Proposal for allowing wars on vacant nations

[Dredd]

Given the fact we are migrating from classic and establishing new grounds for the map and other things, I personally feel there are a plethora of dormant countries which may never be populated or played for a long time if not indefinitely given the player base size. I would like it if there would be some possibility for nations like this that border player countries to with proper guidelines and discussion to potentially be attacked, instead of the current rules where it is strictly forbidden.

I feel this would open new rp opportunities, and potentially make the map a bit more palatable if some countries are in fact annexed. Thoughts?

[Mbites]

No. This would only be abused for self-serving needs and eliminates way more opportunities by eliminating these nations/their sovereignty from the game. It's also already very hard to gauge a nations capabilities since it has to be abstracted from half-enforced and half-non-enforced data as well as written newspaper-articles. That gauging is even harder with inactive nations. It would also require a review of design-philosophies regarding nations as "slots." Additionally it would also move the game away from consent-based Roleplay, since vacant nations can't consent there is no Roleplay going on, this would open up a whole bunch of different issues I frankly dont want to deal with.

Even if regulated it would require extensive mod intervention which I/we would like to avoid.

[Dredd]

No. This would only be abused for self-serving needs and eliminates way more opportunities by eliminating these nations/their sovereignty from the game. It's also already very hard to gauge a nations capabilities since it has to be abstracted from half-enforced and half-non-enforced data as well as written newspaper-articles. That gauging is even harder with inactive nations. It would also require a review of design-philosophies regarding nations as "slots." Additionally it would also move the game away from consent-based Roleplay, since vacant nations can't consent there is no Roleplay going on, this would open up a whole bunch of different issues I frankly dont want to deal with.

Even if regulated it would require extensive mod intervention which I/we would like to avoid.

So the alternative is having a bunch of dead unused and forgotten countries bloating the map? Many players are willing to RP realistic outcomes and discuss how RP can go, not all are so self serving. Nations capabilities and variables can be negotiated and moderated, the same is already done with cultural protocols and the like. If a nation remains inactive and nobody ever plays it how can something without existence consent, under the presumption a player "might" play there someday as a sole ruling party and self serve their means anyway? Consent based roleplay is fine when theres two actual parties involved.

[Mbites]

So the alternative is having a bunch of dead unused and forgotten countries bloating the map?

There are more popular and less popular nations, framing them in a negative light and saying that all unused nations are forgotten is a little disingenuous dont you think? Many players remember and have opinions on Countries even if they dont play there. 

Many players are willing to RP realistic outcomes and discuss how RP can go, not all are so self serving.

Of course not every single one is self serving, from experience I and probably the rest of the mod team as well as the veteran players can reasonably assume otherwise for the largest chunk though.

Nations capabilities and variables can be negotiated and moderated, the same is already done with cultural protocols and the like.

We in the last year and some months have as a game moved away from capability rankings and the like. In doing so we've perceived a clear decrease in toxicity and derailed discussion/bantering; Power based/Strategy power gaming is just not the modus operandi here since a text-based forum game isnt really a good platform for it if not very carefully designed for such a purpose. There is always going to be some level of mod involvement in regards to regulating nations/the game otherwise nothing would work anymore and shifting cultures every regime change would be very odd. 

If a nation remains inactive and nobody ever plays it how can something without existence consent, under the presumption a player "might" play there someday as a sole ruling party and self serve their means anyway? Consent based roleplay is fine when theres two actual parties involved.

Consent based roleplay is how the community has been operating for its whole existence and I dont really see a good, easy to implement alternative system; I certainly do not want to enforce more rp on other people or take away slots/nations/possibilites by letting someone attack a vacant nation. Having the nations means more people can have their way/platform to tell their arc/rp/story so its a net-win for everybody.

[Dredd]

They aren't all unused for forgotten but it just kinda feels like a hoarder mentality where theres unreasonable sentimentality and connection to a product that sits dormant, allowing wars, and perhaps mods taking the reigns of the nation being attacked or something could allow some new RP with otherwise completely un-interactable entities.

Personally I like the idea of rankings somewhat because if theres zero authority figure its just everyones call so its total dis-unity. Powergaming is certainly an issue but maybe were there a little group of experience people/staff with longstanding experience and knowledge of nations and their behaviors they could agree upon the status of nations worldwide. If you play the game and can't acknowledge faults about your nation that aren't self manufactured thats just immature in my opinion, im sure north korea would love the world to think it has one of the top 10 militaries in the world and a booming economy, but its evidently false, we can know this based on its behaviors and situation. Were there to be a general consensus on the matter with player feedback I think there can be a middle ground where you avoid toxic arguing, and if someone is gonna be toxic about fairness and realism in the game is that really the kinda playerbase we wanna cater rules to? The rules and fun of a game shouldn't be focused for hanging on to players in an already small playerbase under essentially strongarming the rules for everyone to protect their countries egos.

