<![CDATA[Particracy Forum

<![CDATA[Particracy Forum - Discussion]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/ Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:31:47 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Requesting CulPro update for Luthori]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=656 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 18:11:31 +0000 Ligbruderkrieg]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=656 (Removed Hulstrian and integrated it into Dundorfian - if that's alright.)

Adding to this, I would wish to split up Hosianism within Luthori, by adding the Aurorian Church and other Hosian denoynms, while keeping the Holy Luthori Church's influence and perennial role in Luthorian Hosianism.

Furthermore, I would like to remove the Victorian Era focus, because it never made sense around me (don't know if that can be debated however). Here's the former culpro for reference: https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-342.html

Quote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.p...lid=695908

In accordance with section 7 of the Game Rules (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.ph...=4#p145764), Luthori is a "culturally protected" country. Below is the cultural protocol which all players must conform to. Throughout the document, the real-life equivalent is shown in brackets next to the in-game name.

Link to passed bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.p...lid=692978
Link to Moderation approval: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.ph...05#p186405

-- OVERVIEW --

Luthori is based on England, although with influences from foreign cultures due to its lengthy history of relatively open cultural integration system (inspired from America’s Melting Pot – with Luthorian culture at its center, but other cultures being added in addition to it). Historically, the country controlled a vast colonial empire that included portions of Dovani, Seleya, Temania and Vascania. Luthori's former colonies have now been independent for centuries though. Furthermore, in recent history, Luthori has begun to encourage immigration from other countries as a way to boost their population. Since 5317, Luthori has been a constitutional monarchy under the House of Orange-Villayn Armstead.

--ETHNICITY--

Luthorian (English) people form the majority of the population but they are an ethnically and racially diverse population.

» Luthorian (English) - 69%
-- White Luthorian (White English) - 64%
-- Luthorian Raktavani (English South Asian) - 3%
-- Black Luthorian (Black English) - 2%
» Mordusian (Australian) - 5%
» Dundorfian (German/Austrian) - 5%
» Valruzian (Polish) - 3%
» Tropican (New Zealander) - 3%
» Narik (Dutch) - 3%
» Yeudi (Jewish) - 3%
» Canrillaise (French) - 2%
» Hobrazian (Georgian) - 2%
» Kalistani (West Coast American) - 1%
» Caldorian (Scottish) - 1%
» Egelian (Spanish) - 1%
» Other - 2%

--RELIGION--

Hosianism (Christianity) is the dominant religion. Historically the Holy Luthori Church (Church of England) has had an important political and cultural role in Luthorian society.

» Hosianism – 76.7%
-- Holy Luthori Church (Church of England) - 62.1%
-- Abjurantism (Protestantism) - 7.1%
-- Aurorian Patriarchal Church (Catholic Church) - 4.1%
-- Augustan Church (Orthodox Church) - 1.9%
-- Other Hosian denonymn(s) - 1.4%
» No religion - 13.4%
» Geraja (Hinduism) - 3%
» Yeudism (Judaism) - 3%
» Ahmadism (Islam) - 2%
» Other - 2%

--LANGUAGE--

Luthorian (English) is spoken by almost the entire population, although minority languages coming from the immigrant communities are still spoken.

--INFORMATION/TOOLS--

Particracy Game Rules: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=8088
Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=6365
Naming generators: https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/
https://www.behindthename.com/random/

]]> (Removed Hulstrian and integrated it into Dundorfian - if that's alright.)

Adding to this, I would wish to split up Hosianism within Luthori, by adding the Aurorian Church and other Hosian denoynms, while keeping the Holy Luthori Church's influence and perennial role in Luthorian Hosianism.

Furthermore, I would like to remove the Victorian Era focus, because it never made sense around me (don't know if that can be debated however). Here's the former culpro for reference: https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-342.html

Quote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.p...lid=695908

In accordance with section 7 of the Game Rules (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.ph...=4#p145764), Luthori is a "culturally protected" country. Below is the cultural protocol which all players must conform to. Throughout the document, the real-life equivalent is shown in brackets next to the in-game name.

Link to passed bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.p...lid=692978
Link to Moderation approval: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.ph...05#p186405

-- OVERVIEW --

Luthori is based on England, although with influences from foreign cultures due to its lengthy history of relatively open cultural integration system (inspired from America’s Melting Pot – with Luthorian culture at its center, but other cultures being added in addition to it). Historically, the country controlled a vast colonial empire that included portions of Dovani, Seleya, Temania and Vascania. Luthori's former colonies have now been independent for centuries though. Furthermore, in recent history, Luthori has begun to encourage immigration from other countries as a way to boost their population. Since 5317, Luthori has been a constitutional monarchy under the House of Orange-Villayn Armstead.

--ETHNICITY--

Luthorian (English) people form the majority of the population but they are an ethnically and racially diverse population.

» Luthorian (English) - 69%
-- White Luthorian (White English) - 64%
-- Luthorian Raktavani (English South Asian) - 3%
-- Black Luthorian (Black English) - 2%
» Mordusian (Australian) - 5%
» Dundorfian (German/Austrian) - 5%
» Valruzian (Polish) - 3%
» Tropican (New Zealander) - 3%
» Narik (Dutch) - 3%
» Yeudi (Jewish) - 3%
» Canrillaise (French) - 2%
» Hobrazian (Georgian) - 2%
» Kalistani (West Coast American) - 1%
» Caldorian (Scottish) - 1%
» Egelian (Spanish) - 1%
» Other - 2%

--RELIGION--

Hosianism (Christianity) is the dominant religion. Historically the Holy Luthori Church (Church of England) has had an important political and cultural role in Luthorian society.

» Hosianism – 76.7%
-- Holy Luthori Church (Church of England) - 62.1%
-- Abjurantism (Protestantism) - 7.1%
-- Aurorian Patriarchal Church (Catholic Church) - 4.1%
-- Augustan Church (Orthodox Church) - 1.9%
-- Other Hosian denonymn(s) - 1.4%
» No religion - 13.4%
» Geraja (Hinduism) - 3%
» Yeudism (Judaism) - 3%
» Ahmadism (Islam) - 2%
» Other - 2%

--LANGUAGE--

Luthorian (English) is spoken by almost the entire population, although minority languages coming from the immigrant communities are still spoken.

--INFORMATION/TOOLS--

Particracy Game Rules: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=8088
Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=6365
Naming generators: https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/
https://www.behindthename.com/random/

]]> <![CDATA[Requesting CulPro update for Dundorf]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=653 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 18:46:13 +0000 TheNick]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=653 census RP we did. This update contains only minor adjustements and doesn't change the nature of Dundorf, which remains predominantly Dundorfian with its historic Narik majority, and remains plurality non-religious, with the Ameliorate Church holding the primacy among religious groups. Here is the old CulPro, for reference: https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-281.html

Quote:-- OVERVIEW --

Dundorf is generally regarded as Particracy's equivalent of modern-day Germany. In comparison to other Dundorfian (German)-majority countries in the game, Dundorf is relatively ethnically homogeneous and is more politically polarised, leading to the establishment of various authocratic regimes on the left and right side of the political spectrum throughout its history. Since 5218, Dundorf is governed by a federal parliamentary democratic system, with a multi-party democracy.

-- ETHNICITY --

» Dundorfian (German)- 82%
» Narik (Dutch): 9%
»» Ikradonian (Belgium-based Dutch): 2%
» Kundratijan: 3,5%
»» Delic (Slavic): 2,5%
»» Lurrian (Basque): 1%
» Endralonian (Hungarian): 1%
» Yeudish (Jewish): 1,5%
» Others (Hobrazian, Majatran): 3%

--RELIGION--

» No religion: 49,5%
» Confessional Ameliorate Church of Dundorf (Calvinist): 35%
» Dundorfian (Aurorian) Patriarchal Church (Catholic): 9%
» Hobrazian (Terran) Patriarchal Church (Eastern Orthodox): 2,5%
» Ahmadism (Islam): 1.5%
» Yeudism (Judaism): 1.5%
» Others: 1%

--LANGUAGE--

The official language of Dundorf is Dundorfian (German). Nearly all individuals born in Dundorf speak the language although some minority communities along the country's borders speak their historic languages as well. Luthorian is widely known as a second language.

» Dundorfian (German) - 99% (92% as a native language)
» Luthorian (English) - 85% (1% as a native language)
» Narik (Dutch) - 31% (8% as a native language)

--INFORMATION/TOOLS--

- Translation Tools: https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&sl=d...=translate

- Naming Generators:
https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/german-names.php
https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/dutch-names.php

Game Rules: https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-108.html

Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365

Particracy forum: https://forum.prtcy.com/

]]> census RP we did. This update contains only minor adjustements and doesn't change the nature of Dundorf, which remains predominantly Dundorfian with its historic Narik majority, and remains plurality non-religious, with the Ameliorate Church holding the primacy among religious groups. Here is the old CulPro, for reference: https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-281.html

Quote:-- OVERVIEW --

Dundorf is generally regarded as Particracy's equivalent of modern-day Germany. In comparison to other Dundorfian (German)-majority countries in the game, Dundorf is relatively ethnically homogeneous and is more politically polarised, leading to the establishment of various authocratic regimes on the left and right side of the political spectrum throughout its history. Since 5218, Dundorf is governed by a federal parliamentary democratic system, with a multi-party democracy.

-- ETHNICITY --

» Dundorfian (German)- 82%
» Narik (Dutch): 9%
»» Ikradonian (Belgium-based Dutch): 2%
» Kundratijan: 3,5%
»» Delic (Slavic): 2,5%
»» Lurrian (Basque): 1%
» Endralonian (Hungarian): 1%
» Yeudish (Jewish): 1,5%
» Others (Hobrazian, Majatran): 3%

--RELIGION--

» No religion: 49,5%
» Confessional Ameliorate Church of Dundorf (Calvinist): 35%
» Dundorfian (Aurorian) Patriarchal Church (Catholic): 9%
» Hobrazian (Terran) Patriarchal Church (Eastern Orthodox): 2,5%
» Ahmadism (Islam): 1.5%
» Yeudism (Judaism): 1.5%
» Others: 1%

--LANGUAGE--

The official language of Dundorf is Dundorfian (German). Nearly all individuals born in Dundorf speak the language although some minority communities along the country's borders speak their historic languages as well. Luthorian is widely known as a second language.

» Dundorfian (German) - 99% (92% as a native language)
» Luthorian (English) - 85% (1% as a native language)
» Narik (Dutch) - 31% (8% as a native language)

--INFORMATION/TOOLS--

- Translation Tools: https://translate.google.com/?hl=en&sl=d...=translate

- Naming Generators:
https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/german-names.php
https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/dutch-names.php

Game Rules: https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-108.html

Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365

Particracy forum: https://forum.prtcy.com/

]]> <![CDATA[The Ticker and PT: Reborn]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=642 Wed, 03 Jun 2026 18:51:10 +0000 TheNick]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=642
We're all very excited for the enthusiasm that the rollout of PT: Reborn has generated among the community, noting it has generated an increase in the amount of RP articles.

We noticed that the current setting of the game timer, one month every twelve hours, seems to be too slow for the new game mechanics part. The Moderation team is open to consider returning to a one month every eight hours timer, considering it as a fair balance for more dynamic game mechanics but still months that are not too short to produce quality RP arcs.

For this reason, we're officially opening a max 1 week feedback period in which all members of the PT community are encouraged to tell us their opinion on this matter. Upon closure of this feedback period, our team will make a final decision.]]>
We're all very excited for the enthusiasm that the rollout of PT: Reborn has generated among the community, noting it has generated an increase in the amount of RP articles.

We noticed that the current setting of the game timer, one month every twelve hours, seems to be too slow for the new game mechanics part. The Moderation team is open to consider returning to a one month every eight hours timer, considering it as a fair balance for more dynamic game mechanics but still months that are not too short to produce quality RP arcs.

For this reason, we're officially opening a max 1 week feedback period in which all members of the PT community are encouraged to tell us their opinion on this matter. Upon closure of this feedback period, our team will make a final decision.]]> <![CDATA[Update on Cultural RLE]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=615 Tue, 10 Mar 2026 14:44:24 +0000 Doc]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=615
https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-248-post-...l#pid10123

Which calls Polish American, English American, German American, etc. as "...Valruzian Baltusian, Luthorian Baltusian, Dundorfian Baltusian, etc..."

I have to object to this. It's not hatred of Baltusia that raises the objection. Baltusia is not a cultural transmitter. It never has been. When it was active, it was fairly inward looking. Calling IG American "Baltusian" isn't supported in any of the RP or on the Wikis. It just doesn't make sense.

I therefore propose changing the IGE of American on both that forum as well as the carryover classic port RLE list at https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-119-post-...ml#pid1715 to either "North Seleyan", or just "Seleyan". This would more correctly fit the real world analog, where people in the US call themselves Americans, though American encompasses two whole continents. If those in Southern Seleya object to it, we could just say North Seleyan.

I think it is more correct to name the general culture after the continent than to name it after a specific country within the continent.]]>
https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-248-post-...l#pid10123

Which calls Polish American, English American, German American, etc. as "...Valruzian Baltusian, Luthorian Baltusian, Dundorfian Baltusian, etc..."

I have to object to this. It's not hatred of Baltusia that raises the objection. Baltusia is not a cultural transmitter. It never has been. When it was active, it was fairly inward looking. Calling IG American "Baltusian" isn't supported in any of the RP or on the Wikis. It just doesn't make sense.

I therefore propose changing the IGE of American on both that forum as well as the carryover classic port RLE list at https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-119-post-...ml#pid1715 to either "North Seleyan", or just "Seleyan". This would more correctly fit the real world analog, where people in the US call themselves Americans, though American encompasses two whole continents. If those in Southern Seleya object to it, we could just say North Seleyan.

I think it is more correct to name the general culture after the continent than to name it after a specific country within the continent.]]> <![CDATA[Grievances with Cultural Protocols (and potential standardisation?)]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=613 Sat, 07 Mar 2026 23:44:12 +0000 AdAstra36]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=613 <![CDATA[Discussion Regarding Inactive Countries]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=612 Fri, 06 Mar 2026 01:02:40 +0000 Wu Han]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=612
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 think this is probably the most straightforward and reasonable proposal, personally, and it would resolve my issue with IESCO if I could simply say “I want X, Y, and Z to be recognised as having ratified the Convention because A, B, and C”). It simply formalizes and provides oversight for the existing "case-by-case decision" requirement for large-scale interactions suggested in Section 4.

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

In general, “soft interactions” should be considered those which do not significantly alter the sovereignty or internal politics of a country, but which allow it to nevertheless be integrated into the world as any other country could realistically be. This is, in part, already permitted to a small extent under the game rules, though I think this proposal would clarify the scope of allowed actions a bit more.

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;

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

In general, “soft interactions” should be considered those which do not significantly alter the sovereignty or internal politics of a country, but which allow it to nevertheless be integrated into the world as any other country could realistically be. This is, in part, already permitted to a small extent under the game rules, though I think this proposal would clarify the scope of allowed actions a bit more.

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!]]> <![CDATA[Slow the Ticker, Please]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=607 Tue, 03 Mar 2026 01:03:55 +0000 Wu Han]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=607
I just want to put this here to continue a bit of an informal discussion we've had on Discord regarding slowing the ticker. There, we had a sizeable group in favour of changing the ticker from 1 in-game month per 8 hours, to 1 in-game month per 12 hours. However, I don't think many players saw that discussion and thus I wanted to post here.

Personally, I am strongly in favour of this change, as I think it provides more time for slower, more considered RP – particularly as many of us are busy with real world obligations. I also just think 2 months per day and one year every six days is clean and neat, rather than 3 per day, year per four days.

I am (perhaps) not the best advocate for this change, as I am endemically behind in my posts, but selfishly I think this would help myself and any other players who like to engage in planned out, long-term RP arcs. Providing more time also helps with balancing other game-related time demands, like updating the wiki, doing design stuff, participating in international orgs, global publications, etc., outside of strictly national news RP. I encourage any players who support this to indicate so below. Opponents, of course, are also welcome to weigh in... but I don't like your position! Tongue

Anyway, just wanted to officially open discussion on this. I am not aware of the extent to which this might be a bigger coding issue than it seems on the surface so apologies in advance if I am proposing something that would require a greater deal of work than it would otherwise seem.

Thanks folks.]]>
I just want to put this here to continue a bit of an informal discussion we've had on Discord regarding slowing the ticker. There, we had a sizeable group in favour of changing the ticker from 1 in-game month per 8 hours, to 1 in-game month per 12 hours. However, I don't think many players saw that discussion and thus I wanted to post here.

Personally, I am strongly in favour of this change, as I think it provides more time for slower, more considered RP – particularly as many of us are busy with real world obligations. I also just think 2 months per day and one year every six days is clean and neat, rather than 3 per day, year per four days.

I am (perhaps) not the best advocate for this change, as I am endemically behind in my posts, but selfishly I think this would help myself and any other players who like to engage in planned out, long-term RP arcs. Providing more time also helps with balancing other game-related time demands, like updating the wiki, doing design stuff, participating in international orgs, global publications, etc., outside of strictly national news RP. I encourage any players who support this to indicate so below. Opponents, of course, are also welcome to weigh in... but I don't like your position! Tongue

Particracy Legacy's logo
A Terranet logo - I will use this to generate variations for notifications on Discord channels and other things (think newsfeed, ticker, announcements, etc)

So, to anyone who fancies some creative work and has some time, please feel free to submit your proposed logo design(s) on this thread!

If we get multiple entries, we'll probably revert to a community vote.

Some notes:

Make sure your submissions are a square (i.e. 200px by 200px)
Generally the larger the size the better (i.e. 1200px vs 200px)
Preferably transparent backgrounds in PNG formats
And if you're up to it, a dark and a light version for each submission

The selected logo for Legacy itself will be used everywhere.

Everywhere.]]>
There's a love and hate relationship with Particracy Legacy's current logo on Discord, isn't there? Let's be real here. Anyway... with an upcoming update for the launch of the Hub and PTL's new services (see more here: https://prtcy.substack.com/p/upcoming-ne...r-the-game)...

Well...

I kinda need the community's help on the design of:

Particracy Legacy's logo
A Terranet logo - I will use this to generate variations for notifications on Discord channels and other things (think newsfeed, ticker, announcements, etc)

Make sure your submissions are a square (i.e. 200px by 200px)
Generally the larger the size the better (i.e. 1200px vs 200px)
Preferably transparent backgrounds in PNG formats
And if you're up to it, a dark and a light version for each submission

The selected logo for Legacy itself will be used everywhere.

Everywhere.]]> <![CDATA[Confirmation for game related settings]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=597 Thu, 26 Feb 2026 11:09:58 +0000 GreekIdiot]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=597 https://prtcy.com/library/settings/ will move to https://hub.prtcy.com/. To wrap up the work, it would be helpful if admins/mods and anyone else could confirm/suggest the things needed to be on that sub-site as settings for the game that can be configured.

Here's my list:

1. Enable/disable discord webhooks (i.e. ticker, newsfeed, etc)
2. Enable/disable API services (newsfeed, community, treaties, digest, etc)
3. Enable/disable AI augmentation
4. Enable/disable maintenance mode for the site (will not apply to admins/gms)
5. Enable/disable requests by players (controllers, renamings, keywords, etc)
6. Enable/disable features on the site (maps, docket, portal/politics/, etc)
7. Change max primaries/secondaries per player
8. Change max secondaries per nation
9. Change ticker speed (hours)
10. Change inactivity thresholds (3 levels in days => ability to edit portal and make requests excl. controllers, slot now open if someone else applies and automatic removal)
11. Post announcement (will appear on site, discord and forum)
12. Update citations (private for mods/admins, basically a list of notes for players and rule violations)
13. Add/remove API keys (for player-centric development and scrapping since everything will be locked away behind authorisation post-launch)]]> https://prtcy.com/library/settings/ will move to https://hub.prtcy.com/. To wrap up the work, it would be helpful if admins/mods and anyone else could confirm/suggest the things needed to be on that sub-site as settings for the game that can be configured.

Here's my list:

1. Enable/disable discord webhooks (i.e. ticker, newsfeed, etc)
2. Enable/disable API services (newsfeed, community, treaties, digest, etc)
3. Enable/disable AI augmentation
4. Enable/disable maintenance mode for the site (will not apply to admins/gms)
5. Enable/disable requests by players (controllers, renamings, keywords, etc)
6. Enable/disable features on the site (maps, docket, portal/politics/, etc)
7. Change max primaries/secondaries per player
8. Change max secondaries per nation
9. Change ticker speed (hours)
10. Change inactivity thresholds (3 levels in days => ability to edit portal and make requests excl. controllers, slot now open if someone else applies and automatic removal)
11. Post announcement (will appear on site, discord and forum)
12. Update citations (private for mods/admins, basically a list of notes for players and rule violations)
13. Add/remove API keys (for player-centric development and scrapping since everything will be locked away behind authorisation post-launch)]]> <![CDATA[PT Global Economy: Thoughts and Ideas]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=592 Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:30:20 +0000 Wu Han]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=592
I wanted to open this thread just to have a place to discuss some of my thoughts and ideas regarding the Particracy global economy. If you don't care about my analysis and assessment of the background and issues surrounding this topic, skip to section 3 where I put forward some ideas for how economic RP could be made more interesting. I am curious to hear what people think, or any other ideas or proposals that players have. I will also open a thread on this topic on the Discord, but I am old school and like to put forward my ideas and proposals formally on the forum.

1. Background

With the death of the mechanics side of Particracy, much of the "game" element of Particracy has died, leaving just the collective writing project that the forum side represents. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and I (along with many others) have long advocated for an approach to the game that privileges roleplay over mechanics. This said, I think a major element of what worked about the mechanics was that players had to contend with somewhat randomized circumstances constraining their actions (i.e. if your party doesn't win enough seats to enact/prevent a change, you had to react by making deals with others, forcing elections, or pivoting RP, etc.). Obviously we all are aware of what the flaws of mechanics were – most notably that they did not, and could not, take RP developments into account, and often they would produce results contrary to the narrative that players had been working towards. However, that rng element is part of what kept roleplay and gameplay dynamic.

However, for economic roleplay this has never been the case, either on the mechanics or forum side. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, the use/development of which are highly regulated by moderation, economic development is completely laissez-faire. There is nothing preventing me from moving to a country like Istapali (a country with no forum posts nor wiki page) tomorrow and announcing the construction of a 100% renewable and state-of-the-art power grid, or a new automotive plant, or an investment in massively upscaling our semiconductor production. In a more holistic sense, these developments have very similar bearing on the overall power projection of a country, like WMDs, yet there is very little oversight or similar consideration.

It would be easy to say that moderation should take a more active stance in regulating what players can feasibly do economically, but this is obviously flawed for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

(a) "the Moderation team generally do not have the time necessary to effectively keep track of the role-play happening in every country" (from Jamescfm on 'Nukes');
(b) this depends on the subjective determinations of moderators, which is bound to cause strain between players and moderators depending on their rulings, as well as demand a lot of moderators regarding their knowledge of global economics, and;
(c) it would likely produce a similar problem as that which existed during the "rankings" era, with players moving to a country and then repeating a similar arc of economic development RP and optimization to achieve a certain level of economic complexity/development.

What I'd like to see are moves, within the consensual framework we operate under pursuant to the game rules, towards a more dynamic, constrained, and vibrant way of approaching global economic RP – or at the very least, among those most interested in it. In other words, to "gamify" global economics in Particracy.

2. Issues in Implementing a Global Economic Simulation in Particracy

(a) Every country's economy can be entirely self-sufficient, if the player so chooses, without the need for any imports or exports (I do not need your oil, we meet our own needs domestically). Relatedly, there is no reason (other than established through roleplay and agreed upon OOC) why an economic downturn or financial crisis in one country would have any impact whatsoever on the global economy (what does it matter if Egelion is in recession? We can meet our own needs anyway), or that economic sanctions should carry any weight.
(b) As every country can produce virtually any resource, supply chains in production are rendered useless and exports worthless (why buy your iron when I can mine my own?). Relatedly, why produce any product for export if there is no market for it?
(c) Related to (a) and (b), commodity prices and values are entirely made up (and largely just carried over from the present-day real world). What is the value of oil, or gems, or iron, etc., if everyone can access a domestic supply sufficient to their domestic demand? In other words, why is oil valuable at all? Why is a sapphire valuable if they are abundant in many countries?
(d) All information or data in this game is necessarily qualitative, rather than hard quantitative economic data; translating qualitative data into quantitative data in the context of Particracy is dependent on establishing a commonly-agreed upon methodology. Moreover, since players can essentially produce any qualitative or quantitative data that they wish to present with respect to their country's economy, determining what data is "valid" or "authoritative" carries its own issues and baggage.

3. My Ideas to "Gamify" and Simulate the Global Economy

I think the primary characteristic that needs to be introduced is scarcity. Without scarcity, economics in the game are purely decorative. But how can this be achieved in a game where scarcity does not exist, and in many ways, cannot exist given the consensual framework? What follows are a few ideas I've thought about recently, but these are just outlines at this stage:

(a) An import/export and resource register with moderation oversight:

Players write in a thread what the major imports and exports of their country are, and what resources that country has (along with the reserves – high, medium, low – of that resource, based on the country's geography, lore, RP, etc.). Moderators compile these into an "official" thread or resource map. Ideally, these should include 2-4 inherent strengths and 2-4 inherent vulnerabilities.
Players can report internal developments (discovering new resource reserves, building infrastructure, opening mines, etc.) in this thread with links to their RP, and moderators can update that country's resource index.

Strengths:

Players can maintain a strong degree of control over what their economy "looks like" and influence this through their RP
Players can access a centralized list of what country produces what product/resource, and thus include such information in their RP (i.e. Country A produces oil, I need oil, I import most of my oil from Country A; Country B imports wheat, I produce wheat, I export my wheat to Country B), as well as gain an idea of what their major import/export partners would be.
Resource scarcity becomes a narrative lever (i.e. Nation A controls a high supply of rare earth minerals, Nation B must negotiate access or develop alternatives)

Weaknesses:

Requires a great deal of administration from moderators and players alike
High chance that moderator discretion here generates tension with players based on rulings of plausibility
High risk of running into similar issues as with rankings, where players write "optimized" RP that allows them to have a higher "rank" of a given resource reserve

(b) A global commodity price register with moderation oversight (possible AI solution?):

Major resource groups (oil, metals, food, chemicals, etc.) are set at a baseline price/value (could be different for each commodity, or all set at the same to start).
Every 5-10 in-game years, prices are impacted by modifiers determined through RP (i.e. Nation A increases oil production, increasing supply, causing the global price to be 12% lower).
Players either report these economic developments in a specific thread with link to their RP article, or a similar scraping bot as that which is used for the ticker on Discord could hypothetically be employed to scrape and translate RP articles into impacts on commodity prices

Strengths:

Players can still choose to accept/reject the set commodity price;
The price can be considered by players when thinking about how to develop their economies (i.e. the global price of metals is high, thus Nation A will build a mine; the price of oil is low, I will negotiate with other oil producers to reduce production OPEC style)
Particularly with automation/AI, this could have very little oversight and a degree of randomization (possibly the inclusion of randomly-generated price shocks?)
Alternatively, this could be run by players who consensually join an "organization" in which the members agree to adhere to its prices.

Weaknesses:

Absent automation/AI, this requires an additional degree of work/oversight by moderators (or players)
It is unfeasible to keep track of the price dynamics of every relevant commodity (necessarily limited to only the most significant commodities)
Emphasis on commodities/resources can limit the overall complexity and dynamism of national economies (why focus on expanding the fashion industry, in this instance?)

Each country gets 10 "credits" every 10 in-game years. The "credits" are purely an OOC device.
Credits can be spent on economic projects which have different costs set by the players in the organization (i.e. small local projects might cost 1-2 credits, nationwide projects 4-6, major reforms 7-8).
Countries can pool credits for big projects or transfer them to other countries (in the org.). IC, this transfer of credits could be explained as being in the form of loans, investments, trade, tech transfer, etc.
Countries cannot carry their credits over into the next 10 year term; credits are reset to ten each term.
Countries which spend all or more of their credits in one ten year term might be considered "high momentum" economies, while those who spend less than their max could be considered "medium" to "low" momentum.

