Particracy Forum

ManagerDan wrote:Also any ideas on how we can fix this without me literally copying and pasting the National message boards into the news forum page?

You could write a summary of events. Just make sure that everything is consensual (and always wear protection ).

Occam wrote:

ManagerDan wrote:Also any ideas on how we can fix this without me literally copying and pasting the National message boards into the news forum page?

You could write a summary of events. Just make sure that everything is consensual (and always wear protection ).

I'm just gonna leave now....

Re: Cultural Protocol for Badara: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=569352

The numbers are off in several ways.

Cultural demographics:
Luthorian (English) - 90%
Majatran (Arab) - 50%
* Badaran (Gulf Arab) - 25%
* Jawhari (Maghrebi Arab) 10%
* Bedwi (Bedouin/nomadic Arab) - 10%
Hebilean (Berber) - 2%
Channese (Chinese) - 1%
Others - 2%

Sub-groups for Majatran add up to 45%, not 50%.
The total adds up to 145%.

Religious demographics:
Hosian (Christian) - 90%
Ahmadi (Muslim) - 50%
* Israi (Sunni) - 40%
* Abadi (Shi'a) - 15%
* Other - 5%
Agnostic/atheist - 5%
Hosian (Christian) - 3%
* Apostolic Church of the Isles (Maronite) - 2%
* Other - 1%
Others - 2%

Sub-groups for Ahmadi add up to 60%, not 50%.
The total adds up to 150%.

Edit 1: The "Bill passed"-link seems to be wrong. It links to a completely different and much older bill.

Edit 2: The changes between this and the CP linked in the index are massive.

Cool, thanks for looking into this!

iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.

What does this mean?

House Spencer wrote:

iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.

What does this mean?

It is an attempt at preventing "party sitting". Party sitters are players who don't really contribute to or even take part in the game but for some reason want to keep their parties active. Therefore they still log in regularly enough not to be considered inactive. That's why parties can get inactivated if they keep logging in but not voting for five days. Of course this is easily prevented by not just regularly logging in but regularly voting on something. The rule you cite is intended to close this loophole. Thus when a player clearly only votes in order not to be inactivated, this is party sitting, too. A criterion for whether or not a player is doing this, is whether he contributes to bill debates, RP, etc. For how long this has to go on for a player to get deactivated is not regulated and therefore left to Moderation's judgement.

Regards,
Occam

The other party in Jelbania doesn't comment on any bills. Can he be closed down for that?

Sounds harsh. I'd rather we just got rid of the dictator tactics like limiting proposal quota

Occam wrote:

House Spencer wrote:

iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.

What does this mean?

It is an attempt at preventing "party sitting". Party sitters are players who don't really contribute to or even take part in the game but for some reason want to keep their parties active. Therefore they still log in regularly enough not to be considered inactive. That's why parties can get inactivated if they keep logging in but not voting for five days. Of course this is easily prevented by not just regularly logging in but regularly voting on something. The rule you cite is intended to close this loophole. Thus when a player clearly only votes in order not to be inactivated, this is party sitting, too. A criterion for whether or not a player is doing this, is whether he contributes to bill debates, RP, etc. For how long this has to go on for a player to get deactivated is not regulated and therefore left to Moderation's judgement.

Regards,
Occam

These proposed changes are still in the works and weren’t meant to be public yet. They will likely be changed in wording to make it clearer and to avoid issues if necessary.

House Spencer wrote:The other party in Jelbania doesn't comment on any bills. Can he be closed down for that?

Sounds harsh. I'd rather we just got rid of the dictator tactics like limiting proposal quota

Obviously as the player of the party In question I would sound biased (maybe someone else should deal with this but I’ll do what I can).

Commenting on bills is not in any way a requirement and it’s not possible for me to be inactivated for that. Regarding the proposal quota I don’t necessarily think it’s a dictator tactic but a competitive one. It has never been against the rules to do this but perhaps we can look at maybe having a proposed minimum proposal cap in the rules.

cm9777 wrote:

House Spencer wrote:The other party in Jelbania doesn't comment on any bills. Can he be closed down for that?

Sounds harsh. I'd rather we just got rid of the dictator tactics like limiting proposal quota

Obviously as the player of the party In question I would sound biased (maybe someone else should deal with this but I’ll do what I can).

Commenting on bills is not in any way a requirement and it’s not possible for me to be inactivated for that. Regarding the proposal quota I don’t necessarily think it’s a dictator tactic but a competitive one. It has never been against the rules to do this but perhaps we can look at maybe having a proposed minimum proposal cap in the rules.

Then what exactly does the rule I quoted actually mean?