Should there be rules in place to prevent powergaming? Of course. Should there be guidelines and effort that must be put in to make big changes, effect other players, and be under moderation review? Sure. But as it stands I feel a lot of these rules are resulting in isolationist single party rule with no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back, thats fine then, but other players who want to be expansionist and assert influence abroad and such also in my opinion shouldn't be given a hard no with no exceptions.

[Mbites]

Okay so I'll make this the final comment from my side so that this isnt gonna be a two-man show and others might enter and say their piece too. And I have the distinct feeling we're not gonna get on the same page here anyways.

They aren't all unused for forgotten but it just kinda feels like a hoarder mentality where theres unreasonable sentimentality and connection to a product that sits dormant, allowing wars, and perhaps mods taking the reigns of the nation being attacked or something could allow some new RP with otherwise completely un-interactable entities.

Well, I can see where you are coming from on this point specifically but this is a big ask from a volunteer mod team that has time-constraints like any other. And we as a team plus greek would like to avoid maintenance heavy procedures/responsibilites.

Personally I like the idea of rankings somewhat because if theres zero authority figure its just everyones call so its total dis-unity. Powergaming is certainly an issue but maybe were there a little group of experience people/staff with longstanding experience and knowledge of nations and their behaviors they could agree upon the status of nations worldwide. If you play the game and can't acknowledge faults about your nation that aren't self manufactured thats just immature in my opinion [...]

We had OPTIONAL mod-issued rankings in the past, Particracy was always coined by the principle that even rankings were not enforced. Currently it is allowed for everyone to make their own rankings, feel free to draft some. To the actual point, its not technically impossible to gauge nations capabilites its just always weighting, debating and stepping on toes. Its in the nature of competitive rankings and me/we feel like this competitivenes is unhealthy, this isnt a global-strategy game, this is primarily a writing/storytelling vehicle in the setting of politics. I can agree on the point that if one denies certain aspects of realism that it is immature, but so what? We do not need rankings to enforce sanction against this immaturity, thats unnecessary. People will interact with you due to your player reputation or they will not. 

Were there to be a general consensus on the matter with player feedback I think there can be a middle ground where you avoid toxic arguing, and if someone is gonna be toxic about fairness and realism in the game is that really the kinda playerbase we wanna cater rules to?

Maybe there can be; Not sure; Possibly yeah. But from experience and knowledge of this community's culture, I dont think its necessary nor beneficial to Particracy as a whole to have mod plus player feedback rounds on official enforced rankings, thats would make Particracy not Particracy anymore. (Even leaving the administrative work aside for like 80(?) something nations)

The rules and fun of a game shouldn't be focused for hanging on to players in an already small playerbase under essentially strongarming the rules for everyone to protect their countries egos.

I am not sure I understand the last part, that seems like empty rhetorics. What does strongarming rules mean? Enforcing rules in general? Thats the point of rules from what I understand. I dont mean to be hostile here but I simply dont quite understand the last sentence. Yes we're a small playerbase in a very niché place and we have high entry standards but that's alright, its how this community is. 

Should there be rules in place to prevent powergaming? Of course. Should there be guidelines and effort that must be put in to make big changes, effect other players, and be under moderation review? Sure. But as it stands I feel a lot of these rules are resulting in isolationist single party rule with no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back, thats fine then, but other players who want to be expansionist and assert influence abroad and such also in my opinion shouldn't be given a hard no with no exceptions.

Well, the rules are from a different age and have not been generally updated in ages from what I know. But I do not really understand how they perpetuate isolationist singe party rule? But yeah that is correct, there is no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back and that is a GOOD thing in my and from what I can reasonably presume most people's perspective since this means nobody can be forced to participate in roleplay they dont want, and I certainly will not or ever endorse a change in that aspect. (And I would likely resign from all my roles of authority if such a change were enacted.) Single player's need to be expansionist and assert influence via violence abroad is just not a priority for the ruleset, most people can find players to participate if the scenario is interesting enough, I agree that this is currently a little harder due to a small playerbase but I dont think that allowing the destruction of potentially new-player drawing diversity in nations (because most people will primarily go to a nation that represents them) is the solution to any of the issues raised here (aside from having empty entities but I feel like the negatives outweigh the positives).

