God clearly prefer playing as major military powers, posting a lot about their armed forces and focusing on the finer details of military role-play. Nothing is wrong with this type of role-play but it does not mean that players who don't prefer to focus on these aspects of role-play are wrong, nor does it mean that other players should have to defer to them in role-play.

Returning to the broader point, the way that robmark is repeatedly hit with these claims of "power playing", "meta-gaming" and "god modding" almost constitutes bullying. Whether or not any of the individual players involved perceive it that way is irrelevant, rob is telling us here that he feels he has been targeted by the members of the community and he is certainly justified for that. If you don't like his role-play, don't read it and don't engage with it but your viewing something as unrealistic does not give you permission to engage in the consistent harassment of the player involved.

No doubt players will know that robmark and I disagree on a lot of things about the game and about how it should be conducted. At times these disagreements have been vehement and we argue regularly about issues relating to the game and about how it should operate, as well as how we each personally conduct ourselves around the game (particularly regarding the World Congress). Nonetheless I respect robmark, I think he produces good role-play and it is indisputable that Endralon has been the most consistently active country in the past twelve months. I hope that Moderation will recognise him leaving the game would be a great loss and seek to engage with him about how to resolve these problems.

[DueWizard70]

It is very true that Rob is constantly harassed for how he RPs. It is one thing to criticise Endralon and a very different thing to criticise the player and their RP. Am I a fan that Rob is not open to having Endralon be military attacked? No, BUT THAT DOES NOT MATTER. In the end it is Rob who gets to decide what happens with his RP, and people attacking him for not wanting to something a certain way is very unfair.

I echo James's words:

If you don't like his role-play, don't read it and don't engage with it but your viewing something as unrealistic does not give you permission to engage in the consistent harassment of the player involved.

[Auditorii]

The truth is that any accusation made against robmark on these grounds could quite easily be thrown straight back at the players involved in this. Rob has repeatedly made clear he would not consent to a role-play narrative in which Endralon was militarily defeated and this is proposed to be some kind flaw with his role-play. Personally I am not familiar with any role-play conflict in the past five years of playing the game in which Hutori or Dorvik have emerged on the losing side while Farsun/Auditorii and colonelvesica have played there.

Perhaps I have missed some example, and I would be open to being corrected, but it seems clear that the players making these accusations are just as "guilty" of the things they are accusing rob of doing. In the case of Hutori and Dorvik though the issue is compounded by the fact that both countries have been consistently ranked as the most powerful economic and military powers in the game. Now this is not to say that Auditorii and colonelvesica are completely at fault or that they are the only player guilty of doing this, they just happen to be the easy examples to point to.

No player can provide an impartial assessment of their role-play and most players have a preference for certain types of role-play. Players like Auditorii, colonelvesica and Mr.God clearly prefer playing as major military powers, posting a lot about their armed forces and focusing on the finer details of military role-play. Nothing is wrong with this type of role-play but it does not mean that players who don't prefer to focus on these aspects of role-play are wrong, nor does it mean that other players should have to defer to them in role-play.

I like when this is brought up, as Aquinas did in the other thread in reference to Vesica. I'm not sure why its cited as something that is somehow proving your point of "power playing" or "god modding". I can tell you that most of the conflicts with the exception of one or two that come to immediate memory, players would approach me and ask if Dorvik would be interested in intervening; often with a very specific purpose of losing. I presume this is due to the well known fact that Dorvik was a military power and had the ability to win a conflict. Does this equate to what Rob has spelled out for us here that he will not permit Endralon to be on the losing end of a military conflict or something "negative" happening to Endralon? Hardly.

As for James' words of advice: "If you don't like his role-play, don't read it and don't engage with it but your viewing something as unrealistic does not give you permission to engage in the consistent harassment of the player involved." The issue doesn't stem from the RP, it stems from the fact that several players have raised issues with the RP and have pointed out various consequences that might occur at several stages and alas, nothing comes of it. Are we to assume that we can RP our countries as glistening utopias that have nothing wrong despite the fact that this is a modern day political game? I think that's the root of the issue.

I also disagree entirely with the characterization that Rob is being bullied or harassed by anyone in this thread but I don't think this is an appropriate topic for such allegations, especially from those who have levied it.