Prometheus79 wrote:Reddy wrote:Prometheus79 wrote:The players of Dundorf have decided not to change our proposal:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=470790
We stand behind our update proposal:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=470029
We ask the moderation for approval.
I strongly suggest that you read up on the Game Rules (viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6363), particularly section 16, before doing and posting such stuff. It's Moderation which has the discretion to decide whether or not accept Cultural Protocol updates, not players.
Here's the relevant section16.5 As a general convention, players should be able to provide good reasons if they want to significantly change Cultural Protocols which are less than 30 in-game years old. Where the Cultural Protocols are more than 30 in-game years old, then a change to any of the categories by 5% or less will generally be accepted without question. If the changes proposed are between 5 and 10%, then players should be prepared for the possibility of having the changes queried. If the changes proposed are 10% or more, then players should always expect to need to provide strong role-play justification for the changes.
You have utterly failed to do what's required in the bolded part. You provided no RP justification whatsoever to justify these extremely drastic changes. A thousand votes by all the Dundorfian players on this would not change that there's no RP justification.
Of course the decision whether to approve our proposal or not is up to the Moderation. The decision to change our proposal or not, however, is up to the Dundorfian players. And we have decided not to change our proposal. It is now up to the Moderation to decide whether or not to approve this proposal.
As to the justification. Religion has been continuously banned in Dundorf for 80 years. If that is not justification enough for a massive increase in Atheism, nothing is. Of course if you stick to the wording of the rules you can say the game is irrelevant only role-play counts. Of course if that is the case there is no point to the game. I/We may "have utterly failed to do what's required in the bolded part."
Show me any kind of RP about the drastic increase of atheism in Dundorf over the past 80 years. A ban does not mean that religiosity decreases in a country. Guess who said that in a bill debate a few days ago? You. You have to RP the change you want to see. A mere bill banning religion is not sufficient RP justification. That does not mean that the bill doesn't count, it just isn't enough. I suggest you study recent cases where drastic changes have been approved.
Prometheus79 wrote:I'm afraid you have utterly failed to use common sense.
This is the nicest thing I've heard all day. God forbid that I should make a decision based on someone else's (IMO) faulty conception of common sense.