Summarily I want to say that what I can derive from this debate is that you have a fundamentally different view about what Particracy is than most of the playerbase. Of course that is alright, I just think that for the most fundamental points you raised here (eg. softening Consent-based RP) you won't find a positive reception. Alright, these are my two cents. It's a hard no from me on this. But I'd like to hear what others have to say if they're so inclined to share.

[Doc]

You all know where Kalistan stands.

If Kalistan could have done so, Baltusia would already be part of Kalistan, and I would have done it even if other players were playing there if I could have.

Me advocating for changes to the rules to benefit me is quite self serving.  If I was anyone else I would say "Thank you Doc for your opinion, though we already knew what your vote would be" and then move on.

My only real contribution to the discussion then would be to say that I would advocate against unlimited invasion.  Because there would legit be some players, (not me of course) who would take way more than their fair share, and those are the people I would argue against allowing to take anything.  So if you can't make a rule that is universally applicable to all, you shouldn't make the rule.

I also agree that there should be no way to force PLAYERS to participate in RPs they don't want to participate in.  If Kalistan is faced by an invasion by someone who refuses to plan anything or admit loss, for example, and presents us with a no win scenario (for Kalistan that is) I have zero incentive to participate on any level, and don't think anyone should be allowed to make me.

That said, there is no "agency" per se like that in an empty country:  I wouldn't be forcing Baltusian players to participate in an RP because they don't exist.  That's different.

Nor is this statement necessarily accurate:  "...most people can find players to participate if the scenario is interesting enough,"  because what is extremely interesting to me (i.e. annexing Baltusia and permanently affixing it to Kalistan) is clearly not interesting to the x-number of other players who would rather do nothing in their own countries.

I guess I can see both sides of this discussion.

[Dredd]

Summarily I want to say that what I can derive from this debate is that you have a fundamentally different view about what Particracy is than most of the playerbase. Of course that is alright, I just think that for the most fundamental points you raised here (eg. softening Consent-based RP) you won't find a positive reception. Alright, these are my two cents. It's a hard no from me on this. But I'd like to hear what others have to say if they're so inclined to share.

Fair enough I understand your views as well thanks for the feedback, my only other reply would be; I do understand moderation limitations and that you volunteer your time, but wouldnt having less countries reduce that load?

[Dredd]

You all know where Kalistan stands.

If Kalistan could have done so, Baltusia would already be part of Kalistan, and I would have done it even if other players were playing there if I could have.

Me advocating for changes to the rules to benefit me is quite self serving.  If I was anyone else I would say "Thank you Doc for your opinion, though we already knew what your vote would be" and then move on.

My only real contribution to the discussion then would be to say that I would advocate against unlimited invasion.  Because there would legit be some players, (not me of course) who would take way more than their fair share, and those are the people I would argue against allowing to take anything.  So if you can't make a rule that is universally applicable to all, you shouldn't make the rule.

I also agree that there should be no way to force PLAYERS to participate in RPs they don't want to participate in.  If Kalistan is faced by an invasion by someone who refuses to plan anything or admit loss, for example, and presents us with a no win scenario (for Kalistan that is) I have zero incentive to participate on any level, and don't think anyone should be allowed to make me.

That said, there is no "agency" per se like that in an empty country:  I wouldn't be forcing Baltusian players to participate in an RP because they don't exist.  That's different.

Nor is this statement necessarily accurate:  "...most people can find players to participate if the scenario is interesting enough,"  because what is extremely interesting to me (i.e. annexing Baltusia and permanently affixing it to Kalistan) is clearly not interesting to the x-number of other players who would rather do nothing in their own countries.

I guess I can see both sides of this discussion.

I pretty much agree with everything you said here, and as I said I wanna explicitly say this would apply to non player countries only. Player v Player is a subject totally to the discretion of involved parties, and unless they want to gauge it based upon dice rolls or something similar that would be a separate issue. If kalistan wanted however, to invade a neighboring country that has laid dormant for quite some time and nobody has interest in it, thats what I think rules should allow as a potential option

[Mbites]

Summarily I want to say that what I can derive from this debate is that you have a fundamentally different view about what Particracy is than most of the playerbase. Of course that is alright, I just think that for the most fundamental points you raised here (eg. softening Consent-based RP) you won't find a positive reception. Alright, these are my two cents. It's a hard no from me on this. But I'd like to hear what others have to say if they're so inclined to share.

Fair enough I understand your views as well thanks for the feedback, my only other reply would be; I do understand moderation limitations and that you volunteer your time, but wouldnt having less countries reduce that load?

Right back at ya, thanks for the civil debate and the constructive proposal, our little discussion has inspired my with one or two things to add in the rule-set possibly at release or later down the line.