The Third World: In Need of Change

Talk and plan things about the game with other players.

The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby Rogue » Wed Aug 12, 2020 1:21 pm

Hi everyone.

Some of you know what im about to write. Others dont. It has become clear from a multitude of discussions i have had with a variety of people that the Third World, with its current limitations and ruleset, cant continue.
Some background. As some of you may know over the past few months i have mostly been reserved to playing in one nation, Deltaria. I havent been actively involved in any third world or second account nation because i wanted to devote my full attention to developing Deltaria as a interesting power broker and "strongarm" nation for everyone to have fun RP with. Recently i figured i needed some diversity in my gameplay. I came up with an idea for Midway, a nation that has barely been played in. This idea was rather detailed and i was genuinly excited to execute it into concrete RP. A extensive RP, where i wouldnt just invade it and leave it to dust, but build up to a interesting situation that results in a climax. After this, i planned to continue to RP in the country and make it my "second nation" besides Deltaria to play in.

I was rather suprised when my request was denied. I figured it was more detailed then other requests ive seen. I believed that it was a good request. But it got denied. In the end i accepted the denial after some appeals. It was denied because of possible Deltarian involvement into Midway, something that we all know is a tricky subject when it comes to the TW. What really suprised me however was the fact that the denial also came into existence because "Midway wasnt supposed to be played as unstable".

Im getting to my point, dont you all worry. I was suprised by that statement and it got me thinking. Why do we have specific rules for the Third World? As many players have noted, the TW is arguably the same in terms of gameplay as first world nations these days. You can RP to the same degree and can even have a TW nation as your main account. There already is a general concensus amongst the most active players that the TW is at least somewhat less developed then playable nations, so having specific rules for that doesnt make much sense either.

My question, or rather proposal, is the following. I think that limiting the RP that can be done in a TW nation is against the creativity we all want in this game. Limiting a good request on the grounds that playable nations cant have influence in TW nations is wrong, and frankly undermines activity/creativity. I propose that the TW specific rules are scrapped and thrown to the side. Only the application process should remain relatively the same. The Third World itself should go by the same standards and rules as the playable nations do. The only limitation that needs to be in place is realism, not whether or not a players plan fits into Moderations perception of the nation in question. ESPECIALLY the rules on influence in the TW needs to be SERIOUSLY revised. It makes no sense for nations not to have influence in the TW. Vascania has influence in Malivia for example, but according to the current standards of moderation playable nations cant have significant influence in the TW.

Personally ive come to realise that PT is a big sandbox we all wanna enjoy. There should be the minimal obstacles for players to be creative. For me the PT world is a dynamic one, where realism is important but where action also meets reaction. You need to have as many options available to you. Limit this to much and all the enjoyment is sucked out of your creative brain.

Would love to hear everyones opinions on this.
Playing in:

Nsanlosa
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby Aquinas » Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:06 pm

I feel a considerable degree of empathy for the points Mr. God is making, and I particularly empathise with the confusion and poor communication which has been present in his recent experiences with Moderation on the Third World Control Requests threads. Along with several others I have spoken to, I would be more comfortable if James, for example, took on the Third World Coordinator responsibilities.

Mr. God wrote:It has become clear from a multitude of discussions i have had with a variety of people that the Third World, with its current limitations and ruleset, cant continue.


Here I feel you are overstating your case. The rule restricting the ways Third World Nations interact with in-game nations does certainly impose limitations on RP, but that does not make things so bad that they "can't continue", and that does not even mean having such a rule in place is not necessarily the best available option, at least for the moment.

Let me quote the relevant rule in question:

7. Third World nations cannot be controlled, re-colonized or other source of direct assumption of power by an in-game nation. These nations are intended for role-play opportunities that may not be possible;


As you can see, reflecting the casual approach which successive Moderators have taken towards the Game Rules document, this is poorly written, and for example, the second sentence is so poorly phrased it makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, the basic premise, that players should not engage in "puppet-wanking", or using Third World Nations to directly benefit the in-game interests of their in-game nations, is not without its virtues, and does at least have the advantage of being reasonably simple for everyone to understand and follow.

If we were to have a system where, at Moderation's discretion, it was possible for players to combine the RP of their Third World and in-game nations in ways which would hitherto have been considered controversial, then that would, of course, mean we would need to have confidence in Moderation to handle those decisions, to be accountable for those decisions and to be responsive to reasonable concerns and discussions surrounding those decisions. Along with some others I have chatted to, I am personally one of those who would in an ideal world like to see Moderation's responsibilities extended in this way, for the benefit of the game...but who in practice, given the way things are, would actually rather not go down that road, at least at the present time.

Players have already lost confidence in Moderation's ability to handle the economic/military rankings and their enforcement, and to such an extent that even Moderation eventually recognised the need to make them voluntary only. We have also seen, over a prolonged period of time and over successive Moderator Teams, that Moderators have a habit of ignoring or deflecting legitimate issues that are raised, and at times, of applying unfair pressure on players in order to try to secure their silence. Only last month, a whole range of issues were raised about the conduct of the Moderator Auditorii, including concerns about him violating the rule regarding interactions between Third World Nations and in-game nations, and these were all essentially ignored, and Auditorii himself did not even deign to acknowledge them. There are also, it goes without saying, a range of questions relating to the plagiarism situation which Moderation has completely ignored as well.

None of this is ideal, but given we are where we are, at least for the present, frankly, it would be better to keep things simple and avoid granting Moderation more detailed discretion over how players combine the RP of their in-game nations with their Third World Nations. Otherwise, the very real risk is we will end up with more unaccountable and poorly-explained (or not explained at all) decisions, more inconsistency and more perceptions of Moderator bias.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby Rogue » Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:09 pm

After 3 days still no response from Moderation. To comment on Aquinas his points, i get them, but i dont agree with them. I believe that the Third World shouldnt be treated differently to the first world anymore. It stops creativity.
I would appreciate a response by moderation. Its been quite long
Playing in:

Nsanlosa
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby jamescfm » Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:17 pm

The delay in Moderation response is my fault. Last weekend my laptop broke and I have been unable to properly access the game through the week, hence some may have noticed a lack of activity from me. For something like this it is better that we have an internal discussion before offering a public response and we simply haven't been able to do that yet. I did reach out to both of you to let you know but I probably should have noted it here too. Now that the problem is fixed, we'll get back to you as soon as possible.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby Rogue » Sat Aug 15, 2020 8:34 pm

Its not personal or something. Just figured i would ask an update. I thought the others took over as your laptop broke. Glad its once again on the agenda
Playing in:

Nsanlosa
User avatar
Rogue
 
Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby Liu Che/Zhuli » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:23 pm

Just to voice the opinion, I am very much against any restoration of colonialism. Part of this is selfishness - me, Ryouta, and Martinulus - were the ones who agreed to end this, but I worked tirelessly (hyperbole) to end the practice. For those who do not remember the pitfalls, if you think the rankings were problematic, colonialism entailed nation raiding, players going to a nation just to "sell" the colonies to the main nation they played in, a total lack of realism with nationalist backlash, and using the number of territories on the map as the total measure of power. I would prefer not to go back down this road, especially when it could be a very spiteful time.
Image
User avatar
Liu Che/Zhuli
 
Posts: 1276
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:41 pm
Location: Indrala (P1) Jing (P3)

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby jamescfm » Sat Aug 15, 2020 10:26 pm

At the moment we're still talking about the issues raised in these couple of posts but I am certain that we will not be bringing back the colonial system under any circumstances. I don't think that's what Mr.God meant by "exerting influence" but just to be transparent about it.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby jamescfm » Wed Aug 26, 2020 10:33 pm

My apologies again for the delayed response to this thread. The Moderation team have had a discussion about the matter and hopefully we're able to clarify a few points about the Third World (or forum-based) countries and how they operate.

Probably the first thing to note is the point that I emphasised in my previous response, which is that we are not going to bringing back the colonial system under any circumstances. At a point in the game's history this might have been an interesting and beneficial addition to the game but we're all agreed that it isn't something that we're going to return to in the future. I understand that your post was probably focused on less direct "control" than literal colonisation but it is worth just restating that point for the sake of clarity.

At the moment the regulations around the extent to which players are able to exert influence over forum-based countries with their in-game countries are somewhat unclear, I understand this. In the coming weeks we will hopefully review these rules and update them to reflection the current position of Moderation and especially Auditorii (who is the Third World Coordinator).

In doing so it might be beneficial to have a broader conversation about these countries and how they operate. Although they have experienced fluctuating activity throughout time we do have a core handful of players in the game at the moment who have invested a significant amount of time and effort in developing a forum-based country and it would be useful to hear from these players about what they think is working as well as how we might make improvements.

