Requests: General [A]

[robmark0000]

I've just seen that Moderation has decided to issue a "Moderation ruling" that a piece of role-play in Badara is "null and void". No explanation is given as to why this has happened although it does mention that both of the players involved have been informed (perhaps they could confirm this). I am not aware of any reason why Moderation should be empowered to unilaterally retcon role-play that two players have agreed to.

Nothing in the post in question appears to violate any rules and they accord with Moderation's view that Badara is a "tier III" oil-producing country. On the face of it this looks really concerning and I would like to hear from Moderation about why they have made this decision and whether other players should expect to have our role-play retconned if Moderation decides they don't like it.

I can confirm I got an official warning from Moderation on my Forum-account, although I don't think I can legally share it in public, so I won't.

I won't surprise anybody if I say I deny the accusations and dislike this act of the current Moderation Team, but it is really something the resignation of James and his illegal temporary ban projected. I am quite disappointed that the newly selected Moderators, Vesica and Chitin assisted or took part in this decision, which was completely authoritarian and unfair, even if it won't have more consequence in the future than a "criminal record" in the eye of the current Moderation.

[jamescfm]

While normally I would not discuss Moderation Rulings, the uniqueness of this particular one I will state this for the record; the subject of the Role Play nor it's content were not the reason for this Retcon. It had nothing to do with whether Moderation "Liked" the Role Play.

Thank you for the quick response. I don't really think this addresses the issue of why the role-play was retconned though. Moderation does have the authority to intervene in role-play in this manner of course but I think it is something that should be done as infrequently as possible and only as a matter of last resort where this is a good reason for doing so. I don't know the "behind the scenes" details of this case, nor do any other players but it is difficult to take it for granted given the response from robmark.

In a case like this it is my view that Moderation is entirely justified (and perhaps even obligated) to provide a public explanation for their decision. The decision was made in public and it might affect the role-play of other players. For example, I have heavily implied that Aldegar agreed a deal with BOPA. Further to that the player in question has pretty clearly made the issue public with his response here. For these reasons, I think that Moderation should provide some information about why this decision was taken.

[colonelvesica]

Having discussed the situation with the other members of the Moderation Team, and having had one of the players openly speak about the sanctions they received.

I will state that the Role Play in particular was Retconned for Reasons of Godmodding and Meta-Gaming. In no way shape or form was the content of the Role Play nor it's "realism" the reason for the Retcon. There was a revelation that the Role Play that was retconned was pre-planned on the players in response to another Role Play that would have negatively affected one the players. The usage of OOC Knowledge, despite a full conversation about it on the Discord occurring the day before, was seen as God Modding and Meta-Gaming. For those reasons the Moderation Team took the extraordinary step of retconning the Role Play.

As noted; the Retconning of Role Play is an extraordinary step and one I do not take lightly, anymore then banning players, as Role Play is the lifeblood of our community and indeed much of it's raison d'etre.

I want to assure all members of the community, that Moderation will rarely step into Role Play unless directly brought in by community members themselves. The sanctions that were handed out, are the only sanctions that will be handed out for this situation.

[Aquinas]

Having discussed the situation with the other members of the Moderation Team, and having had one of the players openly speak about the sanctions they received.

I will state that the Role Play in particular was Retconned for Reasons of Godmodding and Meta-Gaming. In no way shape or form was the content of the Role Play nor it's "realism" the reason for the Retcon. There was a revelation that the Role Play that was retconned was pre-planned on the players in response to another Role Play that would have negatively affected one the players. The usage of OOC Knowledge, despite a full conversation about it on the Discord occurring the day before, was seen as God Modding and Meta-Gaming. For those reasons the Moderation Team took the extraordinary step of retconning the Role Play.

As noted; the Retconning of Role Play is an extraordinary step and one I do not take lightly, anymore then banning players, as Role Play is the lifeblood of our community and indeed much of it's raison d'etre.

I want to assure all members of the community, that Moderation will rarely step into Role Play unless directly brought in by community members themselves. The sanctions that were handed out, are the only sanctions that will be handed out for this situation.

Are all nations now banned from buying oil from Badara, or just Endralon? And what exactly has Rob done to deserve a sanction?

[colonelvesica]

Are all nations now banned from buying oil from Badara, or just Endralon? And what exactly has Rob done to deserve a sanction?

No one is banned from buying oil from Badara... the Role Play was retconned for other reasons, unrelated to the purchase of the oil itself. Endralon isn't even banned from buying oil from Badara, that particular Role Play was retconned for the reasons I outlined above.

I have stated the reasons for the Retcon. I'm leaving it at that.

[Aquinas]

Are all nations now banned from buying oil from Badara, or just Endralon? And what exactly has Rob done to deserve a sanction?

No one is banned from buying oil from Badara... the Role Play was retconned for other reasons, unrelated to the purchase of the oil itself. Endralon isn't even banned from buying oil from Badara, that particular Role Play was retconned for the reasons I outlined above.

I have stated the reasons for the Retcon. I'm leaving it at that.

If the issue was not related to Endralon buying oil from Badara, then what was it? What was there in that article you guys objected to so strongly?

More transparency is needed. What was the supposed “God-Modding” and “Meta-Gaming”? I mean, whatever it was, we kinda need to know because we want to be careful not to do whatever-it-was ourselves. Especially if it is going to result in disciplinary sanctions and seemingly innocuous RPs being retconned.

