Requests: Cultural Protocols - CPs [M]

Submit your requests on various areas of the game.

Moderator: RP Committee

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Zanz » Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:22 pm

Aquinas wrote:
Zanz wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=462968
Can you explain what has happened to the Jelbaniens? They make up 15% of the population at the moment, but do not feature at all in your proposed update.


I'd rather not say in the Protocol itself because I worry it might encourage their return, but they were removed after long discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6604

They never made sense, but even if we grant that they did at one point exist, we can now safely assume that they have been assimilated into the Settled Jelbek category, since it has been nearly 400 years since the last protocol and they haven't been RPed meaningfully in that time. They don't exist anywhere else in the region, nor does any culture even similar to them (French/English, unassimilated into the surrounding cultures), nor would it make sense for them to.
Just a bunch of shit.
User avatar
Zanz
 
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Zanz » Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:26 pm

Zanz wrote:
Aquinas wrote:
Zanz wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=462968
Can you explain what has happened to the Jelbaniens? They make up 15% of the population at the moment, but do not feature at all in your proposed update.


I'd rather not say in the Protocol itself because I worry it might encourage their return, but they were removed after long discussion here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6604

They never made sense, but even if we grant that they did at one point exist, we can now safely assume that they have been assimilated into the Settled Jelbek category, since it has been nearly 400 years since the last protocol and they haven't been RPed meaningfully in that time. They don't exist anywhere else in the region, nor does any culture even similar to them (French/English, unassimilated into the surrounding cultures), nor would it make sense for them to.


If you feel it's something I should put in the Protocols themselves, I can, just need to know if I should resubmit for vote.
Just a bunch of shit.
User avatar
Zanz
 
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Aquinas » Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:42 pm

Firstly, apologies in advance for being somewhat long-winded and tedious, but I'll try to do my best!...

In terms of 16.5 of the Game Rules, the situation is that "If the changes proposed are 10% or more, then players should always expect to need to provide strong role-play justification for the changes". In terms of role-play evidence, not much has been provided in terms of justifying eliminating a demographic category that makes up 15% of the population. Not saying there is no role-play evidence for doing that, just that it has not been presented here and I am not really aware of it.

It is true, as you say, that the current Cultural Protocols are nearly 400 in-game years old, but the age of a Cultural Protocol is not really a justification in itself for radically amending it. If we were to go down that route, we would have to permit all manner of radical changes to Cultural Protocols - and there would probably be howls of protest all around!

The proposal to reduce/eliminate the Jelbaniens could seem to carry more legitimacy when we consider section 16.5.1:

16.5.1 Whilst significant changes should always be justified by role-play, where certain factors are present, Moderation reserves the discretion to adopt a more restrictive or a more relaxed approach to proposed changes. These factors include:

- Where it is deemed to be desirable to protect or promote cultures regarded as under-represented in the game world.

- Where it is deemed to be desirable to limit or reduce cultures regarded as over-represented in the game world.

- Where there are issues involved with a culture not being sufficiently accessible to players.

- Where players not present in the nation but with a strong connection to it are deemed to have presented a strong case. In particular, the nation's recent players, as well as players in the surrounding nations, may be deemed to have a legitimate interest.


Naturally, one could argue the Jelbaniens, representing English/French, are over-represented in the game world, and also that, as we saw in the Jelbic cultural protocol affirmation discussion thread, some other players with a connection to Jelbania and nations surrounding Jelbania have expressed support for reducing the Jelbaniens. Although even there, some of those players clearly suggested reducing the size of the Jelbaniens as opposed to eliminating them completely.

Under section 16.2.1, Moderators are not meant to approve Cultural Protocols within the first 48 hours of them being submitted, in order to give everybody a fair chance to put forward their arguments. So at this stage, my choice is either to say "No" or to wait, and I am choosing to wait, so I can take into account any further arguments anybody wants to make either for or against.

If anybody does want to put forward a view, it would be helpful if you tell me what (if any) your connection is to Jelbania and/or any of the nations nearby to Jelbania.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Polites » Fri Mar 11, 2016 8:41 am

I played in Jelbania a couple of times and worked on its culture in the past (the Jelbic tria nomina system is my doing).

In response to the above, the very powerful decline in Jelbanien population has been extensively RPd in the 400 years since the CP was passed. Here's some examples I could find:

1. Mass migration caused by economic factors - post was written at about the same time as the most recent CP update, but it contextualizes the gradual decline in Jelbanien population, showing that there was a long-term trend for Jelbanien emigration from Jelbania
2. Jelbaniens adopting Jelbek cultural and political traditions
3. Forced expulsion of Jelbaniens
4. Cities abandoned due to the above expulsion
5. Jelbanien exodus continues

I think the above count as strong RP justification for removing the Jelbaniens entirely.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Polites » Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:39 am

Update to Cildania's cultural protocols, establishing Maltese as the lingua franca and with a large number of native speakers.

Differences from previous version:

1. The new CP establishes Gziri (Maltese) as a new major language. To do so the old "Majatran" linguistic category (covering a number of varieties of Arabic, including Modern Standard Arabic and varieties of Maghrebi Arabic) was increased from 14 to 32%, and from that number the largest chunk was redefined as Maltese, with 26% native speakers. Justification for the change: occupation of Majatran-speaking Badara, expulsion of Badaran collaborators, introduction of Majatran refugees from Deltaria, documented emergence of Selucian-influenced vernacular Majatran, its standardization, official recognition as a distinct language called Gziri, and its adoption as the sole official language.

