Community Input on Improving CNRP, GMs and such.

[HK47]

Greetings puny meatbags.

We all agree the GM system is broken. We all agree it always has been. We all agree it needs fixing.

The GM system isn't going away, because us moderators don't want to get anw here near you smelly meatbags unless it is to clean up the charred ash left after blasting you. Unfortunately for us it has reached a point that we can no longer ignore and so I am here to grace you with my presence and pretend to give a damn and attempt to solve your meatbag problems. I will also be taking this opportunity to fix a few general issues with CNRP[url="http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/9/95/HK-47_Ethical_problems.ogg"].[/url]

As this thread is mostly intended as a conduit for general community input I will only briefly outline the actions I plan to take. After considering the issues brought to me, and discarding the idiotic ones, I went and spoke to the GMs themselves (well all the ones I could get a hold of). The result of that conversation and my contemplation is as follows.

-(re)Establish a simple, base set of rules/community guidelines.
-Introduce a method through which sufficient and dedicated, quality RP will allow a nation to gain attributes beyond its IG means. For example RP wonders, tech level, military size and such.
-reworking the GM system, in particular to give a more balanced focus on RP vs Tech, and in conflicts involving GMs.
-Encouraging planned wars (ie wars with consent and possibly defined boundaries) by requiring players to make a reasonable effort to come to an agreement for war before outright attacking. This is to reduce the OOC bickering that tends to be more prevalent in surprise wars without consent.
-Possibly removing or replacing some rulings to create a simpler model and allow more freedom.


I already have some ideas on how to implement these and more details are likely to come, but feel free to make suggestions on implementations, new ideas entirely and general opinion on these. You may also suggest other areas you have concern and/or fixes. This thread is not for making accusations, attacks or wild grievances with different people, be they GM, RPer or even Mods (especially mods). I will close this thread and blast you all with glee if you misbehave. This thread is for civil and sensible discussion on ways to improve CNRP and its management and for you to have your say.

[Centurius]

For the fourth point some clarification. Basically if someone wants to go to war with someone they will need to discuss it with the other side first and attempt to work out a scenario to end the war. This will be the basic rule, should someone deem the other side to not be reasonable a request can be made to a GM for permission to start an unplanned war.

The way I see this it will stop a lot of the ooc bickering and allow more story, the clause that a GM can authorize an unplanned war will also prevent abuse of this system.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Centurius

[Triyun]

Some ideas thrown out for RPed improvements:

National Drafts: This can be done by anyway, I am thinking that a draft would allow for the slow increase of troop levels beyond what you can RP. This is something we'd need to trust people in doing but as how I envision it, you could slowly increase conscription. I think though people should also be smart about this and RP some dissent as a result of this though.

Conquest leading to industrial gains: Like if for example, one small nation conquers another they should be able to take 1/3 of their strength to add to their own or something. This is similar to HOI 'annex nation' button. Big nations would presumably prevent each other from doing this in interest of maintaining a balance of power.

SOSUS, I think SOSUS in general need to be toned down, but if you want to develop a IRL style SOSUS or a redeployable theatre system you can do this.

I'll add more as I think of them. These should be judged on whether enough has been done based on GMs. It should be done either through character or nation RP, both would be equally valid, you have to put some effort into it though. It can't just be a one line x% done post one a week.

[Kankou]

[quote name='HK47' timestamp='1324229664' post='2881234']-Introduce a method through which sufficient and dedicated, quality RP will allow a nation to gain attributes beyond its IG means. For example RP wonders, tech level, military size and such.[/quote]
1. Military size: Allow mass conscription on part of the invaded? Allow weaker but more numerous soldiers based on the core IG soldier number?

2. Tech level: Seems adequate enough.

3. RP wonders: Should be discussed separately.

4. Add economy. While it isn't expected that one needs to RP trade, etc, a basic idea of how big a country's economy is would be necessary to prevent some of our more crazy RPs. It would also give reason for people to not expand so much: More people = Lower GDP per capita


[quote name='HK47' timestamp='1324229664' post='2881234']-reworking the GM system, in particular to give a more balanced focus on RP vs Tech, and in conflicts involving GMs.[/quote]
1. Making it so that there needs to be at least notification and reply from all the GMs before any agreement/reform is made that affects CNRP as a whole. I'm not one to push for consensus (although that is ideal), but the minimum amount of [b]formal[/b] discussion should be had before anything "major" is proceeded. This was my main issue with the recent several point reform during the current war: Due process of procedure.

2. Split and expand the GM team by adding a technology branch whose main job is to address concerns and educate players on the occasional technology that requires at least some knowledge to comprehend. Part of the technoblabble debate comes from how some of those in the know get too far ahead of the rest of the players, requiring "translation" into the average person's vocabulary. Might be given the power to enforce restrictions on a particular developed technology (can be vetoed by the regular GMs).

[Centurius]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324234056' post='2881271']
Some ideas thrown out for RPed improvements:

National Drafts: This can be done by anyway, I am thinking that a draft would allow for the slow increase of troop levels beyond what you can RP. This is something we'd need to trust people in doing but as how I envision it, you could slowly increase conscription. I think though people should also be smart about this and RP some dissent as a result of this though.

[b]Conquest leading to industrial gains: Like if for example, one small nation conquers another they should be able to take 1/3 of their strength to add to their own or something. This is similar to HOI 'annex nation' button. Big nations would presumably prevent each other from doing this in interest of maintaining a balance of power. [/b]

SOSUS, I think SOSUS in general need to be toned down, but if you want to develop a IRL style SOSUS or a redeployable theatre system you can do this.

I'll add more as I think of them. These should be judged on whether enough has been done based on GMs. It should be done either through character or nation RP, both would be equally valid, you have to put some effort into it though. It can't just be a one line x% done post one a week.
[/quote]

Not fond of this suggestion at all as it really wouldn't make that much sense, reslistically you'd lose forces in the war which take a lot of time to restore, industry gets destroyed by bombing runs and let not even talk about the resistance an occupying force would realistically have so you'd actually need to lose NS from conquering other countries or at best remain at the point where you started.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324234837' post='2881279']
4. Add economy. While it isn't expected that one needs to RP trade, etc, a basic idea of how big a country's economy is would be necessary to prevent some of our more crazy RPs. It would also give reason for people to not expand so much: More people = Lower GDP per capita
[/quote]
I oppose an economy system in CNRP mainly because I don't want CNRP to become like Vicky or Europa where the economy is a constant worry. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want to have to figure out how x project affects my economy in y way.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1324235224' post='2881283']
I oppose an economy system in CNRP mainly because I don't want CNRP to become like Vicky or Europa where the economy is a constant worry. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want to have to figure out how x project affects my economy in y way.
[/quote]
It's more aimed at the ridiculous amount of projects that a single country can run, the infinite amount of construction done, the astronomical amount of currencies that are sloshed around when nominally buying land, and the fire-sale prices at which military equipment are sold. This is to get people to start thinking of what they are doing, and to also force some of the "I WANT MORE LAND AND PEOPLE" players to be restricted in how they can expand the country.

[TheShammySocialist]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324234837' post='2881279']
2. Split and expand the GM team by adding a technology branch whose main job is to address concerns and educate players on the occasional technology that requires at least some knowledge to comprehend. Part of the technoblabble debate comes from how some of those in the know get too far ahead of the rest of the players, requiring "translation" into the average person's vocabulary. Might be given the power to enforce restrictions on a particular developed technology (can be vetoed by the regular GMs).
[/quote]

I suggested this idea about a month or two ago, but nothing really came of it.

Though I still think that it might be a solid idea to undertake, as long as the roles are clearly defined.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='HK47' timestamp='1324229664' post='2881234']
-Introduce a method through which sufficient and dedicated, quality RP will allow a nation to gain attributes beyond its IG means. For example RP wonders, tech level, military size and such.
[/quote]
I think everything would be much simpler if we left the major things like wonders and the military pegged to our IG standing. If anything this would get people much more into actual CyberNations, and lead us to drastically improve our IG nations if for no other reason than to increase our RP power. Of all the grievances I've had, IG restricting my RP has never been one of them.

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1324235224' post='2881283']
I oppose an economy system in CNRP mainly because I don't want CNRP to become like Vicky or Europa where the economy is a constant worry. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want to have to figure out how x project affects my economy in y way.
[/quote]
We don't want it to become a system where you have to worry about every dollar spent. This would simply open up a massive new area to RP. I think an economy would improve CNRP as we would have to Rp it out, and we could have so many new things available, like economic collapses and whatnot. Would it restrict RP? No, it would simply change the way we do things. Yes, you wouldn't be able to throw around the GDP of the Northern Hemisphere every month, but that just leads you to find new ways of doing something. Want to construct a brand new capital city like everyone seems to do? Go ahead, but just RP out the soul-crushing debt you've just placed your nation into. Realism isn't always bad, and this would truly be something that would affect everyone. Nobody has unlimited money, your IG doesn't have unlimited money, so let's use our real world/IG budgeting skills in here.

[Markus Wilding]

Ignoring the economy suggestion, I'd like to see some sort of system where players are rewarded for having an elite force. Right now, an "elite force" means it has a fancy name slapped onto it. It's no more effective in RP than Pvt. Mann over here from the 82nd Infantry. I would say if you take the time to RP exactly how your elite force is elite, then they should be more effective in wars than the regulars.

[Triyun]

The reason I personally favor the right to RP an increase in nation strength, is that it offers the opportunity for new more dynamic players to take on older stagnant players. Take Sarah or TBM versus Shadow or Lavo. Now no offense to Shadow or Lavo but they're not exactly the most active RPers in the world. Rather than just have only a handful of nations who could solo these guys, you'd build a world where they'd have to watch their back from many people. This would force them themselves to become more active rather than rest on their laurels. Even active super powers like myself would have to be working much harder both diplomatically and militarily to maintain our position, at the same time the newer players would have a chance to shine.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Triyun

[Centurius]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324248002' post='2881404']
The reason I personally favor the right to RP an increase in nation strength, is that it offers the opportunity for new more dynamic players to take on older stagnant players. Take Sarah or TBM versus Shadow or Lavo. Now no offense to Shadow or Lavo but they're not exactly the most active RPers in the world. Rather than just have only a handful of nations who could solo these guys, you'd build a world where they'd have to watch their back from many people. This would force them themselves to become more active rather than rest on their laurels. Even active super powers like myself would have to be working much harder both diplomatically and militarily to maintain our position, at the same time the newer players would have a chance to shine.
[/quote]

I do agree with that part, but I don't think it makes sense to base it on spoils of war, especially as some people just want to be pacifist. What I would much rather see is the system where such a RP increase is a reward for dedicated participation and regular posting. Not the person who can fight better.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1324247755' post='2881402']
Ignoring the economy suggestion[/quote]
Any good reason to "ignore" it?


[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1324247755' post='2881402']I'd like to see some sort of system where players are rewarded for having an elite force. Right now, an "elite force" means it has a fancy name slapped onto it. It's no more effective in RP than Pvt. Mann over here from the 82nd Infantry. I would say if you take the time to RP exactly how your elite force is elite, then they should be more effective in wars than the regulars.
[/quote]
That's in line with Triyun's overall suggestion.


[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324248002' post='2881404']
The reason I personally favor the right to RP an increase in nation strength, is that it offers the opportunity for new more dynamic players to take on older stagnant players. Take Sarah or TBM versus Shadow or Lavo. Now no offense to Shadow or Lavo but they're not exactly the most active RPers in the world. Rather than just have only a handful of nations who could solo these guys, you'd build a world where they'd have to watch their back from many people. This would force them themselves to become more active rather than rest on their laurels. Even active super powers like myself would have to be working much harder both diplomatically and militarily to maintain our position, at the same time the newer players would have a chance to shine.
[/quote]
I understand your point, but Cent got the main problem down.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1324248352' post='2881411']
Any good reason to "ignore" it?

[/quote]

It goes along the same idea as the "Technobabble". There will be "Ecobabble", terms, theories, actions, etc, that people will not understand. There is more to an economy than GDP or how much a plane costs, it is the result of actions, events, policies, business, laws, politics, etc. For example, I could increase the amount of currency I wish to put in to circulation. There are very few people who will be able to RP the result of that properly, alongside every other facet to create a dynamic economy. RPing an economy is the most difficult things to do in CNRP. If it is not done correctly it looks silly when implemented. If it is done correctly, people will have spent an extraordinary amount of time researching and typing out how their RP impacts their economy.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1324249173' post='2881414']
It goes along the same idea as the "Technobabble". There will be "Ecobabble", terms, theories, actions, etc, that people will not understand. There is more to an economy than GDP or how much a plane costs, it is the result of actions, events, policies, business, laws, politics, etc. For example, I could increase the amount of currency I wish to put in to circulation. There are very few people who will be able to RP the result of that properly, alongside every other facet to create a dynamic economy. RPing an economy is the most difficult things to do in CNRP. If it is not done correctly it looks silly when implemented. If it is done correctly, people will have spent an extraordinary amount of time researching and typing out how their RP impacts their economy.
[/quote]

I also fear the debates on which economic school of thinking is superior.

[Kankou]

I was thinking more of "Estimated GDP is this, and estimated budget is this. Try to do things within this limit", not a full-blown economic model. Basically, trying to cap the astronomical spending.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1324235224' post='2881283']
I oppose an economy system in CNRP mainly because I don't want CNRP to become like Vicky or Europa where the economy is a constant worry. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want to have to figure out how x project affects my economy in y way.
[/quote]


Seriously, I don't think anyone here has yet to rp economy. If anything it would just introduce more rules into the equation.



My suggestions..

Rules should reflect role play.


OOC/IC divide, this should be explanatory.

No character crossing and this means if you get attacked as nation x, no using this as a reason to hit someone in nation y if the two nations are completely unrelated.

No godmode.


Tech-

The tech system really isn't that big of a problem with the exception of a few high level players. Most of us proles are content to use whatever it is that we can get our hands on.

So why create an entire structure for a problem that doesn't apply to the majority of CNRP?

If Tech is a problem, and I really don't think it is, cap it at 2012 and be done with it.

No need to create an "enforcement" team of GMs.


GM status-

GM system is broken, yes. But, I'd like to point out here that I don't think it is broken because of our current GM team. Not at all, if anything the damn thing has been broken for quite a long time and Cent and Triyun are taking all of this pretty well. I find that pretty impressive, keep it up dudes.


As for the GM status..

Mediation.. that's what they should do. Meditate, Mediate, Mediate.. If this fails.. Community process.

Just bring it to the community in a poll or discussion. Let the community decide, and what the community wants, the community gets.

For better or for worst.

Further, these community rulings should be situational. New community standards should be discussed later after tempers have calmed and thought has been put into how a new guideline could effect long term rp.


Though, I do think that the GM staff should be able to agree, together, that an RP should be halted temporarily.


Last.. Rules..


Autoadvances... don't like them, but they are a necessary evil to keep rp moving. If you can't bother to post every 7 days you have problems.

Spy rolls.. RP should be required before the roll is conducted and no more rolls given till the rp is completed no matter what. This builds in consequences for failure, which should always be present.


Preplanning wars... like it up to a point. Let's not use this system as a means of saying, "Well I tried.. I sent him a pm and he said he didn't want to fight, can I roll him?"

Some people just don't want to fight, but I also agree we aren't in sim city. If someone doesn't want to fight but there is sufficient IC reason for a war, mediation comes into play and the attacker presents a plan that allows the defender to retain control of his land.

Maybe the defender can lose his government, or whatever, but not permanent control of his land.

So if you get caught popping mortar rounds over the border you shouldn't be allowed to go into peace mode.


Nation growth..

Honestly, I think the way we do it now is fine. Tying it to stats works for me. I can see how people would like to gain strength through role play, but.. this creates a condition for subjective analysis. It also puts the GM team into the position where they are being called upon to judge the merits of a person's role play.

Not sure I'm comfortable with that.

I'm open to hearing more about the idea though, so if Triyun or others can explain to me how it will work, without creating an entire system of enforcement and subjective judging I'm open to hearing it.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324251013' post='2881425']
Seriously, I don't think anyone here has yet to rp economy. If anything it would just introduce more rules into the equation.



My suggestions..

Rules should reflect role play.


OOC/IC divide, this should be explanatory.

No character crossing and this means if you get attacked as nation x, no using this as a reason to hit someone in nation y if the two nations are completely unrelated.

No godmode.


Tech-

The tech system really isn't that big of a problem with the exception of a few high level players. Most of us proles are content to use whatever it is that we can get our hands on.

So why create an entire structure for a problem that doesn't apply to the majority of CNRP?

If Tech is a problem, and I really don't think it is, cap it at 2012 and be done with it.

No need to create an "enforcement" team of GMs.


GM status-

GM system is broken, yes. But, I'd like to point out here that I don't think it is broken because of our current GM team. Not at all, if anything the damn thing has been broken for quite a long time and Cent and Triyun are taking all of this pretty well. I find that pretty impressive, keep it up dudes.


[b]As for the GM status..

Mediation.. that's what they should do. Meditate, Mediate, Mediate.. If this fails.. Community process.

Just bring it to the community in a poll or discussion. Let the community decide, and what the community wants, the community gets.

For better or for worst.

Further, these community rulings should be situational. New community standards should be discussed later after tempers have calmed and thought has been put into how a new guideline could effect long term rp.[/b]


Though, I do think that the GM staff should be able to agree, together, that an RP should be halted temporarily.


Last.. Rules..


Autoadvances... don't like them, but they are a necessary evil to keep rp moving. If you can't bother to post every 7 days you have problems.

Spy rolls.. RP should be required before the roll is conducted and no more rolls given till the rp is completed no matter what. This builds in consequences for failure, which should always be present.


Preplanning wars... like it up to a point. Let's not use this system as a means of saying, "Well I tried.. I sent him a pm and he said he didn't want to fight, can I roll him?"

Some people just don't want to fight, but I also agree we aren't in sim city. If someone doesn't want to fight but there is sufficient IC reason for a war, mediation comes into play and the attacker presents a plan that allows the defender to retain control of his land.

Maybe the defender can lose his government, or whatever, but not permanent control of his land.

So if you get caught popping mortar rounds over the border you shouldn't be allowed to go into peace mode.


Nation growth..

Honestly, I think the way we do it now is fine. Tying it to stats works for me. I can see how people would like to gain strength through role play, but.. this creates a condition for subjective analysis. It also puts the GM team into the position where they are being called upon to judge the merits of a person's role play.

Not sure I'm comfortable with that.

I'm open to hearing more about the idea though, so if Triyun or others can explain to me how it will work, without creating an entire system of enforcement and subjective judging I'm open to hearing it.
[/quote]

I specifically like the bolded part a lot. That is the function a gm should have.

[Captain Enema]

The other side of the bold bit is the the responsibility of the community to work together to make the CNRP experience an enjoyable one as well.

[Kaiser Martens]

CNRP either needs to lose most of its rules and lose stats in favor of pure RP and narrative, or otherwise have it so that every war needs to have a "judge" assigned by both sides, that will actively and decisively step in whenever an ooc issue is reached, and to even decide or modify one side's losses in each battle. I don't care if this makes me lose more wars, as long as it streamlines the process of having one.

An economy system would be nice, if the other two options are a no-go.

[TheShammySocialist]

Given that it was the following points that HK47 started this thread off with, I thought I'd address each with some possible suggestions for consideration, as it seems like discussion has begun to branch off, and since these are the real "meat and bones"... I thought I'd comment on them...