[colonelvesica]

Are all nations now banned from buying oil from Badara, or just Endralon? And what exactly has Rob done to deserve a sanction?

No one is banned from buying oil from Badara... the Role Play was retconned for other reasons, unrelated to the purchase of the oil itself. Endralon isn't even banned from buying oil from Badara, that particular Role Play was retconned for the reasons I outlined above.

I have stated the reasons for the Retcon. I'm leaving it at that.

If the issue was not related to Endralon buying oil from Badara, then what was it? What was there in that article you guys objected to so strongly?

More transparency is needed. What was the supposed “God-Modding” and “Meta-Gaming”? I mean, whatever it was, we kinda need to know because we want to be careful not to do whatever-it-was ourselves. Especially if it is going to result in disciplinary sanctions and seemingly innocuous RPs being retconned.

As stated, the contents themselves weren't the issue, it was the circumstances around which the article was written, for which the players involved were informed.

The Meta-Gaming involved using OOC knowledge to influence an IC decision that a nation or company would reasonably not have been able to predict or ever actually have the knowledge of. One of the players admitted that was the reason for the post, to avoid negative consequences at a later date and time, of an event they knew was going to happen.

Does that answer your question?

As stated multiple times now; there was nothing wrong with the article or it's content as written.

[Aquinas]

What were the circumstances? If Endralon is not banned from buying oil from Badara, why has this specific RP been retconned?

[Aquinas]

Well, I cannot compel the Moderators to be transparent about their decision to retcon the RP in Badara, but what I will point out is that this offence of "Meta-Gaming" is not defined or even mentioned in the Game Rules. It is potentially a rather slippery slope to start penalising players for taking advantage of OOC knowledge in order to plan IC actions. Everybody knows that in practice, this is something that goes on all the time. Players regularly OOCly discuss RP plans together, sometimes publicly, such as on the official Discord server or on the forum, and sometimes privately. So-called "power-gaming", where individuals OOCly plan their RP in such a way as to boost their nation's economic, military and strategic power, is well-known to this community. A number of leading players, including recent and current Moderators, have "power-gamed" to a greater or lesser extent during their time in Particracy. Vesica has been involved in military RP a number of times over the years, and admitted on Discord yesterday that he cannot recall a single occasion when his nation came off worst in a military tangle. I am not trying to pick on him here, but my point should be clear. Unless this "Meta-Gaming" offence is appropriately defined and applied with consistency and transparency, then the whole exercise of penalising players for "Meta-Gaming" is going to start to look very subjective, or indeed even like thought policing.

Changing the subject, but continuing with the theme of transparency, I would like to propose that in future there should be a minimum waiting time of perhaps 24 or 48 hours between when a player applies for a second account and when the Moderators can give permission. Just like there is a similar procedure in place for Cultural Protocol update requests. The reason for this is to allow community members an opportunity to raise questions or concerns when a second account is applied for. I also feel we generally need more Moderation transparency about this aspect of the game.

Some recent second account decisions which have issues for me:

On March 12th, Auditorii's application for a second account in Indrala was denied on the grounds that Indrala was already RP active. This suggests Moderation attaches more value to players RPing one party nations than taking part in multi-party nations, which I feel is the wrong position to be taking. Speaking for myself, if I was to apply for a second account, it would almost certainly be in a multi-party nation. The reason being I enjoy both being the only party in a nation, and I also enjoy playing in a nation with other players, so given Malivia is only me, with a second account I would want to go somewhere with others. Presumably though this option is now closed for me?

On March 15th Vesica applied for permission to run a second account in Luthori, and was granted it 23 minutes later. This is despite the fact Luthori is a multi-party nation, and Auditorii's Indrala application had earlier been denied on these grounds. There was also the issue that, in his application, Vesica stated an intention to bring back the monarchy in Luthori. I am aware some players feel there should have been an opportunity to at least discuss this, given the royal family of Hutori (Vesica's main nation) has previously reigned in Luthori, and an impression was given that there might be potential conflicts of interest in terms of him wanting to co-ordinate the RP of Luthori and Hutori together.

Today, Rogue/Mr God applied for a second account in Deltaria, and was granted it only a few hours later. Speaking for myself, I felt there should at least have been the possibility of a discussion before this decision was taken. Deltaria is a key ally for Malivia, the nation I currently have RP control of. And Narikaton-Darnussia, where Rogue has his first account, is in the middle of a stand-off with Malivia. So there is a little potential awkwardness here with my nation's ally and my nation's rival both being under the influence/control of the same person. To be clear, I am by no means necessarily opposed to this, but as I say, I do really feel there should have been an opportunity for discussion before the decision to approve the second account was taken.

[Aquinas]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8442&p=171137#p171137

First account: TheColorByzantine - Zardugal (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=39734)
Second account: YugoAudit - Kundrati (http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=42233)

League of the South will represent the Croatian and Slovenian minorities in Kundrati, the overall plan is to expand on the Southern Slavs in Kundrati as a whole ethnic group. I’m not sure the ideological direct I want to take yet, perhaps left-wing, perhaps right-wing. I’m not entirely sure.

Please note that Auditorii already has two active accounts operating at the present time, the one in Zardugal and also one in Kirlawa.

Also note this is his third second account application in a week.