29-01-2025, 09:23 PM
Okay so I'll make this the final comment from my side so that this isnt gonna be a two-man show and others might enter and say their piece too. And I have the distinct feeling we're not gonna get on the same page here anyways.
Well, I can see where you are coming from on this point specifically but this is a big ask from a volunteer mod team that has time-constraints like any other. And we as a team plus greek would like to avoid maintenance heavy procedures/responsibilites.
We had OPTIONAL mod-issued rankings in the past, Particracy was always coined by the principle that even rankings were not enforced. Currently it is allowed for everyone to make their own rankings, feel free to draft some. To the actual point, its not technically impossible to gauge nations capabilites its just always weighting, debating and stepping on toes. Its in the nature of competitive rankings and me/we feel like this competitivenes is unhealthy, this isnt a global-strategy game, this is primarily a writing/storytelling vehicle in the setting of politics. I can agree on the point that if one denies certain aspects of realism that it is immature, but so what? We do not need rankings to enforce sanction against this immaturity, thats unnecessary. People will interact with you due to your player reputation or they will not.
Maybe there can be; Not sure; Possibly yeah. But from experience and knowledge of this community's culture, I dont think its necessary nor beneficial to Particracy as a whole to have mod plus player feedback rounds on official enforced rankings, thats would make Particracy not Particracy anymore. (Even leaving the administrative work aside for like 80(?) something nations)
I am not sure I understand the last part, that seems like empty rhetorics. What does strongarming rules mean? Enforcing rules in general? Thats the point of rules from what I understand. I dont mean to be hostile here but I simply dont quite understand the last sentence. Yes we're a small playerbase in a very niché place and we have high entry standards but that's alright, its how this community is.
Well, the rules are from a different age and have not been generally updated in ages from what I know. But I do not really understand how they perpetuate isolationist singe party rule? But yeah that is correct, there is no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back and that is a GOOD thing in my and from what I can reasonably presume most people's perspective since this means nobody can be forced to participate in roleplay they dont want, and I certainly will not or ever endorse a change in that aspect. (And I would likely resign from all my roles of authority if such a change were enacted.) Single player's need to be expansionist and assert influence via violence abroad is just not a priority for the ruleset, most people can find players to participate if the scenario is interesting enough, I agree that this is currently a little harder due to a small playerbase but I dont think that allowing the destruction of potentially new-player drawing diversity in nations (because most people will primarily go to a nation that represents them) is the solution to any of the issues raised here (aside from having empty entities but I feel like the negatives outweigh the positives).
Summarily I want to say that what I can derive from this debate is that you have a fundamentally different view about what Particracy is than most of the playerbase. Of course that is alright, I just think that for the most fundamental points you raised here (eg. softening Consent-based RP) you won't find a positive reception. Alright, these are my two cents. It's a hard no from me on this. But I'd like to hear what others have to say if they're so inclined to share.
Quote:They aren't all unused for forgotten but it just kinda feels like a hoarder mentality where theres unreasonable sentimentality and connection to a product that sits dormant, allowing wars, and perhaps mods taking the reigns of the nation being attacked or something could allow some new RP with otherwise completely un-interactable entities.
Well, I can see where you are coming from on this point specifically but this is a big ask from a volunteer mod team that has time-constraints like any other. And we as a team plus greek would like to avoid maintenance heavy procedures/responsibilites.
Quote: Personally I like the idea of rankings somewhat because if theres zero authority figure its just everyones call so its total dis-unity. Powergaming is certainly an issue but maybe were there a little group of experience people/staff with longstanding experience and knowledge of nations and their behaviors they could agree upon the status of nations worldwide. If you play the game and can't acknowledge faults about your nation that aren't self manufactured thats just immature in my opinion [...]
We had OPTIONAL mod-issued rankings in the past, Particracy was always coined by the principle that even rankings were not enforced. Currently it is allowed for everyone to make their own rankings, feel free to draft some. To the actual point, its not technically impossible to gauge nations capabilites its just always weighting, debating and stepping on toes. Its in the nature of competitive rankings and me/we feel like this competitivenes is unhealthy, this isnt a global-strategy game, this is primarily a writing/storytelling vehicle in the setting of politics. I can agree on the point that if one denies certain aspects of realism that it is immature, but so what? We do not need rankings to enforce sanction against this immaturity, thats unnecessary. People will interact with you due to your player reputation or they will not.
Quote:Were there to be a general consensus on the matter with player feedback I think there can be a middle ground where you avoid toxic arguing, and if someone is gonna be toxic about fairness and realism in the game is that really the kinda playerbase we wanna cater rules to?
Maybe there can be; Not sure; Possibly yeah. But from experience and knowledge of this community's culture, I dont think its necessary nor beneficial to Particracy as a whole to have mod plus player feedback rounds on official enforced rankings, thats would make Particracy not Particracy anymore. (Even leaving the administrative work aside for like 80(?) something nations)
Quote: The rules and fun of a game shouldn't be focused for hanging on to players in an already small playerbase under essentially strongarming the rules for everyone to protect their countries egos.
I am not sure I understand the last part, that seems like empty rhetorics. What does strongarming rules mean? Enforcing rules in general? Thats the point of rules from what I understand. I dont mean to be hostile here but I simply dont quite understand the last sentence. Yes we're a small playerbase in a very niché place and we have high entry standards but that's alright, its how this community is.
Quote:Should there be rules in place to prevent powergaming? Of course. Should there be guidelines and effort that must be put in to make big changes, effect other players, and be under moderation review? Sure. But as it stands I feel a lot of these rules are resulting in isolationist single party rule with no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back, thats fine then, but other players who want to be expansionist and assert influence abroad and such also in my opinion shouldn't be given a hard no with no exceptions.
Well, the rules are from a different age and have not been generally updated in ages from what I know. But I do not really understand how they perpetuate isolationist singe party rule? But yeah that is correct, there is no real kickback unless someone wants to be kicked back and that is a GOOD thing in my and from what I can reasonably presume most people's perspective since this means nobody can be forced to participate in roleplay they dont want, and I certainly will not or ever endorse a change in that aspect. (And I would likely resign from all my roles of authority if such a change were enacted.) Single player's need to be expansionist and assert influence via violence abroad is just not a priority for the ruleset, most people can find players to participate if the scenario is interesting enough, I agree that this is currently a little harder due to a small playerbase but I dont think that allowing the destruction of potentially new-player drawing diversity in nations (because most people will primarily go to a nation that represents them) is the solution to any of the issues raised here (aside from having empty entities but I feel like the negatives outweigh the positives).
Summarily I want to say that what I can derive from this debate is that you have a fundamentally different view about what Particracy is than most of the playerbase. Of course that is alright, I just think that for the most fundamental points you raised here (eg. softening Consent-based RP) you won't find a positive reception. Alright, these are my two cents. It's a hard no from me on this. But I'd like to hear what others have to say if they're so inclined to share.