The Case For Limited Moderation: The Conversation Continues (Out of RP)

First of all, a major shoutout has to go to Dauchh. His bulletin (linked here, be sure to read it if you haven't done so already) was a great summary of some of the important guidelines we have been developing and working toward throughout our discussions. I definitely agree with all of his main 10 points-following these ten points will make rp a better place, without a shadow of a doubt. It accomplishes many of the things that we need for a more realistic and fun RP: it reduces the amount of wars, and makes power scaling more realistic (especially with the project-related guard rails (this refers to both in-game projects that are in RP as well as rp infrastructure projects) and with simply roleplaying the adverse effects of war). I also agree that a broader casus belli for wars is crucial, since the current proposal largely only allows for "liberation wars" which is only one of the many reasons why nations go to war in real life. 

My only complaint about the main ten points is the 9th point, where individuals cannot engage in breaks if involved in a conflict. Given my own experience in the Second Louisiana Skirmish against Colombia, a small break (a few days length) did not alter the RP significantly and Colombia fully re-entered the combat in a reasonable fashion even as myself and Britain respected his IRL commitments. So I think breaks can be initiated in the middle of conflict if 1. there aren't too many parties involved, and 2. if the break itself isn't too long. More research is needed to figure out what the best precise guideline would be in this regard.

Most of you have been watching the Iberia-Soviet war closely. Less of you are following the Tania-Borneo incident. As a neutral RP-wise, these incidents present a great opportunity for myself and the rest of those interested to test out a couple of ideas. The unique combat strategies and international relations pertaining to this conflict will be important in seeing 1. how these guard rails continue to be implemented 2. current flaws in the current RP theory 3. whether it is even possible to carry out a true World War in rp without it boiling out into a toxic mess. 

Some of you don't realize how long it takes to transport troops around the world. So if I were to add an addendum to Dauchh's ten guidelines, I would add an 11th rule: roleplay logistics. It takes a lot of time to put a military in different parts of the world. This problem is exacerbated by the larger the military force. Special Forces in the United States can deploy anywhere in the world in a day's time thanks to modern airlift capabilities, but moving a Carrier Strike Group from the US to the Middle East takes at least 10 days, and in reality, it often takes at least a month to set up combat operations. Like Dauchh said, we are not the United States. Even I, as the successor to the USA, do not roleplay as having the power of the United States. It is going to take around a month (in Orbis Time) for my expeditionary task force to settle into Nebelystan. My Global Theater Command is going to take several months to get fully situated. Military operations take time, and they take resources. Take this into account when you move troops.

I agree with Dauchh on the fact that we don't really need a colossal oversight entity for the whole RP. It would be foolish to even make an attempt at policing everyone and everything. However, local moderators (seen when Soviet moderated the war between myself and Colombia or when Luna and Rodevs moderated the war between [REDACTED] and the Coalition) have proven to be a successful option in keeping combat operations civil and semi-non-toxic. While Dauchh makes a good point about rping with those who have similar style/attention to detail as oneself (which makes sense, since a nitpicky and pedantic person such as myself is not going to get along well with someone who is just in it for kicks and doesn't take the realism too seriously in terms of coordinating our rps), there is the problem of hostiles (generally in the lower-tier of rp realism) instigating conflict with those individuals who are not even remotely in the same class of rp. There are a couple of solutions to this. The first is the timelines/separate rp universes theory, which we've seen in action a couple of times, but only for large-scale disruptances, and never for actual wars (save [REDACTED]). Another solution is mass-voiding, which is difficult to enforce, and doing this to not engage in a conflict could be perceived as war-dodging/a form of combat logging. However, by bringing in a local moderator specifically for the conflict, the conflict can still take place in a sufficiently realistic matter. This way, even if an individual of low-tier realism attempts to declare on a nation of high-tier realism, the moderator can 1. strike a balance between the two play styles, 2. see to it that the conflict is carried out in a realistic manner, and 3. reduce the potential for rage-voiding and general toxicity. 

An example of this seeing success was in the Colombia war. This is a unique case study proving the effectiveness of moderation in a conflict of nations that are of different RP tiers. Let's take a look at what happened. We started with of course the starting incident, which was the conflict over Louisiana. However, a peaceful resolution was not obtained, and both I and Colombia began mobilizing to fight for Louisiana. We bring in Soviet as the moderator, and we both consent to moderation. The conflict progresses. I keep my actions reasonably realistic, taking time and care to set up IADS, logistics, blockade, SIGINT, HUMINT, and defensive positions. After questioning from the moderator, these actions are treated as reasonable and given a result, which both of us can then act upon. Ultimately, the conflict is resolved with minimum toxicity or voiding.
 

Ultimately,  I think that Dauchh has outlined some really good points. I also think that the discourse could use a few amendments. Let me know in the comments what your thoughts are.