Proposal: Protected Nations

[GreekIdiot]

Based on the PRP feedback thread here, I'd like to bring forward an alternative.

Gist of the proposal

Instead of Protected RP, we have Protected Nations.

Much like FBCs, players will be able to lock in-game nations. They'll have to apply and explain, of course, like FBCs. If the request is granted, mod team will create 7 "dummy" accounts (or as many needed if more players already in the nation).

These players will also be excluded from getting automatically inactivated at 4 days - though pls take this with a grain of salt as there's no admin filter.

-

Criteria

1. Players who have displayed RP in a long-term form for at least a few centuries - doesn't matter if you've hoped off and on during that time. What matters is that our small community of 20 people recognises you as in that nation.
2. Or players who have an OOC agreement with player(s) from (1) above - this is for honouring and enabling active newcomers
3. Players who have engaged with other players and nations in international RP consistently and in a positive and sportsmanlike manner.

-

Fallbacks

Once the player or players deactivate, the "locked" status is removed.

Any other active RPer from the community can request joining a locked nation anytime, provided they won't disrupt the RP done by the main player(s) there. You'll use the reactivation thread in the same way, even if you don't have an account. Mods will just inactivate one of the dummies.

[Doc]

Obviously I agree.

Edit:

Do I understand this that there will be enough dummy accounts to fill up all the slots so nobody can join, and the only one doing anything with anything will be the main PC in the country?

What will prevent one of the Dummy Accounts from accidentally getting the majority? XD I don't know how this can happen, but I am thinking it could. Esp if the Main PC goes to zero visibility, and then its basically a toss up.

Based on the PRP feedback thread here, I'd like to bring forward an alternative.

Gist of the proposal

Instead of Protected RP, we have Protected Nations.

Much like FBCs, players will be able to lock in-game nations. They'll have to apply and explain, of course, like FBCs. If the request is granted, mod team will create 7 "dummy" accounts (or as many needed if more players already in the nation).

These players will also be excluded from getting automatically inactivated at 4 days - though pls take this with a grain of salt as there's no admin filter.

-

Criteria

1. Players who have displayed RP in a long-term form for at least a few centuries - doesn't matter if you've hoped off and on during that time. What matters is that our small community of 20 people recognises you as in that nation.
2. Or players who have an OOC agreement with player(s) from (1) above - this is for honouring and enabling active newcomers
3. Players who have engaged with other players and nations in international RP consistently and in a positive and sportsmanlike manner.

-

Fallbacks

Once the player or players deactivate, the "locked" status is removed.

Any other active RPer from the community can request joining a locked nation anytime, provided they won't disrupt the RP done by the main player(s) there. You'll use the reactivation thread in the same way, even if you don't have an account. Mods will just inactivate one of the dummies.

[alaskancrabpuffs21]

I like this idea, especially the part about extending the 4 day window. I also appreciate the willingness to try and protect centuries worth of work and RP, my issue is that it would he super confusing to anyone trying to join this community and there will be some who will find it off putting probably. However in terms of my thought, the 4 day ring is really nice because I have lost track of the times that my real life commitments get in the way of logging in, or I am active on the forum but not the game and it lapses. I welcome this change if it is implemented. For me sometimes my busy life, working night shift and such, just makes it hard to keep that 4 day window. Anyways those are my thoughts on this!

- Alaskancrabpuff

[Drax]

I think the protected nation idea is essentially sound. And think we should not get hung trip on 7 rather than six dummies if in fact two or several players have been working om something worthwhile.

And we should regularly evaluate how it is doing. Think we all know some nations whose character should be preserved if possible, and can see if this is the way to do it.

[Auditorii]

This topic comes up from time to time and I generally support the idea; this idea however seems more administratively heavy then it needs to be. We don't need 7 parties or whatever to hold spots, we just need a clear cut rule to inactivate parties that are inconsistent with the RP in the nation.

Players should be able to apply for "Roleplay Protection" to Moderation and Moderation should review the application, and decide if the case applies. I can say that several nations have been entirely derailed by this process several times throughout the history of this game and quite frankly, the game has ceased to be a "political party simulator" and has functionally become an RP experience. Players inside of an RP protected nation can be inactivated if they attempt to alter the government structure without consent of the designated nation coordinator (the person who generally applies for the protection), fails to engage in RP that is consistent with the general concept of the nation, or generally contributes negatively to the nation and fails to be a good RP partner overall. Players should be free to join but should be just as free to be inactivated if they fail to uphold the consistent level of RP that is required or immediately turn around on the way the nation has been.

[ChengherRares1]

I am in support of such, however there should be a limit on how many of such cases to exist, but as well such measures to still allow at least partly for other players to join and RP differently, as long as such is accepted by the initial player and such RP does not deviate too hard out of sudden from the main RP.

Here though I feel that we should avoid being too narrow and demand a too strict window of variety of RP newcomers can engage in. Furthermore, I feel that nations to act as FBC fully should be rare if none. I agree with the idea as to protect RP, but not as to fully bar people from joining. If they do, they should be told nicely and explained in detail the history of the nation prior to their arrival.

On implementation, really, it's best if we just inactivate parties that don't belong there, rather than having dummy accounts.

[Polites]

My main concern is that this is essentially no different from treaty-locking and cabinet-locking. If those two are against the rules, why would we have a different set of rules that allows nations to be "locked" under certain circumstances? Would that not send a confusing message to newcomers?

I also think that such a rule would encourage stagnation and discourage new RP, as one can just rest on their laurels as it were and no longer produce any new RP once the protected nation status is granted. If such a proposal is adopted I think it should come with stringent term limits as well, e.g. 1 RL month protection instead of potentially perpetual nation locking. I'd much prefer a Protected RP rule myself, provided of course it also has a clear time limit.

[Interstellar_]

I personally agree with those proposed ideas, besides their well-known and heavy flaws. I see it as the game's main job to keep an actual, active player base. This cannot work as long as new people join the game and lock the active player's RP through flawed and outdated game mechanics. Furthermore, this proposal will never be able to become active in all nations and we have plenty of nations with are completely empty as of now, allowing new players to join.
Lastly, I'd support any protective changes for the active playerbase if this proposal will not become an active rule.

[Doc]

I'll add something here.

There is a difference between joining the game and changing things gradually as a political simulator would (because it simulates politics, where radical change is surprisingly very rare, and almost all change happens at the pace of inertia), and coming into a country, figuring out how to game the mechanic and essentially locking out the player who has been there for a long time and will be there for a long time after the new join has gotten bored with all their success. Meanwhile, the long time player, who has been building the flavor of the nation through consistent RP gets to RP something that is either inconsistent with the Game Mechanic or entirely unrelated to it.

There is plenty of room for both play styles in PT. There should be some countries where players can come in, f with the mechanic to their heart's content and make the kind of government they want, play against other players to compete for seats and all that math stuff. And then there should be places where a player can come in, design a society, and work with other players who want to play IN THAT PARTICULAR society, not deciding that their goal is to radically alter it, or if that becomes the goal, working it out so that radical alteration is supported by the storytelling. Personally, I happen to find the latter of those two things more creatively fulfilling. And I would make Kalistan a FBC if I could, because at this point, that is basically what it is. Anyone who came to Kalistan, I would invite them to play on the forums only if I had my way: I use the mechanic specifically to protect what I have done in the forums, and that's it.

And as other's have said, including Luis here, there are literally 22 nations (38% of the total) that are totally empty and another 13 (22%) nations where there is currently more than one Party (60% of all PT nations) where people can go pass all the laws and fight for all the seats to their heart's content. I can't name them all, there's so many, where I can think of only a handful of countries whose history and institutions have been so specifically played for so long that that IS that country now. Nobody cares when Lourenne's variable on like the energy grid is, except Lourenne. But we know what Lourenne is a PT equivalent of, and anyone that goes there should adapt to that, rather than adapting Lourenne to themselves. I would make Lourenne a FBC nation if it was up to me. I would make Luthori a FBC if it was up to me. I would certainly make Kalistan a FBC if it was up to me. Nobody in this game is up late at night fretting over what my variable on 50 different laws is set currently at. They know if they want drugs and surfing and good music, they come to Kalistan. If they want to eat escargot, they go to Lourenne. If they like beer, they go to Dundorf, whatever... and if they want to do a party sim, they should go to Telemon or some underplayed country like this where nobody will raise any concern over how wildly they are changing everything because they don't particularly care about the forums.

[jadouljonathan]

im am in support of any change. If i could add one thing or propose, i would suggest to treat the RP like CP, players put a bill in wich expalins the roleplay they want to do, like for an example Baltusia is going true, the bill gets passed, they link it in a forum thread, get approved and the put the bill in debate, to inform others or new players, or summarize it with other RP laws and put the passed link in it. So when the new players comes in and ignores, moderation or other players have a foot to stand on' sorry translate straight from dutch). If new players or other come in the nation when the original player left, they put again a bill in to change or erase the RP.

Or you do what i said above for constitutional roleplays again for example what baltusia is going true, so you dont have 20 RP bills but just one or 2 ?

ofcourse i dont know advantages or disadvantages, but i thought i suggest it.

I do support this proposal, because i know some nations could use this protection like, Baltusia, Kalistan, Aldegar etc... but like Polites mentioned, it could be downfall.