Explaination:
The idea here is to generate constraints and scarcities in economic activity which make international trade and cooperation important and relevant, while leaving it open-ended enough that it doesn't feel constraining (nor possible to be a rank-maxing, power-playing vehicle). The "momentum" determination is intended to be read somewhat broadly as an indicator of economic activity and dynamism, but not necessarily of wealth (i.e. a country could have high momentum, but be poor overall, due to an influx of investment and so on; a rich country could be low momentum as they don’t have as much need to spend their credits and develop) in the same way that GDP growth for developing and developed countries is often very different, despite the latter being wealthier than the former.
Issues:

Should all countries get the exact same number of "credits" regardless of base "development?" If not, how should the difference be determined?
How should negative externalities, political events, natural disasters, etc., impact this model and/or the distribution of credits and the cost for projects?

Strengths:

Relatively little "administrative" requirements (i.e. no need for moderator intervention, players do not need to spend time gathering and translating economic info from RP posts, etc.)
Creates a "market-mechanism" of sorts for generating economic development and collaboration.

Weaknesses:

Requires players to constrain their RP a bit by participating in this system (i.e. you cannot undertake economic RP that would cost credits you do not have)
Requires players to continue to "buy in" to this OOC exchange and system

4. Summary

These are just a few of my thoughts and ideas about global economics in the game. I have thought about this topic for as long as I've played the game, but have never been able to come to a solution alone. I think my proposal under 3(c) is the most fleshed out and compatible with the game as it is, but it still would need to be tested (if you would like to be part of an informal "playtest" of this concept, please consider reaching out to me).

If anyone has any other thoughts or ideas on global economics in the game, or anything I've written in this very long post, please contribute to this thread.

Thank you!]]>
I wanted to open this thread just to have a place to discuss some of my thoughts and ideas regarding the Particracy global economy. If you don't care about my analysis and assessment of the background and issues surrounding this topic, skip to section 3 where I put forward some ideas for how economic RP could be made more interesting. I am curious to hear what people think, or any other ideas or proposals that players have. I will also open a thread on this topic on the Discord, but I am old school and like to put forward my ideas and proposals formally on the forum.

1. Background

With the death of the mechanics side of Particracy, much of the "game" element of Particracy has died, leaving just the collective writing project that the forum side represents. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and I (along with many others) have long advocated for an approach to the game that privileges roleplay over mechanics. This said, I think a major element of what worked about the mechanics was that players had to contend with somewhat randomized circumstances constraining their actions (i.e. if your party doesn't win enough seats to enact/prevent a change, you had to react by making deals with others, forcing elections, or pivoting RP, etc.). Obviously we all are aware of what the flaws of mechanics were – most notably that they did not, and could not, take RP developments into account, and often they would produce results contrary to the narrative that players had been working towards. However, that rng element is part of what kept roleplay and gameplay dynamic.

However, for economic roleplay this has never been the case, either on the mechanics or forum side. Unlike nuclear or chemical weapons, the use/development of which are highly regulated by moderation, economic development is completely laissez-faire. There is nothing preventing me from moving to a country like Istapali (a country with no forum posts nor wiki page) tomorrow and announcing the construction of a 100% renewable and state-of-the-art power grid, or a new automotive plant, or an investment in massively upscaling our semiconductor production. In a more holistic sense, these developments have very similar bearing on the overall power projection of a country, like WMDs, yet there is very little oversight or similar consideration.

It would be easy to say that moderation should take a more active stance in regulating what players can feasibly do economically, but this is obviously flawed for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

(a) "the Moderation team generally do not have the time necessary to effectively keep track of the role-play happening in every country" (from Jamescfm on 'Nukes');
(b) this depends on the subjective determinations of moderators, which is bound to cause strain between players and moderators depending on their rulings, as well as demand a lot of moderators regarding their knowledge of global economics, and;
(c) it would likely produce a similar problem as that which existed during the "rankings" era, with players moving to a country and then repeating a similar arc of economic development RP and optimization to achieve a certain level of economic complexity/development.

What I'd like to see are moves, within the consensual framework we operate under pursuant to the game rules, towards a more dynamic, constrained, and vibrant way of approaching global economic RP – or at the very least, among those most interested in it. In other words, to "gamify" global economics in Particracy.

2. Issues in Implementing a Global Economic Simulation in Particracy

(a) Every country's economy can be entirely self-sufficient, if the player so chooses, without the need for any imports or exports (I do not need your oil, we meet our own needs domestically). Relatedly, there is no reason (other than established through roleplay and agreed upon OOC) why an economic downturn or financial crisis in one country would have any impact whatsoever on the global economy (what does it matter if Egelion is in recession? We can meet our own needs anyway), or that economic sanctions should carry any weight.
(b) As every country can produce virtually any resource, supply chains in production are rendered useless and exports worthless (why buy your iron when I can mine my own?). Relatedly, why produce any product for export if there is no market for it?
(c) Related to (a) and (b), commodity prices and values are entirely made up (and largely just carried over from the present-day real world). What is the value of oil, or gems, or iron, etc., if everyone can access a domestic supply sufficient to their domestic demand? In other words, why is oil valuable at all? Why is a sapphire valuable if they are abundant in many countries?
(d) All information or data in this game is necessarily qualitative, rather than hard quantitative economic data; translating qualitative data into quantitative data in the context of Particracy is dependent on establishing a commonly-agreed upon methodology. Moreover, since players can essentially produce any qualitative or quantitative data that they wish to present with respect to their country's economy, determining what data is "valid" or "authoritative" carries its own issues and baggage.

3. My Ideas to "Gamify" and Simulate the Global Economy

I think the primary characteristic that needs to be introduced is scarcity. Without scarcity, economics in the game are purely decorative. But how can this be achieved in a game where scarcity does not exist, and in many ways, cannot exist given the consensual framework? What follows are a few ideas I've thought about recently, but these are just outlines at this stage:

(a) An import/export and resource register with moderation oversight:

Players write in a thread what the major imports and exports of their country are, and what resources that country has (along with the reserves – high, medium, low – of that resource, based on the country's geography, lore, RP, etc.). Moderators compile these into an "official" thread or resource map. Ideally, these should include 2-4 inherent strengths and 2-4 inherent vulnerabilities.
Players can report internal developments (discovering new resource reserves, building infrastructure, opening mines, etc.) in this thread with links to their RP, and moderators can update that country's resource index.

Strengths:

Players can maintain a strong degree of control over what their economy "looks like" and influence this through their RP
Players can access a centralized list of what country produces what product/resource, and thus include such information in their RP (i.e. Country A produces oil, I need oil, I import most of my oil from Country A; Country B imports wheat, I produce wheat, I export my wheat to Country B), as well as gain an idea of what their major import/export partners would be.
Resource scarcity becomes a narrative lever (i.e. Nation A controls a high supply of rare earth minerals, Nation B must negotiate access or develop alternatives)

Weaknesses:

Requires a great deal of administration from moderators and players alike
High chance that moderator discretion here generates tension with players based on rulings of plausibility
High risk of running into similar issues as with rankings, where players write "optimized" RP that allows them to have a higher "rank" of a given resource reserve

(b) A global commodity price register with moderation oversight (possible AI solution?):

Major resource groups (oil, metals, food, chemicals, etc.) are set at a baseline price/value (could be different for each commodity, or all set at the same to start).
Every 5-10 in-game years, prices are impacted by modifiers determined through RP (i.e. Nation A increases oil production, increasing supply, causing the global price to be 12% lower).
Players either report these economic developments in a specific thread with link to their RP article, or a similar scraping bot as that which is used for the ticker on Discord could hypothetically be employed to scrape and translate RP articles into impacts on commodity prices

Strengths:

Players can still choose to accept/reject the set commodity price;
The price can be considered by players when thinking about how to develop their economies (i.e. the global price of metals is high, thus Nation A will build a mine; the price of oil is low, I will negotiate with other oil producers to reduce production OPEC style)
Particularly with automation/AI, this could have very little oversight and a degree of randomization (possibly the inclusion of randomly-generated price shocks?)
Alternatively, this could be run by players who consensually join an "organization" in which the members agree to adhere to its prices.

Weaknesses:

Absent automation/AI, this requires an additional degree of work/oversight by moderators (or players)
It is unfeasible to keep track of the price dynamics of every relevant commodity (necessarily limited to only the most significant commodities)
Emphasis on commodities/resources can limit the overall complexity and dynamism of national economies (why focus on expanding the fashion industry, in this instance?)

Each country gets 10 "credits" every 10 in-game years. The "credits" are purely an OOC device.
Credits can be spent on economic projects which have different costs set by the players in the organization (i.e. small local projects might cost 1-2 credits, nationwide projects 4-6, major reforms 7-8).
Countries can pool credits for big projects or transfer them to other countries (in the org.). IC, this transfer of credits could be explained as being in the form of loans, investments, trade, tech transfer, etc.
Countries cannot carry their credits over into the next 10 year term; credits are reset to ten each term.
Countries which spend all or more of their credits in one ten year term might be considered "high momentum" economies, while those who spend less than their max could be considered "medium" to "low" momentum.

Should all countries get the exact same number of "credits" regardless of base "development?" If not, how should the difference be determined?
How should negative externalities, political events, natural disasters, etc., impact this model and/or the distribution of credits and the cost for projects?

Strengths:

Relatively little "administrative" requirements (i.e. no need for moderator intervention, players do not need to spend time gathering and translating economic info from RP posts, etc.)
Creates a "market-mechanism" of sorts for generating economic development and collaboration.

Weaknesses:

Requires players to constrain their RP a bit by participating in this system (i.e. you cannot undertake economic RP that would cost credits you do not have)
Requires players to continue to "buy in" to this OOC exchange and system

Al Hilal Media Network ("The Crescent Media Network") – an international news organization focusing primarily on the Ahmadi world and issues concerning the global Ahmadi community.

National news templates (by country)
Templates for news organizations headquartered in a specific country, which reports predominantly or exclusively on that country's affairs.

Rildanor

Le Rildanorien – generic and unbiased newspaper

]]> news templates which are free for other players to use, such as national, regional, or global newspapers. I highly encourage players to leave news templates here which they have created for countries they no longer play in, as this can reduce the (perceived) barrier to entry for new players in that country.

Please indicate in your post whether the news template you are sharing is global or national in its scope (i.e. it can be used across multiple countries vs. being specific to one). It may also be useful to include in your post any relevant information for future users, such as editorial ideology/politics, ownership, founder, language, etc.

If using a news template produced by another player, do not remove or modify any background information about the news organization which is included in the template unless you have contacted the original creator.

Global news templates
Templates for news organizations with a global or international scope.

Al Hilal Media Network ("The Crescent Media Network") – an international news organization focusing primarily on the Ahmadi world and issues concerning the global Ahmadi community.

National news templates (by country)
Templates for news organizations headquartered in a specific country, which reports predominantly or exclusively on that country's affairs.

Rildanor

Le Rildanorien – generic and unbiased newspaper

]]> <![CDATA[Cultural Protocol Update for Temania]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=590 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 21:36:23 +0000 Wu Han]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=590 Temanian cultural protocol. The main thrust of my proposal is to add more flavour to Temania by including more Indonesian ethnic groups, rebalancing the influences on the country (reflecting a more realistic merger of the RL inspirations of Indonesia and Malaysia), and adding more religious context. Finally, it revises the “Language” section for clarity and includes relevant wiki links throughout to aid players in learning more context about Temania and its culture (note that I have left many of these incomplete, and will complete them pending the approval or rejection of this update).

Population decreases are noted in red, increases or new groups in green, and no change indicated in blue.

My thanks to the moderators and broader player community for their time and consideration.

Quote:BACKGROUND
Wiki article: "Temania" and "History of Temania"

Temania is based on Indonesia and Malaysia.

ETHNIC GROUPS
Wiki article: “Ethnic groups in Temania”

Nelayan (Javanese) – 32% (+5)
Mondesian (Malay) – 27% (-6)
Kahadean (Sundanese) – 16% (no chg.)
Temanian Yingdalan (Indonesian/Malaysian Chinese) – 5% (+2)
Saramese (Madurese) – 4% (no chg.)
Halak (Batak) – 3% (-4)
Tegunara (Balinese) – 3% (new)
Dayaran (Dayak) – 2% (new)
Bahurani (Acehnese) – 2% (new)
Manmerian (Papuan) – 2% (-3)
Temanian Vascanian (Indian, largely Kalam (Tamil)) – 2% (new)
Other/mixed – 2% (-3)

Note: Some left and right-wing nationalists throughout Temanian history have encouraged a “Kanedesian” pan-ethnic national identity, comprised of Kahadeans, Nelayans and Mondesian peoples. Under this logic, nearly 75% of Temanians would be considered Kanedesian.

RELIGION
Wiki article: “Religion in Temania”

Ahmadism (Islam) – 78% (no chg.)
↳ Israi (Sunni) – 69% (new sub category)
↳ Kawruhan (Syncretic Ahmadi, based on Kejawèn) – 9% (new sub category)
Hosianism (Christianity) – 7% (+1)
↳ Abjurantism (Protestantism) – 5% (+2)
↳ Aurorian (Catholicism) – 2% (-1)
Daenism (Buddhism)- 6% (-3)
↳ Maitrayana (Mahayana) – 5% (new sub category)
↳ Temanian Vasiyana (Indonesian Esoteric Buddhism) – 1% (new sub category)
Geraja (Hinduism) – 5% (no chg.)
Indigenous/Folk religions – 2% (new)
Irreligious/Other – 2% (no chg.)

Note: In Temania, religious affiliation is often closely tied to ethnic background. For example, Kawruhan is practiced almost exclusively by Nelayans; Geraja is mainly followed by Tegunarans and Temanian Vascanians; and Daenism is mainly followed by Temanian Yingdalans and Vascanians. Hosianism is predominantly practiced by Halaks, Manmerians, and Dayarans, along with some converts from other groups.

LANGUAGE
Wiki article: "Languages of Temania"

Temania is highly linguistically diverse. Most citizens speak a regional language associated with their ethnic group as their mother tongue, and the country is home to hundreds of other living languages among its indigenous groups, many of which have not yet been classified.

The official national language is Makmurtan (Indonesian Malay), a standardized form of Mondesian (Malay). It functions as the primary language of government, education, and interethnic communication. Luthorian (English) is widely used in higher education, business, and international affairs.

Other major languages include Mondesian (Malaysian Malay), Nelayan (Javanese), Kahadean (Sundanese), Halak (Batak languages), Saramese (Madurese), Tegunara (Balinese), Bahurani (Acehnese) and several Manmerian (Papuan) and Dayaran (Dayak), languages. Yingdalan (Chinese) and Kalam (Tamil) are spoken widely in the Temanian Yingdalan and Vascanian communities.

]]> Temanian cultural protocol. The main thrust of my proposal is to add more flavour to Temania by including more Indonesian ethnic groups, rebalancing the influences on the country (reflecting a more realistic merger of the RL inspirations of Indonesia and Malaysia), and adding more religious context. Finally, it revises the “Language” section for clarity and includes relevant wiki links throughout to aid players in learning more context about Temania and its culture (note that I have left many of these incomplete, and will complete them pending the approval or rejection of this update).

Population decreases are noted in red, increases or new groups in green, and no change indicated in blue.

My thanks to the moderators and broader player community for their time and consideration.

Quote:BACKGROUND
Wiki article: "Temania" and "History of Temania"

Temania is based on Indonesia and Malaysia.

ETHNIC GROUPS
Wiki article: “Ethnic groups in Temania”

Nelayan (Javanese) – 32% (+5)
Mondesian (Malay) – 27% (-6)
Kahadean (Sundanese) – 16% (no chg.)
Temanian Yingdalan (Indonesian/Malaysian Chinese) – 5% (+2)
Saramese (Madurese) – 4% (no chg.)
Halak (Batak) – 3% (-4)
Tegunara (Balinese) – 3% (new)
Dayaran (Dayak) – 2% (new)
Bahurani (Acehnese) – 2% (new)
Manmerian (Papuan) – 2% (-3)
Temanian Vascanian (Indian, largely Kalam (Tamil)) – 2% (new)
Other/mixed – 2% (-3)

Note: Some left and right-wing nationalists throughout Temanian history have encouraged a “Kanedesian” pan-ethnic national identity, comprised of Kahadeans, Nelayans and Mondesian peoples. Under this logic, nearly 75% of Temanians would be considered Kanedesian.

RELIGION
Wiki article: “Religion in Temania”

Ahmadism (Islam) – 78% (no chg.)
↳ Israi (Sunni) – 69% (new sub category)
↳ Kawruhan (Syncretic Ahmadi, based on Kejawèn) – 9% (new sub category)
Hosianism (Christianity) – 7% (+1)
↳ Abjurantism (Protestantism) – 5% (+2)
↳ Aurorian (Catholicism) – 2% (-1)
Daenism (Buddhism)- 6% (-3)
↳ Maitrayana (Mahayana) – 5% (new sub category)
↳ Temanian Vasiyana (Indonesian Esoteric Buddhism) – 1% (new sub category)
Geraja (Hinduism) – 5% (no chg.)
Indigenous/Folk religions – 2% (new)
Irreligious/Other – 2% (no chg.)

Note: In Temania, religious affiliation is often closely tied to ethnic background. For example, Kawruhan is practiced almost exclusively by Nelayans; Geraja is mainly followed by Tegunarans and Temanian Vascanians; and Daenism is mainly followed by Temanian Yingdalans and Vascanians. Hosianism is predominantly practiced by Halaks, Manmerians, and Dayarans, along with some converts from other groups.

LANGUAGE
Wiki article: "Languages of Temania"

Temania is highly linguistically diverse. Most citizens speak a regional language associated with their ethnic group as their mother tongue, and the country is home to hundreds of other living languages among its indigenous groups, many of which have not yet been classified.

The official national language is Makmurtan (Indonesian Malay), a standardized form of Mondesian (Malay). It functions as the primary language of government, education, and interethnic communication. Luthorian (English) is widely used in higher education, business, and international affairs.

Other major languages include Mondesian (Malaysian Malay), Nelayan (Javanese), Kahadean (Sundanese), Halak (Batak languages), Saramese (Madurese), Tegunara (Balinese), Bahurani (Acehnese) and several Manmerian (Papuan) and Dayaran (Dayak), languages. Yingdalan (Chinese) and Kalam (Tamil) are spoken widely in the Temanian Yingdalan and Vascanian communities.

]]> <![CDATA[Potential Name Change for Medina]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=589 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 19:35:43 +0000 Sparkteze]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=589 <![CDATA[Announcement: Rule against advertising without permission has been added]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=585 Fri, 06 Feb 2026 13:26:04 +0000 Zanz]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=585 https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-318-post-...ml#pid4721

The moderation team has updated section 2 as described below. This was done without a consultation period because the change is simply a codification of a previously unwritten rule that recently became relevant again.

Quote: 2. Community Guidelines
[...]
Do NOT advertise for other sites, games, forums, discords, etc., without first receiving approval from a member of the Moderation team.
[...]

]]> https://forum.prtcy.com/thread-318-post-...ml#pid4721

The moderation team has updated section 2 as described below. This was done without a consultation period because the change is simply a codification of a previously unwritten rule that recently became relevant again.

Quote: 2. Community Guidelines
[...]
Do NOT advertise for other sites, games, forums, discords, etc., without first receiving approval from a member of the Moderation team.
[...]

]]> <![CDATA[Just some thoughts on Filipinos...]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=580 Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:06:17 +0000 Wu Han]]> https://ptr.zanz2.dev/_forum/showthread.php?tid=580
I just wanted to raise some thoughts and few loose proposals regarding Filipino culture in-game, as it is a matter I've thought about occasionally over the years, and more so lately.

For the longest period I can remember, Filipinos were included in Particracy as the real-world equivalent of "Dranianos," a mestizo culture born out of exchange between Kyo (Korean) and Egelian (Spanish) peoples (primarily during the period of Egelion's colonization of Dankuk/Baeguk), and to a lesser extent Draddwyr people as well(Celtic, mainly Welsh). I think this was problematic in at least a few ways: firstly, it collapsed the diversity of Filipino cultures (Tagalog, Ilocano, Bicolano, Moro, and Visayans, among at least 180+ others) and failed to do justice to the uniqueness of Filipino cultural identity itself; secondly, it used Filipino culture to serve as a "mixed" Korean-Spanish culture, ignoring the Austronesian origin of most Filipino languages and peoples, and the differences between two rather distinct Asian cultures; thirdly, it dislocated Filipino peoples and cultures from the Austronesian cultures in Temania (formerly the continent of Squibble).

At some point in the history of Dankuk/Baeguk, around 3200-5000, there was a period in which Dankuk's ruling House of Ryeo had a close dynastic relationship with Tukarali (ultimately absorbing its former ruling dynasty, the House of Aynako), and the immigration of Dranianos (Filipinos) to Tukarali was role-played to have occurred during this time under the heavy influence of Dankuk. This was done by the former player Ryouta, who played in both countries at various times.

Tukarali, for its part, had long been a country explicitly based on Brazil, with its language, Tukarese, being Brazilian Portuguese. Tukarali had always been a multi-ethnic society, which divided itself into the following ethnic groupings: pardos, orientais, brancos, indígenas and pretos. Older sources are lost, but the Draniano migrants who retained their cultural identity were always considered part of the "orientais" grouping.

Fast-forward to today, and the real-life equivalents index lists Filipino as the real-life equivalent of both Draniano and Tukarese. The cultural protocol of Tukarali now states that "pardos" means "Filipinos and Mixed-race people" (emphasis added, a massive category), and that "Tukarali is a Portuguese-speaking country with a Filipino native population." Meanwhile, the Baeguk cultural protocol has removed any mention of Filipino culture, reinterpreting Dranianos as "Creole Korean with Hispanic-Influenced Culture." I am not sure exactly when these changes occured.

I think these are moves in a better direction, but they leave me personally a bit unsatisfied... firstly, because it alters the identity of Tukarali by making a Filipino country without Filipino language; secondly, because it still creates a geographical distance between Filipinos and other Austronesian languages/cultures (Indonesians, Malaysian, Malgasy, Polynesian), all of which are located on the continent of Temania; finally, I still feel that Filipino culture (and its diversity) is underserved by locating it in a Tukarali context, and containing it within a group that traditionally referred to mixed-race peoples at large.

On to my loose proposal... hear me out...

I think Filipinos should be retconned to be indigenous to New Alduria, (Aldurianos?) representing ~55-60% of the country there, with the remainder remaining Haitian. Tukarali should revert to being primarily based on Brazil, with Filipinos constituting a large and influential national minority.

This resolves the issue of geographical distance between Filipino culture and other Austronesian groups;
It offers a bit more flavour to New Alduria, rather than being strictly based on Haiti; of course, it is not bad that it is based on Haiti, but in a game world with far fewer countries than in the real world, some accommodations must be made...
The colonial history of Lourennais and other Canrille imperialism in New Alduria can be understood in both Haitian creole, and the adoption of certain loan words in Tagalog, as well as in the introduction of Haitians to New Alduria through slavery (as is established in the New Aldurian history) and the forced migration of Filipino workers (to Tukarali and/or Baeguk, historically).

I also think this retcon would be compatible with the more recent Filipino-centered roleplay in Tukarali (with player EMENITY clearly drawing on National Democratic, Anakbayan-style aesthetics/theory/policy in their role-play), given that Filipinos in Tukarali would still be a large, though not majority, ethnic group in Tukarali (as they are currently according to the CP), and in turn part of a broader Filipino diaspora (which is in itself reflective of modern Overseas Filipino identity). The National Democratic Revolution which has taken place in Tukarali has (as far as I can tell) been a multiracial movement grounded more in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism than distinctly Filipino culture/identity/nationalism (aside from a mention of 'barangay' level administrative units, which could, for the sake of cohesion, be retconned to "Bairro," a loosely similar concept).

I was the last player in New Alduria as far as I am aware. I want more for it, and I think this is a good solution for a number of issues. I'd be happy to take a second primary there to oversee this change, or contribute to it in any useful way, but want to know the thoughts of others...]]>
I just wanted to raise some thoughts and few loose proposals regarding Filipino culture in-game, as it is a matter I've thought about occasionally over the years, and more so lately.

For the longest period I can remember, Filipinos were included in Particracy as the real-world equivalent of "Dranianos," a mestizo culture born out of exchange between Kyo (Korean) and Egelian (Spanish) peoples (primarily during the period of Egelion's colonization of Dankuk/Baeguk), and to a lesser extent Draddwyr people as well(Celtic, mainly Welsh). I think this was problematic in at least a few ways: firstly, it collapsed the diversity of Filipino cultures (Tagalog, Ilocano, Bicolano, Moro, and Visayans, among at least 180+ others) and failed to do justice to the uniqueness of Filipino cultural identity itself; secondly, it used Filipino culture to serve as a "mixed" Korean-Spanish culture, ignoring the Austronesian origin of most Filipino languages and peoples, and the differences between two rather distinct Asian cultures; thirdly, it dislocated Filipino peoples and cultures from the Austronesian cultures in Temania (formerly the continent of Squibble).

At some point in the history of Dankuk/Baeguk, around 3200-5000, there was a period in which Dankuk's ruling House of Ryeo had a close dynastic relationship with Tukarali (ultimately absorbing its former ruling dynasty, the House of Aynako), and the immigration of Dranianos (Filipinos) to Tukarali was role-played to have occurred during this time under the heavy influence of Dankuk. This was done by the former player Ryouta, who played in both countries at various times.

Tukarali, for its part, had long been a country explicitly based on Brazil, with its language, Tukarese, being Brazilian Portuguese. Tukarali had always been a multi-ethnic society, which divided itself into the following ethnic groupings: pardos, orientais, brancos, indígenas and pretos. Older sources are lost, but the Draniano migrants who retained their cultural identity were always considered part of the "orientais" grouping.

Fast-forward to today, and the real-life equivalents index lists Filipino as the real-life equivalent of both Draniano and Tukarese. The cultural protocol of Tukarali now states that "pardos" means "Filipinos and Mixed-race people" (emphasis added, a massive category), and that "Tukarali is a Portuguese-speaking country with a Filipino native population." Meanwhile, the Baeguk cultural protocol has removed any mention of Filipino culture, reinterpreting Dranianos as "Creole Korean with Hispanic-Influenced Culture." I am not sure exactly when these changes occured.

I think these are moves in a better direction, but they leave me personally a bit unsatisfied... firstly, because it alters the identity of Tukarali by making a Filipino country without Filipino language; secondly, because it still creates a geographical distance between Filipinos and other Austronesian languages/cultures (Indonesians, Malaysian, Malgasy, Polynesian), all of which are located on the continent of Temania; finally, I still feel that Filipino culture (and its diversity) is underserved by locating it in a Tukarali context, and containing it within a group that traditionally referred to mixed-race peoples at large.

On to my loose proposal... hear me out...

I think Filipinos should be retconned to be indigenous to New Alduria, (Aldurianos?) representing ~55-60% of the country there, with the remainder remaining Haitian. Tukarali should revert to being primarily based on Brazil, with Filipinos constituting a large and influential national minority.

This resolves the issue of geographical distance between Filipino culture and other Austronesian groups;
It offers a bit more flavour to New Alduria, rather than being strictly based on Haiti; of course, it is not bad that it is based on Haiti, but in a game world with far fewer countries than in the real world, some accommodations must be made...
The colonial history of Lourennais and other Canrille imperialism in New Alduria can be understood in both Haitian creole, and the adoption of certain loan words in Tagalog, as well as in the introduction of Haitians to New Alduria through slavery (as is established in the New Aldurian history) and the forced migration of Filipino workers (to Tukarali and/or Baeguk, historically).