National RP - Rules Discussion.

[Thalmor]

Not paranoid, I just don't want to wake up and find out I been destroyed so I can no longer RP. If it's dropped, someone will do an RP like that, and basically hijack others. Seen it before. The OOC infighting gotten so bad Moderators had to instill rules and guidelines since nobody can make an agreement.

 

The last thing anybody wants to do if destroy another nation.

 

Let's assume that you are taken over. To knock someone out of RP'ing by destroying their nation seems a bit to much. Although Shex or Schwieger would be better to speak on it than I, I would assume that even if you were completely taken over, you would just be a 'vassal state' and that opens up so many doors for interesting RP because then you can plot a war of independence, and have others fund such war of independence, and it makes your conqueror look bad and makes other nations plot against them, etc, etc.

 

 

We actually did, infact it was  the first RP done by the new guys and it went NOWHERE

 

They claim they had cannons that could shoot fast moving tanks, and shoot faster than the speed of light to a point where it would begin burning the bullet. I am will and will forever be against the consent rule being changed since it is what started this RP and kept us together.

 

Maybe we could reach a fair middle ground:

 

Nothing happens without consent, but once consent is reached, anything goes?

[Tali]

We tried that many times, but people like to be trolls, the Great Saxon Empire we attempted tomake "non-cannon" but it took us nowhere, you guys dont realize we have tried and seen quite a lot of stuff, so please, dont be our parents, if you dont like it here, get a new subform or leave.

^

This.

[Oncaro]

We tried that many times, but people like to be trolls, the Great Saxon Empire we attempted tomake "non-cannon" but it took us nowhere, you guys dont realize we have tried and seen quite a lot of stuff, so please, dont be our parents, if you dont like it here, get a new subform or leave.

... We do like it here, or at least I do. That's why we're here! We are not the people you've dealt with in the past. We're the furthest thing from those sorts of people you can imagine, even if you don't want to believe it. But I'm not going to waste time derailing this thread anymore if I can help it, so I'm backing out of this discussion as right now I don't have the patience.

[Tali]

Maybe we could reach a fair middle ground

 

Nothing happens without consent, but once consent is reached, anything goes?

That seems more fair. And protects us from being forced into an RP we don't want to be in the first place Edited October 19, 2016 by Riza Hawkeye

[Shex]

That is why the Ignore Cannon exists.

 

And, ideally, people can tell when things get overboard.  Arbitrary Armageddon does not make for good RP, not when everyone is claiming that they already have established nations and the like.

I for one have indeed seen people make unreasonable and ridiculous claims.  Typically, those RP threads die and get ignored and everyone moves on.  We can treat those unrealistic claims like some North Korean propaganda video:

"AND THEN OUR GLORIOUS LEADER KIM JONG UN DESTROYED ALL OF NORTH AMERICA WITH A SNAP OF HIS FINGERS!"

Would anyone take that seriously?  I doubt it.  Without an explicit consent model, it's true that that kind of ridiculous propaganda might pop up.

 

But we have no reason to take it seriously.  Such players will find that they will be seen as little more than trolls and (ideally) either realize that they won't be able to RP with anyone else if they maintain that kind of attitude or (unfortunately) moderation will need to get involved.

 

Now you can say:  "That's too great a risk.  The Consent model prevents all of that."

The consent model seems to also limit player interaction.  In Nationstates we have something called Open RP in which all players can attend.  In the consent model you guys probably need to contact all other players before you submit a post, yes?  Otherwise according to the last few posts if one just posts a mention of another nation without that player's knowledge it's a violation of the consent rule.

[Thalmor]

Reposting my two sentences from just a few posts ago:

 

Maybe we could reach a fair middle ground:

 

Nothing happens without consent, but once consent is reached, anything goes?