2. Introduction of some more more minorities from Majatran nations, including Majatrans and Turjaks from Deltaria, as well as various refugees (like some of these guys).

3. Apostolic Department of Cildania renamed as Apostolic Church of the Isles, because of this, and its numbers increased slightly (Badaran refugees, consequence of Church merger, and the religious nationalist government). Introduced a few more Ahmadis as well (also because Majatran refugees).

4. More clarity offered about the Cildanian culture. It's now clearer that "Cildanian" = a bunch of ethnic groups joined together by common culture and, more recently, common language. Cildania has been redefined as the equivalent of Malta + pre-Islamic Maghreb for those that are interested in that. The ethnic groups that comprise the "Cildanian" category are now also defined in terms of modern and not just ancient populations (e.g. Qildaris = Punics and Tunisians, not just Punics). A small introductory paragraph gives a brief overview of what Cildania is.

In addition, the list of names was expanded with the addition of a large number of Maltese names and surnames. Most aren't, strictly speaking, RL Maltese names, but rather Phoenician, Berber, late Roman (and Latinized Punic), Tunisian Arabic, Sicilian Jewish, and Maghrebi Sephardic names adapted to the Maltese orthography and pronunciation, plus some actual RL Maltese names. Most of the new Maltese names are Maltified versions of the Qildari, Hebilean, Cildanian Majatran, and Seluco-Cildanian names that were already on the list.

So, they good?
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Aquinas » Fri Mar 11, 2016 2:12 pm

Not seeing any immediate objections, but as per the rules, I have to wait 48 hours before approving a Cultural Protocols update request.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Antani Sfini » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:44 am

Official Istalian Cultural Protocols (Ed. 3995):
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=464751
Antani Sfini
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun May 08, 2011 5:28 pm

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Aquinas » Sat Mar 12, 2016 12:47 pm

Antani Sfini wrote:Official Istalian Cultural Protocols (Ed. 3995):
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=464751


That will count as an affirmation, but it will not be accepted as an update because it does not conform with the requirements for Cultural Protocol updates set out in section 16 of the Game Rules. Cultural Protocols are meant to include descriptions/real-life equivalents for all of the ethnic, religious and linguistic categories, and they are also meant to provide resources/links to help players with language translations and character name generation.

There is also an issue that the history section includes real-life references (eg. "Anglo-Saxon", "English") which are not allowed under section 5 of the rules.

I recommend doing another Cultural Protocol to fix these problems. Don't hesitate to ask if you need any help.

To give an example of what your Cultural Protocol might look like (obviously correct/amend as you see fit):

Code: Select all
STATISTICHE CULTURALI (Cultural statistics)

-----
Ethnic Composition of Istalia
-----

Istalians (Italians): 78 %
Majatrans (Arabs): 22%
-Quanzaris (Istallian Arabs): 19%
-Other Majatrans: 3%


-----
Languages of Istalia
-----

Istalian (Italian): 74%
Majatran (Arab): 20%
Southern Majatran/Solentian (English): 4%
Other: 2%

-----
Religious Composition of Istalia
-----

Hosian (Christian): 72%
Ahmadism (Muslim): 20%
Atheist: 5%
Other/Agnostic: 3%

***

Translations: https://translate.google.co.uk/
Character naming: http://fantasynamegenerators.com/#realNames

***

Game Rules: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6363
Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Aquinas » Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:19 pm

Returning to the proposed Cultural Protocol update for Jelbania...

This has been a tricky one to deal with, and I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion.

To remove 15% of the population from the demographics of a nation in one Cultural Protocol update, with no formal trace of a remnant left remaining, is a big move.

Strong role-play evidence has been presented to justify a significant reduction in the Jelbanien population in Jelbania. However, it is not clear that this role-play justifies complete elimination. I note, in particular, that in the Jelbic cultural protocol affirmation thread, the player responsible for much of that role-play appeared to recommend a significant reduction as opposed to complete elimination.

Before the culture rules changed in August 2015 it was permitted for Jelbania players to use all-English/Jelbanien character lists, despite Jelbaniens being a minority. There has, of course, been dispute over whether that ought to have been so, but nevertheless that is the way things were for a prolonged period of time.

Since August 2015, various players, including those with history in Jelbania, have been required by Moderation to use Jelbek names (or at least to use some/more Jelbek names). Some such players have had reactivation and early election requests denied until they complied with the new character naming rules.

Those players are not in Jelbania now, but in fairness, I judge we owe it to them that if the Jelbanien group is to be eliminated entirely, then this should be done over 2 or more stages, rather than suddenly and all at once.

What I suggest you could do, Zanz, is propose an update reducing the Jelbaniens to 4%, and then, if you wish to so and are able to do so, then do another update completely removing them in at least 30 in-game years time.

I appreciate this may feel frustrating, but all things considered, I do believe this is the best way of going about this.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: Cultural Protocol Approvals

Postby Aquinas » Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:23 pm

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=464817

Indrala's Cultural Protocols have been affirmed. As per the rules, we wait at least 48 hours until they they can be approved.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests