Title: Change to the Roleplaying Rules
Daemon - April 7, 2005 04:53 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
5. Only one nation per player is allowed on the map at a time. This means no one player can create or have two nations to roleplay with at one time. Any and all cheaters caught doing so will be banned from roleplaying and ignored in IC threads for an indefinite period. Any nation that chooses to replace or reset their nations with another must do so at the expense of their single map nation.
6. All military RPing nations must have a nation on the regional map. |
This has been a pev of mine for a while. As "cartographer" is not an official position, but still wields power AND as MrPopo is MIA, I think that these rules need to be changed.
Suggestion:
| QUOTE |
5. Only one active RP nation per player is allowed. This means no one player can create or have two nations to roleplay with at one time. Any and all cheaters caught doing so will be banned from roleplaying and ignored in IC threads for an indefinite period. The active nation may be swapped out, but only after all involvement in any open RPs involving the active region have been concluded.
6. *REMOVED* |
Thoughts?
hudson bay - April 7, 2005 11:08 AM (GMT)
Since some RP threads may never "conclude", perhaps you should change the requirements to getting majority approval to the nation change.
Carbanousa - April 7, 2005 11:10 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Daemon @ Apr 7 2005, 04:53 AM) |
5. Only one active RP nation per player is allowed. This means no one player can create or have two nations to roleplay with at one time. Any and all cheaters caught doing so will be banned from roleplaying and ignored in IC threads for an indefinite period. The active nation may be swapped out, but only after all involvement in any open RPs involving the active region have been concluded.
Thoughts? |
If the RP Coordinator was granted a Moderator mask for the RP Forum's then those who are not acting in character could either have the posts removed or subject to Moderator approval, which in essence would be a ban from that Forum or concerning thread. Other than that it looks good Daemon.
Daemon - April 7, 2005 01:33 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (hudson bay @ Apr 7 2005, 11:08 AM) |
| Since some RP threads may never "conclude", perhaps you should change the requirements to getting majority approval to the nation change. |
The only problem that I can see with this is getting sufficient number for quorum. Like with respect to nations passing in and out of existence, and interest waxing and waning, I think that it would, in some situations, be difficult to determine what number a "majority" is.
As for Carb's point: I think that the mod powers are highly important, but we also have to make a legal framework so that the RP world doesn't become completely unaccountable and arbitrary.
Carbanousa - April 7, 2005 01:58 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Daemon @ Apr 7 2005, 01:33 PM) |
| ...but we also have to make a legal framework so that the RP world doesn't become completely unaccountable and arbitrary. |
This legal framework culd be erived from the existing Roleplay Rules and guidelines. Granted, they will need a severe reworking, but the basis is already in existence meaning that the work doesn't need to be started from scratch.
Daemon - April 7, 2005 02:01 PM (GMT)
Agreed. At least we've got the ball rolling. I'm open to suggestions for reworks. I will try to come out with my own list later tonight.
Daemon - April 13, 2005 02:41 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
5. Only one active RP nation per player is allowed. This means no one player can create or have two nations to roleplay with at one time. Any and all cheaters caught doing so will be banned from roleplaying and ignored in IC threads for an indefinite period. The active nation may be swapped out, but only after a unanimous majority of other active players agree to the switch.
6. *REMOVED* |
I think that this address's HB's concern. I also think that Carb's suggestion about granting Moderator powers to the RP mod is appropriate, but would rely on the jurisprudence of the RP mod.
The reason that I used "unanimous" is because any dissenting voice would kill the swap, so we don't need a quorem.