 

Riza thought it was okay. What do the rest of your guys think?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Thalmor

[Tali]

Like Wolf stated, nobody Will care if it doesn't effect the RPEr and won't generally get upset, it's the RP that directly affect an RPer that requires consent.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Riza Hawkeye

[Schwieger]

@Thalmor -

 

The point that seems to be getting glossed over is the fact that even without consent RPers cannot take over another person's nation overnight. I'll say it again for emphasis: RPers cannot take over another person's nation overnight.

 

The point of roleplay is to, as I have stated before, engage in a back and forth. Claiming to have seized all of someone's holdings without them having the opportunity to RP out everything that would have happened in between is a godmod. 

 

@Lelouch -

 

Fast firing weaponry is far from unreasonable. Considering that we currently (as in, real life 2016) have the capability to shoot fast moving tanks with guns and other assorted weaponry, I see no reason why in the future we would lose this capability. 

[Amaryllis]

Honestly you could argue the consent model encourages player interaction. If making a post means you have to talk another rper that opens a door to actually talk to someone and possibly plan things out and you might even make a new friend. But honestly without the consent model you will get people who are upset. Now you could argue that maybe just maybe that person can ignore the post but honestly if I spent time typing out a post and the person I want to rp with isn't on board I'd be a bit peeved at the wasted time. The consent model at least let's you know that you can save a few minutes.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Amaryllis

[Shex]

Reposting my two sentences from just a few posts ago:

 

 

Maybe we could reach a fair middle ground:

 

Nothing happens without consent, but once consent is reached, anything goes?"

 

 

Riza thought it was okay. What do the rest of your guys think?

 

Ok.  Then maybe we can add one more caveat:

 

Players can always back out at their choosing?

 

Such a system literally installs the Ignore Cannon without using the words "Ignore" or "Cannon."

 

Now the only problem I see is how do we start RPs in a relatively timely manner?

 

In Nationstates you would typically post a RP proposal with (ATTENTION: (Insert Nation Here)) to let the other player know without bothering them via private message.

 

Sometimes other people join in "I come to fight on behalf of my ally!" etc.  And thus players interact while that original player (2nd player) might not even be online yet.

 

With the Consent model, the previously mentioned situation cannot exist.

 

And, again, with the Ignore Cannon active all ridiculous claims can be dismissed as propaganda.  Worst case scenario, everything gets retconned (removed ICly) and we all move on, the story failed.

[Thalmor]

The RP wars I've fought would include a large PM chat that's OOC where all parties would go back and forth on.

 

The same could be done with what I'm suggested. All parties can come together, give consent, and the thread could start.

 

Now, of course, it would prohibit other parties from coming in, but it is an evolution in the system that I can both sides can be content with.

[Lelouch Vi Britannia]

@Thalmor -

 

The point that seems to be getting glossed over is the fact that even without consent RPers cannot take over another person's nation overnight. I'll say it again for emphasis: RPers cannot take over another person's nation overnight.

 

The point of roleplay is to, as I have stated before, engage in a back and forth. Claiming to have seized all of someone's holdings without them having the opportunity to RP out everything that would have happened in between is a godmod. 

 

@Lelouch -

 

Fast firing weaponry is far from unreasonable. Considering that we currently (as in, real life 2016) have the capability to shoot fast moving tanks with guns and other assorted weaponry, I see no reason why in the future we would lose this capability. 

First of all, Knightmares took me a very long time in the RP to create, they are much faster than light tanks. Building on that, there is a reason we dont have Knightmares in the real world....this is Orbis, things are different. You came and overpowered everything I had, it was bull

[Schwieger]

Honestly, I don't see what the issue is. Are you claiming that Knightmare Frames are capable of dodging artillery? Or that having artilley capable of engaging 'frames is unreasonable?

 

Because on a technical level, claiming to be able to dodge artillery is much more unreasonable than claiming to be able to target something. Modern capabilities give anywhere from a few minutes to a few seconds to dodge incoming rounds. Adjust this for future tech velocities and I'd venture to say most instances will give you a few seconds to move out of the way.

