For reference and to lay clear my potential and probable bias in this matter:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=400257
Rule at question:
9. Military RP: Countries going to war with each other have to consider the following. Before RP starts, there has to be an OOC agreement between the countries about possible or necessary consequences of the RP. It also has to have 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 (ie does it mean that the country is fighting as normal, surrenders, or is the RP void, or at least part of the RP).
This OOC agreement has to be voted on in the same bill that serves as the declaration of war, or in a bill made prior to the DoW, but in the same game month, and has to be accepted by a 2/3rd majority of the countries players (not parties).
If no such agreement happens, the RP will be void from day one. If a specific player is responsible for such RPs at least twice, he'll be subject to moderation sanctions.
In recognizing pre-rule history, and my own experience in such matters (both ill and positive) i ask Moderation to change these rules to allow for easier facilitation of RP. As the current military rules state: an OOC agreement must be reached before players can join or start a war RP and then 2/3 of players in each country must agree to this. Now i can understand the reasoning behind such measures (again from personal experience) however i do find them stiffing. War RP, much like real international affairs is hardly planned out in such detail and i believe that the current dearth of international and war RP is partly because of such onerous requirements. If only a positive minority of players wishes to ignore a war RP or potential conflict RP they can do so without detriment. Now i understand that we already debated this and i do regret not speaking up against this at that time. However before this becomes a problem (at least for me) i would like to air my concerns.
Now as an alternative to the rule i would like to propose a rough draft of the following:
9. When conducting a war or other military RP the following factors should be considered by all engaging parties: state of national armed forces (and nation in general), prior build RP to tensions, domestic political situation, allies and potential enemies and player support.
When preparing an RP, some form of military authorization must pass the national legislature and be declared as passed by the game mechanics. Players should note that lack of broad party support for any war bill will hamper national spirit to the war and morale of the armed forces and the less parties support the war the less popular support and morale there is. Players should role play their armed forces factoring in the above to make sure to prevent god-modding. If unsure about your actions and conduct of the war seek advice from Moderation and other players to ensure god modding does not become an issue.
Any nation that ceases to participate in a conflict and attempts to retcon will be allowed out of the RP but it must accept a "victors peace" unless extenuating circumstances exist where Moderation will step in to provide guidance and a resolution to the RP.
This rule, if approved will not apply to any RP retroactively unless consent is given by ALL parties in said RP.