Feedback: RP nation label

[Luis1p]

I fully back this idea. there have been movements in the past to do something similar to this. With how small the community has gotten and with the very individual RP this community creates, it makes sense to have some sort of system to protect RP from being wiped out. It's fair to us older players in the community but also allows new players top understand the community and become informed as they play.

[TRA]

aye

[Auditorii]

After some internal discussions and general support from the RP Committee, I've decided to provide a brief overview of the rules/regulations regarding RP Intensive nations label. These are brief and I am looking for player feedback regarding the rules.

Section 11 - RP Intensive Nation
1. An RP Intensive Nation is a nation that requires players within the country to maintain a high level of activity via the forums and in-game, engaging in international and domestic affairs, engaging with the World Congress, international and regional organizations.

2. Players can apply for the label of "RP Intensive Nation" by posting an application in the RP Law Questions and Requests (Approvals/Dismissals) thread utilizing the following template:

Code: Select all

RP Intensive Nation Request
[b]Nation name:[/b]
[b]Link to nation:[/b]
[b]Link to nations news thread:[/b]
[b]Why should the nation be labeled as "RP Intensive"?[/b]

2. RP Intensive Nations, if approved, will be maintained in the "Game Information" section of the Moderation forums. In addition a bill must be maintained in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation which highlights the nation as an RP Intensive Nation and links to the Particracy Game Rules (and by extension the forums), the Discord and directly to this section of the Particracy Game Rules.

3. RP Intensive Nations will have adjusted rules for players joining/re-joining the nation:
-- 3a. Players in the nation can request a party being de-activated for failure to maintain an expected level of activity via regular posting on the forums and engagement with fellow players in a nation.

[hyraemous]

Interesting idea.

[Drax]

This is a question on how it would work.

If a nation applies, is approved and played for a while successfully and then the player or players have to face RL for a while or otherwise need a break , would a) the nation revert to undesignated or would b) anyone wanting to play that nation need to respect the status and follow the requirements.

I think b) is what is being considering but thought I'd be sure.

[Auditorii]

This is a question on how it would work.

If a nation applies, is approved and played for a while successfully and then the player or players have to face RL for a while or otherwise need a break , would a) the nation revert to undesignated or would b) anyone wanting to play that nation need to respect the status and follow the requirements.

I think b) is what is being considering but thought I'd be sure.

I'm trying to generate ideas on what people think regarding the status. If approved and a nation falls inactive for a period of X days (I'm thinking between 15 to 30 days) it loses its label or if a nation becomes empty and has no significant RP in X days (Im thinking 15).

[Drax]

I think this is a good idea. And do think some of particulars can be adjusted as it is used.

I have been in some places where a huge amount of RP has been done, and I think I ought to shape my participation to conform to pattern established.

[TRA]

I generally support the idea but I'm a bit conflicted on its nature of permanence. Don't get me wrong - I understand the logic completely behind it: you have nations/players who essentially drive the community, or at the very least provide a platform for other players in the community, through their intensive roleplay through the vehicles Aud mentioned (WC, international, etc). And that's a good thing considering the small size of the community these days.

The conflict arises from the same attribute: we are a small community. Traditionally, RP intensive nations are usually the ones with a rich history, lots of information and a plethora of areas players might want to roleplay with, since they are after all "mature" nations. Not everyone wants to RP with a white canvas and not everyone can do - or wants to do - intensive RP for that matter. While I agree with Aud that PT suffers from lack of long-term RP, I've noticed that nations are usually marked by specific players in that regard and being one of these players with skin in the game with Beiteynu, I have to argue that it's still a game. It's quite honestly alright that "empires" and "beasts" rise and fall and it's what gives the game endless possibilities in RP. Take Svet's Trigunia for example.

I would argue that instead of "locking" nations under RP intensity we should "flag" them as part of the rankings, which are voluntary but generally followed by the community cause they provide a sense of organic cohesion for players; they are also "in line with the times", each time. An intensity "meter" if you will, High, Medium and Low with appropriate assessment criteria so that players can leverage one more vertical metric alongside CPs and economic and military/influence rankings in their decisions on which nation to join and have fun with the game at certain points in time.

Just because I made 400 posts for Beiteynu in 6 months on 2-3 RP areas shouldn't mean KRtau or TheNick must do so as well, lest they have to leave Beiteynu, especially since they joined to leverage the platform I created to have their own fun along these lines. Instead of limiting KRtau and TheNick to my vision of Beiteynu, we should be providing them with guidance and tools to take Beiteynu where they want to have fun, even if it means my vision of Beiteynu is gone. Players are already shying away from organic RP intensive nations like Beiteynu, Lourenne, Dorvik, Trigunia, Deltaria because of their inherent complexity in being intensive nations in the areas Aud described. We run a risk of limiting our already small community base to a smaller nation base.

In retrospect, for me, RP intensity feels more like an indicator of RP maturity that fluctuates organically, just like economy and military/influence.

[jamescfm]

In the past, I have been sceptical about proposals of this kind but I definitely think it could be beneficial. In response to the specific proposal presented here, I would suggest that the request should be passed through an in-game bill. Like a cultural protocol update, it might require two-thirds of players with seats to support the bill. Something I am a bit unclear about is the problem that we are trying to combat with this.

Reading through the thread, I think there are two different issues. The first issue is inactive players preventing role-play in popular or active countries. For example, we have had this problem in Cildania in recent months. New players join the country and win a significant number of seats but they don't contribute to role-play. As a result, the active players are left frustrated because the role-play stalls while we wait for the inactive player to do something, or to be inactivated. The proposal presented here would be great at preventing this.

The second issue is the problem that Doc described in this post. New players join a country and make radical changes to its political and/or cultural background. I am not convinced this proposal would solve that problem. Players who do this are often active in role-play, so I don't think rules regulating their activity would discourage that behaviour.

[GreekIdiot]

In the past, I have been sceptical about proposals of this kind but I definitely think it could be beneficial. In response to the specific proposal presented here, I would suggest that the request should be passed through an in-game bill. Like a cultural protocol update, it might require two-thirds of players with seats to support the bill. Something I am a bit unclear about is the problem that we are trying to combat with this.

Reading through the thread, I think there are two different issues. The first issue is inactive players preventing role-play in popular or active countries. For example, we have had this problem in Cildania in recent months. New players join the country and win a significant number of seats but they don't contribute to role-play. As a result, the active players are left frustrated because the role-play stalls while we wait for the inactive player to do something, or to be inactivated. The proposal presented here would be great at preventing this.

The second issue is the problem that Doc described in this post. New players join a country and make radical changes to its political and/or cultural background. I am not convinced this proposal would solve that problem. Players who do this are often active in role-play, so I don't think rules regulating their activity would discourage that behaviour.

James + the rest of the RPC, should we take a look at this or should we wrap-up and close the thread?