For the recent past the approach to exerting direct influence (for example through invasion or a kind of dependency relationship) has been that it should generally be avoided but that we were willing to be flexible in certain cases. For example we have had a couple of recent conflicts involving a forum-based country being invaded by an in-game country although this has generally involved two players, instead of a single player invading one of their countries with another (so to speak). For the meantime we are going to stick with this approach though we will try to be clearer with players about how it functions.

The primary reason that we prefer that players avoid these kinds of relationships between countries is that they have a significant potential for abuse. When there are multiple players involved the risk of abuse is reduced and this is why, for example, the relationship between Malivia and Vascania is less problematic than if it were a single player role-playing the same relationship. In this sense you might compare it to the regulations we enforce on players who operate a second account, through we which we ensure that they keep their activities in the two countries separate.

Something that we are going to change slightly in the functioning of these countries is the approvals process for the applications. As I mentioned elsewhere the process has typically been led by the Third World Coordinator for the past several years and for a while now that role has been held by Auditorii who is obviously also a Moderator. Auditorii will continue to take the lead on development of the forum-based countries but the Moderation team as a whole will be responsible for considering applications for control (in a similar manner to the second accounts scheme) in order to avoid the issues that we experienced with your request for Midway.

Hopefully you find this response addresses your concerns but feel free to continue the discussion if you have any further questions or comments.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Re: Third World Control Requests

Postby Aquinas » Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:54 am

I saw the discussion about Mr. God's proposal both here and on Discord, and was sorry to see the way it went. It goes without saying, I think, that Mr. God is one of the strongest and most prolific RPers in the game, as well as someone we feel respect and personal affection for, and nobody likes to see him feeling so disillusioned with the RP situation in Particracy.

There will always be potential issues with ingame nations exerting control over Third World Nations. Nevertheless, it is something that can be done successfully. As some will recall, the invasion and occupation of Noumonde was RPed whilst I was in control of that nation. That was permitted at the time, and I do not recall there being any real objections to it or issues surrounding it.

For the record, I do understand why Moderation rejected the application, and I do not feel they were fundamentally acting outside of the rules in doing so. Nevertheless, with a little flexibility on both sides, I wonder whether a compromise could be possible. As an example, what would Mr. God and the Moderators think about the idea of going along with Mr. God's proposal, but imposing a very strict time limit by which Deltarian control of or heavy influence over Mina would end? The understanding being that after the time limit has expired, the RP will be presumed to have concluded.

More generally, going forwards, the use of strict time limits could be a way of permitting in-game nations to control/occupy/heavily influence Third World Nations, without having the problems which would go along with having that situation continue for prolonged periods. Is this something Moderation could consider?

FWIW I would argue allowing more powerful nations to flex their muscles over Third World Nations potentially enhances the Third World RP experience rather than damages it, because in the real world, the weaker nations do sometimes find themselves having to deal with such situations. Arguably, it is somewhat unrealistic and restrictive of RP to allow players to control weaker nations, but not to allow them to RP some of the challenges weaker nations commonly face in their relations with more powerful countries.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: The Third World: In Need of Change

Postby jamescfm » Thu Sep 24, 2020 10:55 pm

Hope you don't mind me moving the above post to this discussion thread, I did so in case other players want to join in with the discussion and because the issues being covered are fundamentally similar.

As my previous post in this thread makes clear we are not entirely against the idea of Third World countries being involved in conflicts with in-game countries. As you note in your post it would be unrealistic for countries not to be involved in (at least minor) conflict from time to time. The primary reason that we made the decision to reject Mr.God's request (and the reason we rejected his previous, similar request) is that we are concerned about the potential for abuse of this system when the two countries are controlled by the same player.

Even when the conflict or involvement is time-limited there is still the potential to utilise the role-play to benefit the in-game country and this is something that we're doing our best to avoid in the Third World. When there are two separate players involved the potential for abuse is substantially lowered and this has been the principle according to which some of the more recent conflicts involving both Third World and in-game countries have been conducted.

If other players have feedback to offer on this subject of any kind then I would urge them to share it to help us gauge the player feeling on this matter. Although both Auditorii and I believe the current approach does the best job of balancing the desire for diversity in role-play and the need to ensure fairness, we are always open to hearing the views of the community.
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest