06-03-2026, 03:02 AM
Hi, it’s me again. Apologies if this topic has already been discussed in another thread – I couldn't find it.
I wanted to open a discussion thread to talk about the current game rules regarding inactive countries and how these rules might be tweaked or improved to allow greater flexibility in engaging with these countries, without opening the space for power-gaming, exploitation, etc.
I think it weakens our overall game world and undermines the sense of world building and realism to have many countries (and even entire regions) essentially locked in their international position, sometimes for centuries of in-game time. Regional politics cannot realistically develop, international institutions cannot function well, global conflicts become locked between a few active countries and players, and economic globalisation is similarly limited. This said, I also recognise the obvious concerns around powergaming.
I am motivated in part by my recent resurrection of IESCO. Thousands of years ago in-game, this organization was considered more-or-less opt out, and a number of currently inactive countries are home to recognized IESCO Global Heritage Sites. I feel that these countries – at least – should be able to be considered parties to the Convention. But this led me to consider a broader point: can we not just consider states to be part of international organizations that they would rationally be a part of, if not for their inactivity?
I think, at least as far as my point on IESCO goes, the game rules would permit me to indicate that these countries are parties to the convention, considering that Rule 4.5 states in part “We allow that the status-quo prior to inactivity can be maintained and is accessible to RP,” though in this case it is also somewhat contradicted by sentence which follows – “Never expand involvement with inactive nations […]” – as ratifying a technically new convention or joining an organization for the first time (at least, since Classic) would technically constitute an expansion of involvement, which is prohibited without a case-by-case mod decision. This is all to say that I feel the game rules around this topic could be clarified and strengthened.
To this end, I wanted to put forward a few ideas to gauge the views of players and moderation alike for how this area of the game rules and general game play could be improved, in my opinion. The following could be taken in part, or altogether:
1. Opening an “Inactive Country RP Request” thread
Players could write a request to have a limited RP engagement with an inactive country. Moderators can then approve or deny the request, though in my opinion they should err towards granting it unless there is a strong and specified reason to not do so. For instance, requests could be made for inactive countries to:
I would suggest that requests to the thread require a "rationality test," whereby the player making the proposal must prove or demonstrate that the proposed move logically aligns with the inactive country's interests, and that such a move is not designed to strengthen the position of the player's active country. Military alliances that would require the involvement of an inactive country's armed forces should not be considered within the bounds of what I am proposing here.
In the interest of workload balance, I would also suggest the following (though I have no strong opinion as this is more based in moderator discretion): interactions with inactive countries which are already permitted under the rules (cultural exchange, the assumption of free trade, etc.) should continue to be allowed without oversight; issues like IESCO, where we are opting countries in to organizations that have no real bearing on a state's sovereignty or internal politics, should require simple mod notification; any bigger act, such as a border conflict, membership in a regional bloc, etc., should require mod approval. Finally, a "right of reversal" for players taking control of an inactive country should also be recognized, provided the player is not simply moving to the country to reverse an action taken by another player without any RP justification.
2. Amend the Game Rules to allow “soft interactions” with inactive countries
What I describe as "soft interactions" could include:
This is a bit of a laissez-faire approach, but I think with well-crafted rules and guidelines, it could also be workable. The "right of reversal" I mention above is also relevant in this proposal.
3. Establish moderator or other “regional caretakers”
This is a bit of a throwback to the “third world controller” and “Global RP Committee” positions created in prior iterations of the game. In this scenario, a moderator or other moderator-approved player would be recognised as the “caretaker” of a region, whereby they: approve major interactions with inactive countries; ensure realism, and; prevent power gaming. This “caretaker” could also possibly generate limited RP events in these countries/regions that other players might wish to interact with (natural disasters, small conflicts, economic opportunities/issues, etc.) or to continue the status quo in a country, with the goal of maintaining a sense of dynamism and relevance to these regions.
A conflict with the rules here is Rule 2A.3, which requires mods to stay out of deliberations when they have a conflict of interest as players; thus moderators (or 'caretakers' appointed by moderator) should not be the primary or secondary controller of a neighbouring country. The biggest issue is that, of course, diplomatic and economic power is still power... but I still feel that in the interest of world-building and realism, and with guardrails established by rules, moderator discretion, and the "right of reversal," this sort of RP with inactive countries can still occur reasonably. That you lead an organization with a large number of inactive countries should not be considered a "pro," but a "con."
4. Subtle rule amendments
Amend Rule 4.5 to allow for "inertial" or "opt-out membership" for inactive countries. If a nation's established RP history aligns with an international organization (like IESCO, for instance), active players may RP that the nation remains a "passive member" without a formal request, provided no resources or territory are shifted. This could/should also extend to regional blocs like the Dovani Union (as an example) if a member state goes inactive.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
I wanted to open a discussion thread to talk about the current game rules regarding inactive countries and how these rules might be tweaked or improved to allow greater flexibility in engaging with these countries, without opening the space for power-gaming, exploitation, etc.
I think it weakens our overall game world and undermines the sense of world building and realism to have many countries (and even entire regions) essentially locked in their international position, sometimes for centuries of in-game time. Regional politics cannot realistically develop, international institutions cannot function well, global conflicts become locked between a few active countries and players, and economic globalisation is similarly limited. This said, I also recognise the obvious concerns around powergaming.
I am motivated in part by my recent resurrection of IESCO. Thousands of years ago in-game, this organization was considered more-or-less opt out, and a number of currently inactive countries are home to recognized IESCO Global Heritage Sites. I feel that these countries – at least – should be able to be considered parties to the Convention. But this led me to consider a broader point: can we not just consider states to be part of international organizations that they would rationally be a part of, if not for their inactivity?
I think, at least as far as my point on IESCO goes, the game rules would permit me to indicate that these countries are parties to the convention, considering that Rule 4.5 states in part “We allow that the status-quo prior to inactivity can be maintained and is accessible to RP,” though in this case it is also somewhat contradicted by sentence which follows – “Never expand involvement with inactive nations […]” – as ratifying a technically new convention or joining an organization for the first time (at least, since Classic) would technically constitute an expansion of involvement, which is prohibited without a case-by-case mod decision. This is all to say that I feel the game rules around this topic could be clarified and strengthened.
To this end, I wanted to put forward a few ideas to gauge the views of players and moderation alike for how this area of the game rules and general game play could be improved, in my opinion. The following could be taken in part, or altogether:
1. Opening an “Inactive Country RP Request” thread
Players could write a request to have a limited RP engagement with an inactive country. Moderators can then approve or deny the request, though in my opinion they should err towards granting it unless there is a strong and specified reason to not do so. For instance, requests could be made for inactive countries to:
- join a regional group/bloc;
- join an international organization (like IESCO);
- sign a diplomatic and trade deal (assuming the terms are equal, rather than preferential to the active country);
- have a limited border conflict or other issue with bordering states;
I would suggest that requests to the thread require a "rationality test," whereby the player making the proposal must prove or demonstrate that the proposed move logically aligns with the inactive country's interests, and that such a move is not designed to strengthen the position of the player's active country. Military alliances that would require the involvement of an inactive country's armed forces should not be considered within the bounds of what I am proposing here.
In the interest of workload balance, I would also suggest the following (though I have no strong opinion as this is more based in moderator discretion): interactions with inactive countries which are already permitted under the rules (cultural exchange, the assumption of free trade, etc.) should continue to be allowed without oversight; issues like IESCO, where we are opting countries in to organizations that have no real bearing on a state's sovereignty or internal politics, should require simple mod notification; any bigger act, such as a border conflict, membership in a regional bloc, etc., should require mod approval. Finally, a "right of reversal" for players taking control of an inactive country should also be recognized, provided the player is not simply moving to the country to reverse an action taken by another player without any RP justification.
2. Amend the Game Rules to allow “soft interactions” with inactive countries
What I describe as "soft interactions" could include:
- Diplomatic visits
- Cultural exchanges
- Equal trade agreements (i.e. not preferential to the active country)
- Expansion of regional infrastructure
- Humanitarian aid and operations
- Tourism
- FDI and expansion of business ventures
This is a bit of a laissez-faire approach, but I think with well-crafted rules and guidelines, it could also be workable. The "right of reversal" I mention above is also relevant in this proposal.
3. Establish moderator or other “regional caretakers”
This is a bit of a throwback to the “third world controller” and “Global RP Committee” positions created in prior iterations of the game. In this scenario, a moderator or other moderator-approved player would be recognised as the “caretaker” of a region, whereby they: approve major interactions with inactive countries; ensure realism, and; prevent power gaming. This “caretaker” could also possibly generate limited RP events in these countries/regions that other players might wish to interact with (natural disasters, small conflicts, economic opportunities/issues, etc.) or to continue the status quo in a country, with the goal of maintaining a sense of dynamism and relevance to these regions.
A conflict with the rules here is Rule 2A.3, which requires mods to stay out of deliberations when they have a conflict of interest as players; thus moderators (or 'caretakers' appointed by moderator) should not be the primary or secondary controller of a neighbouring country. The biggest issue is that, of course, diplomatic and economic power is still power... but I still feel that in the interest of world-building and realism, and with guardrails established by rules, moderator discretion, and the "right of reversal," this sort of RP with inactive countries can still occur reasonably. That you lead an organization with a large number of inactive countries should not be considered a "pro," but a "con."
4. Subtle rule amendments
Amend Rule 4.5 to allow for "inertial" or "opt-out membership" for inactive countries. If a nation's established RP history aligns with an international organization (like IESCO, for instance), active players may RP that the nation remains a "passive member" without a formal request, provided no resources or territory are shifted. This could/should also extend to regional blocs like the Dovani Union (as an example) if a member state goes inactive.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
"Everything's computer!" – President Donald John Trump ✝️
wuhan.particracy@gmail.com
wuhan.particracy@gmail.com