Jump to content

The GM's Court


Evangeline Anovilis

Recommended Posts

Note: The GM Court is a service to the entire CNRP community and is thus open to all of its members, provided their input is related to the rules and disputes of the community. All members of the CNRP community have a right to post in this thread, but please keep it civil and do not clutter the thread up with unrelated matters, for which we have the OOC thread.

 

Definition of a GM

 

The Game Masters (GMs) are a democratically elected institution of CNRP, tasked with interpretation and application of the CNRP community rules. They are thus the moderation of the RP. GMs do not create rules and cannot change rules on their own, for they are not a triumvirate (or in general an olligarchy). However, as rules can be ambigious, customary and unwritten, sometimes in form only of guidelines (e.g. common sense rules often fall into this) and precedents, this ambiguity can lead to disputes between members in the community, given the partly competitive nature of the RP. Therefor, in order to apply the rules, the duty of interpretation is also left to the GMs. It is from this definition, that scope and the role of the GM can be derived.

 

GM Elections

 

GMs are elected by the community in elections open to all CNRP community members. GM terms are normally for three months, unless there is a call for new elections supported by more than 50% of the community. Elections consist out of two phases, the Nomination phase and the Election phase.

 

Nomination phase starts, four (4) days prior to the end of a three month term or upon a successful call for new elections. A new topic will be opened, in which every community member is allowed to post up to three nominations for the GM Court. After 48 hours, the nomination period closes the valid (made by valid community members for a valid candidate, who has not refused to run) nominations will be counted, with the six nominees who hold the highest amount of nominations advancing to the Election phase.

 

Election phase begins right after the nomination phase and also lasts for 48 hours. All community members this time have up to three votes they can cast for the remaining nominees. Once elections end, the three nominees with the highest number of votes will be the new GMs. In case there is a tie preventing the identification of three GMs, a run-off vote will have to be held, until all three spots of the court are filled. Upon the successful election of at least one new GM, all old GMs are automatically dismissed.

 

Incumbent GMs

 

Justinian the Mighty

KaiserMelech Mikhail

MrDirector

 

Dispute Resolution

 

If a dispute occurs, be it a disagreement in the rules, disagreement in interpretation, claims of abuse, or any other incident whereby one party feels wronged by another the first step which should be attempted is a private negotiation between the two sides. This can be carried out however one sees fit (formal, informal, pm, query, thread post ect). The point of this is to get the two adversaries talking and to see if some sort of common ground can be reached without the need out outside intervention. Often this can be mutually beneficial as it does not always have to strictly conform to the rules of CNRP and the complexities and rigidity of the structure of rules often cannot make room for the circumstantial details of each case.

 

If negotiation fails, then please post in this thread (the GM court) linking specifically to the relevant posts which the dispute concerns. Provide a short description of the dispute. At this point the evaluating GM can examine the situation and if the verdict seems apparent, they can make a ruling prior to any case. If however, the verdict is not apparent, a discussion will be opened by a GM to address the dispute, you, the initiator will be given the opportunity to provide the absolute best possible argument for why you think you are correct. It is your responsibility to provide us with the facts, evidence, logical appeals, and other appeals that supports your side. After this post the other person should compile the best case they possibly can supporting their side. They should also address errors in their opponents and in general refute the other side thoroughly. The person who initiated GM resolution will then be given a chance to respond to the refutation of their case and to refute the case of the second party. At this point third parties to the dispute who would like to make input are welcome to jump in and the original parties can continue to defend and attack eachother's positions (not persons!). The GMs will then render a decision (based on the arguments made and the evidence provided) in the GM court providing reasoning for the decision. This decision will be generally final, except in extreme cases, e.g. the appearance of new evidence disproving the ruling.

 

Should the initiator or second party refuse to participate in the dispute resolution process, a decision will still be made on the basis of the participating party's posts, as well as any third party input. In such a case the non-participating party has foregone their opportunity to present their case to us. If they do not like the decision that comes back, the GMs cannot be blamed or faulted for whatever impact the lack of their input has. The GMs decision will not necessarily be a default judgement favoring the participating side, but they will in all likelihood lack the full details of the non-participants side.

 

If the GMs see a violation of the rules that nobody comes forward about, then it is still up to the GMs to fix said violation. Some of us in the community favor proactive GMs and others favor laid-back ones, and for all intents and purposes you get the best of both worlds with the current, sitting GMs.

 

Compilation of GM Rulings

 

This is by no means a complete list, however, I will do my best to keep it up to date.

 

[spoiler]

This is a work in progress!

 

Evangeline Anovilis vs Markus Wilding - Contested Protectorate - Resolution

[/spoiler]

 

Conclusion

 

As a general summation:

  • No Ruling will be given on an unclear issue without all sides being publicly heard from.
  • It is the responsibility of interested parties to provide the evidence and arguments necessary to understanding a case. We cannot be expected to do the investigative leg work over an issue that those who are actually involved in understand the best. The most efficient way to obtain the facts is for those who know them to come forward.
  • The GM`s will not take any abuse. There will be disagreements, and if you find that you disagree with us then politely point out what you believe to be flaws. Any unwarranted abuse will not be looked kindly upon.
  • Many GM discussions are done on irc, upon request full logs on a specific subject will be provided.

 

Note: After a short discussion among the GMs, it has been decided to make a new GM Court topic. Although it is still heavily based on the old GM Court, it does take several changes of the GM system (e.g. elections) into account. This by no means signifies a break in the legal tradition and past precedents, as far as still applicable, can carry over. The old topic can be found here.

Edited by Evangeline Anovilis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think Generalissimo is dead already. If he isn't, I'm unsure whether this procedure isn't falling under the "no character killing" rules, given you are taking a person out of the blue and subjecting them to something that most likely leads to death. I would say, talk to Generalissimo first about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh

they are using it to bring over their treaty and the rest seemingly instantly

there's good reason to be against it in this circumstance

This is not a problem of the CNRP canon at this moment. Thus, it would be very much appreciated if you bring issues of other RPs before the GMs of other RPs. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/125380-collapse/

 

I would like to ask my fellow GMs whether Markus post can be taken as an actual disputing of my claim to the Korean peninsula, given it is a godmod, as well as not backed by any post claiming Korea in the map thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past we've followed the precedent that posting in the map thread is not the same as contesting a claim. In this situation we have an inactive player who's land has become white space and now returns to contest another player's attempt to make it a protectorate. From my understanding of the situation Markus has a right to contest Eva's protectorate without posting in the map thread, but his post wherein he infiltrates and assassinated members of the KLM will need to be edited in order to align with the rules against godmodding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...