Requests: Cultural Protocols - CPs [M]

[_nicolo_02]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=699536


CP for Likatonia approved. Minor changes from before.
We need moderator Approval please

The RPC will be reviewing this, the 48h period for public feedback starts now.

[Zanz]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=699536


CP for Likatonia approved. Minor changes from before.
We need moderator Approval please

The RPC will be reviewing this, the 48h period for public feedback starts now.

I object to the passage of this. The player who posted it appears to be the player behind the party Liberty Union, which has been deactivated by Greek as part of a multi-ing investigation.

[_nicolo_02]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=699536


CP for Likatonia approved. Minor changes from before.
We need moderator Approval please

Because this Cultural Protocol update was proposed by a party that is now inactive, the RPC has decided to not approve this request.

[Zanz]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=699536


CP for Likatonia approved. Minor changes from before.
We need moderator Approval please

Because this Cultural Protocol update was proposed by a party that is now inactive, the RPC has decided to not approve this request.

Thanks Nick. I actually think the moderation team should consider going a step further and totally deleting this bill (if it's possible to do after a bill passes, I am not sure), or at least putting a post in discussion from the Moderation account clarifying that the bill was *not* approved. Normally this wouldn't be necessary, but the player copy-pasted from the prior CP, and in doing so included at the bottom:

Bill Passage: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=625177
Mod. Approval: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8606&start=1100

Neither of which apply to this bill, which might reasonably confuse future players who will see that it passed, that it apparently has mod approval (which they would need to click the link and understand the context to recognize that it actually does not).

[jamescfm]

I proposed this update http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=699728 introducing a large number of Majatran minorities to justify the continued existence of the Apostolic Church of the East and Ahmadism, but now that I think about it it's making the Cultural Protocol overly complicated.

I'm now suggesting this update: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=699752 The changes are smaller compared to the previous one, but the Apostolic Church of the East still has to go. Instead of completely replacing its 24% of the population with a different church with the same percentage, I've divided its percentage between the Augustan Church, a new Hosian category "other", and the Confessional Church (now at 14%). I've kept Ahmadism, but reduced it to 3%, with the rest going to Other and Irreligious.

I'm still replacing the Caucausian groups with indigenous Alaskan ones, but now the percentage for the latter is 12%, with the other 3% going to Other. The same renaming and redefining takes place for the East Slavic groups, but I've also redistributed the numbers slightly to make the Rodshyans less of a majority. I've also added a bit more clarification about the Hulstrians.

Would this or something like this be acceptable?

Thanks for listening to the feedback. As we agree any attempt to justify the continued presence of the Apostolic Church of the East is likely to be convoluted, we are willing to approve the large change necessary to achieve its removal on the basis that it represents exceptional circumstances.

Though we acknowledge there has been some role-play produced to support the introduction of the indigenous peoples of Alaska, we do not believe it is sufficient to justify such a large increase in this group. If you were to reduce the figure to 10 per cent, we would be willing to approve this cultural protocol assuming it was passed in the appropriate way and there were no concerns or objections raised by other players.

[Polites]

Thanks for listening to the feedback. As we agree any attempt to justify the continued presence of the Apostolic Church of the East is likely to be convoluted, we are willing to approve the large change necessary to achieve its removal on the basis that it represents exceptional circumstances.

Though we acknowledge there has been some role-play produced to support the introduction of the indigenous peoples of Alaska, we do not believe it is sufficient to justify such a large increase in this group. If you were to reduce the figure to 10 per cent, we would be willing to approve this cultural protocol assuming it was passed in the appropriate way and there were no concerns or objections raised by other players.

Based on your feedback I have amended the proposal, which has now passed. Here it is: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=699752

Many thanks!

[jamescfm]

Based on your feedback I have amended the proposal, which has now passed. Here it is: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=699752

Many thanks!

As this would update the cultural protocol of a culturally protected country, there will now be a forty-eight hour period where any player can offer feedback on the update before it can be accepted.

[Zanz]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=699536


CP for Likatonia approved. Minor changes from before.
We need moderator Approval please

Because this Cultural Protocol update was proposed by a party that is now inactive, the RPC has decided to not approve this request.

Thanks Nick. I actually think the moderation team should consider going a step further and totally deleting this bill (if it's possible to do after a bill passes, I am not sure), or at least putting a post in discussion from the Moderation account clarifying that the bill was *not* approved. Normally this wouldn't be necessary, but the player copy-pasted from the prior CP, and in doing so included at the bottom:

Bill Passage: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=625177
Mod. Approval: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8606&start=1100

Neither of which apply to this bill, which might reasonably confuse future players who will see that it passed, that it apparently has mod approval (which they would need to click the link and understand the context to recognize that it actually does not).

Bumping this request.

[jamescfm]

At the time of the original request, I asked GreekIdiot to do it. I will chase it up for you.

[GreekIdiot]

Done.