jamescfm wrote:Separating this out from
the international role-play thread so that that can remain a place of general discussion regarding international role-play. Below is a clear structure of the role-play event, which I am going to coordinate and refer to as the "Dovani Axis War":
- Utari Mosir joins the "Axis of Dovani"
- Far right movement seizes control of Istapali, with support from the Istapalian military, Suyu Llaqta and Liore
- Istapali joins the "Axis of Dovani"
- Utari Mosir experiences internal unrest in certain locations
- Utari Mosir launches a surprise invasion of the island of Kamphon, declaring it a "special territory" of Utari Mosir
- An international coalition (possibly with World Congress approval) will set a deadline for Mosirak withdrawal from Kamphon
- The deadline will pass and the international coalition will launch a two-pronged attack against Kamphon: a Dorvik-Ostland force will attack from the west while a Lourenne-led Dovani force will attack from the south east
- Kamphon will be liberated and control returned to Cifutingan
- The scope of the coalition's objectives will shift to the overthrow of the regime in Utari Mosir, in response to ongoing genocide as well as Mosirak attempts to attack civilian populations across the border with Cifutingan
- An invasion of Utari Mosir will be launched simultaneously from Ostland, Degalogesa and Cifutingan, the remaining Axis members will offer no response
- The international coalition will quickly move through Utari Mosir and implement a transitional government overseen by various nations in Dovani (possinly through a new organisation
Vanuku, Cildania and New Endralon have all indicated to a certain extent that they would be willing to join, other nations are still welcome to do so at this stage. I would put the current potential international coalition as being composed of: Cifutingan, Dorvik, Lourenne, Midway, Ostland, Degalogesa, Indrala, Vanuku, Cildania and New Endralon. The next step is for players in these in-game nations to pass out-of-character motions which essentially reads the same as
this one I have proposed in Lourenne- (though make sure you change the names!). Below I will create a list of nations which are authorised to take part in this event and the "lead coordinator" for that nation (please send me links with passed bills as soon as possible):
I'm really pleased this RP is being organised. Due credit to the people involved - James, in particular. The RP will be affecting me (although only tangentially at the moment, I'm Vanuku's opposition party), and to be clear, I am supportive of it and consent to it.
The only issue I have relates to the
OOC: Consent for Dovani Axis War template bill which James drew up. A version of this has just appeared in
Vanuku, BTW, which is how this first came to my attention.
The final sentence in the template bill reads:
This motion requires a majority of players holding seats to vote in favour in order for it to pass.
Can I ask where the formula comes from about OOC RP consent bills needing the support of "a majority of players holding seats"?
The formula offered by section 6b of the
Game Rules is that large-scale RPs should have the consent of
all of the players involved:
If you are planning a large scale RP that will affect other users, always obtain the consent of all users involved. However it is possible to RP smaller, more personal events without the consent of others.
The previous version of the Game Rules provided some protection against RPs breaking down due to someone withdrawing consent. I quote the relevant section in full below:
23. Role-play events.
The default rule is that role-play events can only be done with the consent of all of the players in the nation or nations concerned, and that if one of the players withdraws consent for the role-play, then the role-play becomes void. However, there are procedures available to overcome the risk of a role-play being brought down like this. These procedures cannot compel players to actively participate in a role-play, but they do oblige them not to stand in the way of them and to recognise their legitimacy under the rules. The procedures are:
23.1 Role-play events between nations, such as wars, will be officially recognised if before they are commenced, in all of the concerned nations a RP event bill outlining the event is approved by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature. This bill must specify the necessary and possible consequences of the role-play event, as well as a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be interpreted in in-game terms.
An inactive nation, meaning a nation with no players with seats, clearly cannot give consent to role-play, which means players outside the nation should not attempt to role-play with it in in any major or controversial way.
23.1.1 Role-play events within a nation, such as a financial crash or a civil war, will be officially recognised if before they are commenced, a RP event bill outlining the event is approved by a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature. This bill must specify the necessary and possible consequences of the role-play event, as well as a clause that deals with the eventuality of one or more players becoming absent for more than a specified time, and how such an absence is to be understood in in-game terms.
23.2 It is permitted to use a RP event bill to institute a referendum. The RP event bill should specify:
- the result of the referendum or a full description of how the result will be determined. The bill could arrange for the result to be simulated by applying a simple formula to the outcome of an upcoming election. For example, the RP event bill might list what percentage of voters for each party will vote "Yes" and "No". Alternatively, as an example, the bill might delegate authority for determining the result to a designated player.
- the RP event bill should specify the in-game date at which the referendum will be held. For example, it might be held simultaneously with the election, or it might be held a year after the election.
- whether the bill is recommendative (ie. the legislature and/or government considers the referendum result and then takes a decison on what to do next) or enactive (ie. the referendum could potentially immediately enact a piece of legislation).
However, bear in mind that it is not possible for RP laws to over-ride game mechanic laws, so no referendum RP will be legal under the rules if it conflicts with this principle.
23.3 A RP event bill will be considered void if it contravenes the rules or would not be reasonably easy for an inexperienced player to understand.
However, obviously this is no longer in the Game Rules, so there is no possibility of protecting RP with a "a 2/3rds majority of all players with seats (not just those with seats who vote) and over 50% of the seats in the legislature" formula.
Going by how the rules are framed at the moment, I would suggest the sentence "This motion requires a majority of players holding seats to vote in favour in order for it to pass" be replaced with something like:
This RP requires the OOC (out-of-character) consent or presumed consent of all players holding seats in order to be considered valid under the Game Rules. Please vote yes to indicate your consent or no to indicate you do not wish to be considered to have consented at this stage. Jamescfm and others involved in this RP will be very happy to chat to you if you would like to raise any suggestions, questions or concerns. Thank you.
As it happens, I do not regard this situation as ideal, and I would like to see the return of something along the lines of the old section 23. However, with the rules as they are currently stated, this seems, at least to me, to be the sensible thing to do.
I encourage Moderation to please review this situation here and advise if/where they feel appropriate.