Requests: RP Laws

[Govenor12]

Just to get this straight:

1. Any rp laws are meaningless from now on and under what precise circumstances and requirements can they be made compulsory for all players within a nation? And isn't it the responsibility of every player to ensure that he or she reads the rp laws and the cultural protocol before entering this nation? And isn't this the reason why rp laws have to be displayed openly and clearly referenced?

On various instances moderation agreed with my rp laws provided they had a mechanism to ablolish them to allow new players to make new laws? Does the moderation enforce any properly passed rp laws from now on? (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=574923)

2. I once rped a person collaborating with the Kalopian government rping illegally against a rp law which my personna was then being arrested for. This was agreed by the moderation alhtough i disagreed with the arrest of that rp-character. Can you please outline why suddenly the rulings have changed:

21.3.1 Players also consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that.

By trying to revoke all the rp laws, it is my firm believe that Charli acknowledged their validity and the resulting rp.He could have just ignored them if he really felt he was above rp laws. Furthermore he just repealed selected laws and not everything and he even voted against the implementation on a rp law: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=579642. All this and the fact that the first thing he did was to absolish only a few selected laws, gave me enough evidence that he acknowledges the rp legislation and consequently i used this rp legislation.

3. Realistic rp outcomes out of in game actions are the basis of this game and i have to say i am more than shocked to see this principle being revoked and some earlier moderation ruling being revoked as well. A radical left-wing party destorying the power of the military is definitly enough to justifie a military coup, especially if this has happened in the past.

4.

Charli:

Just give us a heads up if there’s any further issues and we’ll have a look and decide how to proceed from there.

Wow, that's impartiality. Since your ruling of yesterday not new steps have been taken. I will wait until the next ic election so i might be able to use at least a few aspects.

[Aquinas]

Continuing to attempt to RP a military coup without permission is unfair RP and will result in sanctioning, including but not limited to a temporary nation ban. We ask that you retcon the RP as it is considered invalid.

We would also encourage all players to ensure major RPs have consent granted OOC by the other player informally or via a bill, as is expected by the rules.

Okay, so I've seen a few conversations elsewhere raising questions about this...just for the sake of clarity, it might be helpful for Moderation to outline, from Moderation's perspective, what the key differences are between this Solentia situation and the earlier situation in Jelbania. In particular, why is it that "Continuing to attempt to RP a military coup without permission is unfair and will result in sanctioning", and yet it was considered fair for players in Vanuku and Deltaria to continue to RP the military occupation of two-fifths of Jelbania even though Jelbania's only active player expressly objected to that RP?

2. I once rped a person collaborating with the Kalopian government rping illegally against a rp law which my personna was then being arrested for. This was agreed by the moderation alhtough i disagreed with the arrest of that rp-character. Can you please outline why suddenly the rulings have changed:

21.3.1 Players also consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that.

By trying to revoke all the rp laws, it is my firm believe that Charli acknowledged their validity and the resulting rp.He could have just ignored them if he really felt he was above rp laws. Furthermore he just repealed selected laws and not everything and he even voted against the implementation on a rp law: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=579642. All this and the fact that the first thing he did was to absolish only a few selected laws, gave me enough evidence that he acknowledges the rp legislation and consequently i used this rp legislation.

FYI the text you are quoting there no longer forms part of the Game Rules. For the current Game Rules see here, and you might particularly want to examine section 6 on roleplay.

[Polites]

Okay, well the main difference between this situation and the one in Jelbania is that in the latter case the RP and the RP Laws in question were implemented before the new party joined. Past RP is "canon" and binding if it was done legally. In the Solentian case the military coup happened after the new party joined and without their consent, and on the basis of an RP Law that contradicts a key aspect of the Game Rules: you cannot just "ban" any party you want. At most you can ban "types" of parties, and even then with considerable RP justification. And you cannot unilaterally launch a military coup or change the type of government when you have less than even a simple majority.

[Govenor12]

and binding if it was done legally

In the Solentian case the military coup happened after the new party joined

in the latter case the RP and the RP Laws in question were implemented before the new party joined.

The bases of the coup was not the decision of the court, but this rp-constitutional amendment: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=574923
As far as i am informed that law has never been declared against the game rules and it was passed long before the new party joined and must threfore be seen as canon as in the case of Jelbania.

The courts decision was seen only as a rp- scapegoat, because of the decision of the moderation that it could not ban a party. But the court did never authorize the coup against a party, because it cannot do that. (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=553251). The constitutional amendment also specifies very exactly who controls the military, police and intelligence services and how he is appointed.

and on the basis of an RP Law that contradicts a key aspect of the Game Rules: you cannot just "ban" any party you want.

At most you can ban "types" of parties, and even then with considerable RP justification.

The constiutional amendment specifies that the military has the right to ensure the "conservative nature" of Solentia. It therefore never bans right-wing parties and also specific parties and was done to ensure that after decades of left-wing governments this would not happen again. The complete justification for the coup is doen in this article (viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7182&start=610) and if we look at counries like Turkey, that is a very realitsic reaction, that's why Erdogan did not dismantle the military at once, like Charli tried to do, but rather over the last 15 years.

But on the other hand: Is it a realistic behaviour of a left-wing party to try to abolish military powers straight after the election with a majoirty of 2%, when they know that the military must ensure the conservative nature and is very powerful?

If I read conservative nature an identifie myself as a left-wing party and then start to dismantle the powers of the military over night: What else than a coup could have been the logical consequence? And Charli did definitly read all the laws because he tried to abolish them straight after he got a majority in the election. And he must have been clear to him that he is not playing a conservative party. In the past i gave out warnings before a coup to enhance the realism of the rp, but Charli decided to abolish the powers immidiately after the election so for a warning there was no time.

