15-04-2025, 12:08 AM
I agree with much of what Zanz has written here already. Though I am not opposed to role-play involving weapons of mass destruction in principle, my personal view is that almost all previous attempts to monitor or adjudicate role-play by Moderators have been beset by the same two problems.
The first problem is that the Moderation team generally do not have the time necessary to effectively keep track of the role-play happening in every country. As a result, the only time they get involved is when another player complains. As an example of this, consider the rules against plagiarism and the use of artificial intelligence. In my experience, these rules are only enforced when another player points out to Moderation that they are being violated. If the Moderation team was actively monitoring role-play in each country, it is likely they would be spotted much sooner.
The second problem is that assessing role-play is highly subjective. Every player has a different understanding of what makes role-play "good" and this contributes to a degree of diversity in terms of both style and subject of role-play within the community. When you add to this that there are strained relations between a number of long-term players, there is no doubt that there will be controversy when judgements have to be made. For that reason, I think it best to limit Moderator action that involves making subjective judgements wherever possible.
With all this in mind, I think it is just easier for everybody to say "no weapons of mass destruction" in the short term. If there is a genuine community desire to establish a storyline that involves such weapons, I would suggest planning this as a group in advance, and seeking explicit permission to have an exception to the rule.
The first problem is that the Moderation team generally do not have the time necessary to effectively keep track of the role-play happening in every country. As a result, the only time they get involved is when another player complains. As an example of this, consider the rules against plagiarism and the use of artificial intelligence. In my experience, these rules are only enforced when another player points out to Moderation that they are being violated. If the Moderation team was actively monitoring role-play in each country, it is likely they would be spotted much sooner.
The second problem is that assessing role-play is highly subjective. Every player has a different understanding of what makes role-play "good" and this contributes to a degree of diversity in terms of both style and subject of role-play within the community. When you add to this that there are strained relations between a number of long-term players, there is no doubt that there will be controversy when judgements have to be made. For that reason, I think it best to limit Moderator action that involves making subjective judgements wherever possible.
With all this in mind, I think it is just easier for everybody to say "no weapons of mass destruction" in the short term. If there is a genuine community desire to establish a storyline that involves such weapons, I would suggest planning this as a group in advance, and seeking explicit permission to have an exception to the rule.