 

It's much more likely a large mech will get tagged than one not getting tagged. Guns don't operate alone.

[Lelouch Vi Britannia]

Honestly, I don't see what the issue is. Are you claiming that Knightmare Frames are capable of dodging artillery? Or that having artilley capable of engaging 'frames is unreasonable?

 

Because on a technical level, claiming to be able to dodge artillery is much more unreasonable than claiming to be able to target something. Modern capabilities give anywhere from a few minutes to a few seconds to dodge incoming rounds. Adjust this for future tech velocities and I'd venture to say most instances will give you a few seconds to move out of the way.

 

It's much more likely a large mech will get tagged than one not getting tagged. Guns don't operate alone.

Its the fact you use overnight technology to destroy a very lengthy production of Knightmares throughout the time I rped.

[Schwieger]

Wasn't my tech so I won't defend that.

[Amaryllis]

Also can I say this, you can define RP as you wish but that might not be what it is to everyone. Someone rping what goes on in their natokn can still be considered rp. Our nation to some of us is a character within itself so rping what goes on in it is developing that nation and helps other players know what kind of country it is. For example I tend to rp some type of terrorist incident a lot, what does that tell you? That my country isn't possibly the safest to visit. It also helps to prevent overnight tech from appearing (rping out a country's military update)

 

Now when we do post what goes on in our nation, you can act accordingly. Back to my nation for example, with how my nation can be seen you might decide to say travel to Wintery is restricted or down right forbidden. I think in a way that's still rp. Maybe its not the type you're use to but its how some see it as.

 

Anyway sorry this is late I just saw a comment from someone mentioning how rping what goes on in our nation isn't considered rp. So I thought I should probably help to explain how it can be seen as such.

[Four]

whew that was a lot to read. 

 

I was under the impression that Nat RP would most likely continue its course as pretty much a "light" version of RP. From where I am standing that is what it seems like. Therefore, this whole consent thing would remain the same as it has always been. The only reason I posted it was to see if any wording would need to be changed. 

 

As far as I'm concerned - consent is needed for all major operations, like - traveling across the nations land with a full army, taking your ships into owned waters. Etc. But if a plane flies over, someone is at the border....all that small stuff, It really doesn't matter at that point.

 

I mean - most times you can build off that type of thing together.

 

 

So - I think as it stands Nat RP will remain "with consent" on the major operations as the key here was to tweak Nat RP and not change it all. Also basing that the general consensus of Nat RP is to still have consent.

 

All of those other MAJOR changes we can implement into the NEW RP which we will create after Nat RP is completely settled and ready to roll.

 

k?

[Wolfie]

We have seen that every time you guys bring up no consent, no one likes it and that starts some type of twitter/facebook comment war. 

 

If you see it is an unpopular change than stop pursuing it, maybe go to individuals ask their opinion and what they recommend, you guys are hellbent on changing a rule that is the core and moral to many people. We saw what happened when Frankia invade poor Russia, destroyed 3 fleets on par with his own and pretty much destroyed the Russian Federation. However we also see that the Dutch/Caledonina-Evenstar war which was by far one of the most successful wars which was a consent based, and mutual agreed upon. We planed battles we looked at context Evenstar had more planes, I had more ships, and Caledonia had the tech., We put it together and we made an entire war around it. People came in, gave their moral or military support. 

 

I feel you guys should ditch the no consent Idea and focus on change because everyone won't agree and they will fight you over the consent part and not give two craps on the rest of your proposal. 

[Four]

OFFICIALLY DITCHING THE CONSENT RULE CHANGE FOR NAT RP. 

 

 

The only other thing really brought up here was the use of IC and OOC threads, which is legit simple language addition to the rules/posting etiquette. 

 

You make an IC thread and if you want an OOC discussion you make another thread linking to your IC.

 

RIght?

[Schwieger]

whew that was a lot to read. 