And you cannot unilaterally launch a military coup or change the type of government when you have less than even a simple majority.

I controlled not only the head of military as specified by the constitutional amendment but also the ministry of defence and internal affairs as well as all other ministers. So I think i have the power to launch a coup especially after 30 years of unchallenged rule. The military would have just forced Charlie to take back any laws which curtail the power of the military. Like a memorandum, if you want to call it.


My demand are very simple:
The moderation declares all rp law changes done by Charlie as invalid and reenactes the state of the laws before charly tried to change them, because of the coup. In the rp it will be just said that charlies party decided to follow the memorandum of the military.

I on the other hand will update the constitutional court rp law.

[lewiselder1]

and binding if it was done legally

In the Solentian case the military coup happened after the new party joined

in the latter case the RP and the RP Laws in question were implemented before the new party joined.

The bases of the coup was not the decision of the court, but this rp-constitutional amendment: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=574923
As far as i am informed that law has never been declared against the game rules and it was passed long before the new party joined and must threfore be seen as canon as in the case of Jelbania.

The courts decision was seen only as a rp- scapegoat, because of the decision of the moderation that it could not ban a party. But the court did never authorize the coup against a party, because it cannot do that. (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=553251). The constitutional amendment also specifies very exactly who controls the military, police and intelligence services and how he is appointed.

and on the basis of an RP Law that contradicts a key aspect of the Game Rules: you cannot just "ban" any party you want.

At most you can ban "types" of parties, and even then with considerable RP justification.

The constiutional amendment specifies that the military has the right to ensure the "conservative nature" of Solentia. It therefore never bans right-wing parties and also specific parties and was done to ensure that after decades of left-wing governments this would not happen again. The complete justification for the coup is doen in this article (viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7182&start=610) and if we look at counries like Turkey, that is a very realitsic reaction, that's why Erdogan did not dismantle the military at once, like Charli tried to do, but rather over the last 15 years.

But on the other hand: Is it a realistic behaviour of a left-wing party to try to abolish military powers straight after the election with a majoirty of 2%, when they know that the military must ensure the conservative nature and is very powerful?

If I read conservative nature an identifie myself as a left-wing party and then start to dismantle the powers of the military over night: What else than a coup could have been the logical consequence? And Charli did definitly read all the laws because he tried to abolish them straight after he got a majority in the election. And he must have been clear to him that he is not playing a conservative party. In the past i gave out warnings before a coup to enhance the realism of the rp, but Charli decided to abolish the powers immidiately after the election so for a warning there was no time.

And you cannot unilaterally launch a military coup or change the type of government when you have less than even a simple majority.

I controlled not only the head of military as specified by the constitutional amendment but also the ministry of defence and internal affairs as well as all other ministers. So I think i have the power to launch a coup especially after 30 years of unchallenged rule. The military would have just forced Charlie to take back any laws which curtail the power of the military. Like a memorandum, if you want to call it.


My demand are very simple:
The moderation declares all rp law changes done by Charlie as invalid and reenactes the state of the laws before charly tried to change them, because of the coup. In the rp it will be just said that charlies party decided to follow the memorandum of the military.

I on the other hand will update the constitutional court rp law.

The issue is more OOC. This coup isn't a necessary consequence of the former RP in our eyes, so you need consent. Combined with the small seat share it's hard to justify as realistic in our opinion. Plans to create political protocols are in the works, but for the moment the kinds of changes Charli made are considered valid by Moderation.

[Govenor12]

Combined with the small seat share it's hard to justify as realistic in our opinion.

Aha....48% seat share is small? Could you please outline under what cirumstances a military coup would be realistic?

for the moment the kinds of changes Charli made are considered valid by Moderation.

Even better. I repealed every single change already.


I don't understand these double standards and this utter disregard of former decision by the moderation which tended to uphold passed rp laws.
I am sure I am not the only one which looks critically upon this new style of moderation.

[lewiselder1]

Combined with the small seat share it's hard to justify as realistic in our opinion.

Aha....48% seat share is small? Could you please outline under what cirumstances a military coup would be realistic?

for the moment the kinds of changes Charli made are considered valid by Moderation.

Even better. I repealed every single change already.


I don't understand these double standards and this utter disregard of former decision by the moderation which tended to uphold passed rp laws.
I am sure I am not the only one which looks critically upon this new style of moderation.

Fair enough if that's your opinion, but our general approach is to try and uphold RP laws where possible. However it must also be made clear that a coup is not to do with RP laws, and that limiting how people vote is disallowed on precedent.

[Govenor12]

However it must also be made clear that a coup is not to do with RP laws,

An rp law that is designed to remove uncertainty about who can trigger a coup is exactly what justifies a coup. And threfore it has everything to do with rp laws.

I hereby invite you also to read up on Turkish law which clearly provided for nearly 40 years the right of the generals to conduct a coup. That is the example i followed.

and that limiting how people vote is disallowed on precedent.

To what exact rp law are you refering to? Strangly you never came up with this argument earlier. This just clearly shows that moderation continously comes up with new arguments which have nothing to do with the case.

[House Spencer]

Okay, well the main difference between this situation and the one in Jelbania is that in the latter case the RP and the RP Laws in question were implemented before the new party joined. Past RP is "canon" and binding if it was done legally.

You are not understanding there was nobody at all in Jelbania who wanted to continue with that RP. Nobody.

Moderation busted Jelbania's game mechanics to turn it into a prop purely for the benefit of people who was not even in Jelbania.

All I know is if what cm99777 could do what he did in Jelbania (& without even being there after he left) then makes no sense at all Govenor12 cant do what he wants in Solentia.

[lewiselder1]

To what exact rp law are you refering to?

You may have to be more specific in your questioning, apologies.