 

I was under the impression that Nat RP would most likely continue its course as pretty much a "light" version of RP. From where I am standing that is what it seems like. Therefore, this whole consent thing would remain the same as it has always been. The only reason I posted it was to see if any wording would need to be changed. 

 

As far as I'm concerned - consent is needed for all major operations, like - traveling across the nations land with a full army, taking your ships into owned waters. Etc. But if a plane flies over, someone is at the border....all that small stuff, It really doesn't matter at that point.

 

I mean - most times you can build off that type of thing together.

 

 

So - I think as it stands Nat RP will remain "with consent" on the major operations as the key here was to tweak Nat RP and not change it all. Also basing that the general consensus of Nat RP is to still have consent.

 

All of those other MAJOR changes we can implement into the NEW RP which we will create after Nat RP is completely settled and ready to roll.

 

k?

 

This makes sense. Sounds like a plan to me.

 

We have seen that every time you guys bring up no consent, no one likes it and that starts some type of twitter/facebook comment war. 

 

If you see it is an unpopular change than stop pursuing it, maybe go to individuals ask their opinion and what they recommend, you guys are hellbent on changing a rule that is the core and moral to many people. We saw what happened when Frankia invade poor Russia, destroyed 3 fleets on par with his own and pretty much destroyed the Russian Federation. However we also see that the Dutch/Caledonina-Evenstar war which was by far one of the most successful wars which was a consent based, and mutual agreed upon. We planed battles we looked at context Evenstar had more planes, I had more ships, and Caledonia had the tech., We put it together and we made an entire war around it. People came in, gave their moral or military support. 

 

I feel you guys should ditch the no consent Idea and focus on change because everyone won't agree and they will fight you over the consent part and not give two craps on the rest of your proposal. 

 

We very likely were not reading the same RP then. I didn't (still don't) see anything about Russia or multiple fleets being destroyed - the only people who were saying such things were - amusingly enough - people from your end. 

 

And while I have already agreed with what Four has suggested above about relegating newer changes such as consent to the new RP subforums, I do feel the rest of what you have presented needs to be addressed: what you have suggested pretty much can be summed up as "suggest change, but don't suggest change," and "suggest change, but only change we agree with." The point of making suggestions is to generate discourse - this is how we work thinks out and decipher where everyone stands. It's only natural that people may disagree, but this isn't reason enough to silence them. The point of putting forth suggestions isn't to agree beforehand - it's to talk the matter over and see if something can be made from the myriad ideas being rocketed around by people.

 

One of the main reasons we have been pushing the "no consent" so hard (if you can even call the pursuit hard - it was only really recently brought up again, and not even by us; Four was asking about whether or not it should be changed on page one and I responded as I could only assume he wanted the matter to be discussed) is because of the times it has been brought up, the folks here have consistently failed to recognize what we have been saying about the matter (I'll gladly explain in detail over Discord if you are willing). 

[Four]

Lets move on to that IC/OOC posting. 

[Lelouch Vi Britannia]

Most of the Ic/OOC posting is used in PMs or over discord, using other methods to discuss OOC stuff like Irc or Discord seems like a much better plan and would help reduce clutter. As well as help a little to avoid metagaming

[Schwieger]

The point of the OOC threads is to keep relevant information easily accessible. It allows everyone to follow RPs and keep pace with what's going on. PMs and Discord are nice, but they far from serve the same purpose OOC threads serve.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Schwieger

[Four]

So basically from what I'm understanding is OOC threads are like the RP'ers choice?

 

Basically if you want one you can and if not you can either have a discussion elsewhere or none at all?

[Emperor Tristar Majestica]

I have a suggestion... (not sure if this was already mentioned).

 

We could create a subforum to NatRP, where different rules apply than to the regular NatRP forum. For example, the "consent" rule would not have to apply there, and as Schwieger, Shex (and others) have mentioned the "ignore-cannon" could be used instead. Rules there would be based upon what the players there want (e.g. no consent rule).

 

Just a suggestion.