[quote name='HK47' timestamp='1324229664' post='2881234']-(re)Establish a simple, base set of rules/community guidelines.[/quote]

I think that the basic rules surrounding the conduct of roleplay are currently working at a satisfactory standard. While I feel like there are some instances of god-modding and OOC/IC, and I don't think its enforced as stringently as it could be. In the case of the crossing of OOC/IC lines, it will happen from time to time, but it occurs more frequently then it should be, and I think enforcement of these standards should be held up to a higher standard. I don't feel as though enough is being done to keep the lines of OOC/IC apart.

I do feel as though basic community guidelines are sufficient right now in terms of what kind of behavior is expected of us. I don't feel its a failure of the GM team either, I just think people have accepted it as the norm, and haven't been reporting it or really doing anything about it. And frankly, I think enforcement can be stepped up a bit. Its not a [i]pervasive[/i] problem, and certainly not "killing" CNRP, but more [i]could[/i] be done about it.

[quote]-Introduce a method through which sufficient and dedicated, quality RP will allow a nation to gain attributes beyond its IG means. For example RP wonders, tech level, military size and such.[/quote]

I can support a measure that implements a system that rewards quality, active roleplay, giving advantages and going beyond in-game means to those who are active members of the community with substantive posts. While I support it, I also realize that there is a reality we have to face in implementing it, how do people judge how effective the roleplay was? There can't be a guide, that's for sure. While this idea has been kicking around for a couple weeks, I still see the potential, [i]potential[/i], mind you, for it to be abused.

There are people that give dedication to this community, and they don't get as much of a reward to those who post very seldomly, yet still are able to maintain a strength higher than those that are active. I feel that is an unfair advantage, and one that people have to suffer with. Yes, I digress, as long as there are a system of nations in real life, there will always be those with, and without. But a stagnant nation in real life suffers as well, take the Soviet Union for example, had a huge military, but not the means to support it, and a lot of the naval vessels, suffered because of the stagnation, rusting out in various ports, as many of them are right now.

On implementing it, is where I come to the next point that was presented...

[quote]-reworking the GM system, in particular to give a more balanced focus on RP vs Tech, and in conflicts involving GMs.[/quote]

As I noted earlier, I made the suggestion a few weeks ago, maybe even more than a month ago, that there could be two sets of GMs, one that deals with things such as enforcement of community guidelines and basic disputes, and spyrolls. The other side would be like a "military/technology panel", who have a good grasp or handle on current or possible future employment of technology, including aviation, space, and such. This panel would also include someone who has a solid grasp on military strategy, or maybe even one of CNRP's technogeeks might have that knowledge kicking about in the ole' attic. Who knows?

As part of this suggestion, I think that the former set of GMs, that deal with enforcement of community guidelines and basic disputes, could be made up of people who are well received by the community and most of the community feels like they entrust them with the enforcement of a reward system based on quality RP/activity. This could be done through secret ballot, as well as the Moderator(s), observing interactions between individual players.

In the case of conflicts involving GMs, the system that I mentioned above does allow for, yes, more bureaucracy, and theoretically, lessens the chance that all the GMs would be involved in the same IC conflict. If this "dual GM system" isn't implemented, maybe there could be a procedure for getting a "temporary" or "reserve" GM, who has already been predetermined, put into authority for the duration of the conflict.

[quote]-Encouraging planned wars (ie wars with consent and possibly defined boundaries) by requiring players to make a reasonable effort to come to an agreement for war before outright attacking. This is to reduce the OOC bickering that tends to be more prevalent in surprise wars without consent.[/quote]

I feel that encouraging more planned wars is a good way of trying to reduce the OOC bickering that has given me a headache at least a dozen times for the past few weeks. The banter has reached levels I have not seen it at before in the time I've been here, which I admit, isn't all that long compared to some members of the community, but if its bothering some of the old timers, I think its certainly relevant. Even if wars aren't "planned" out per se, just encouraging people to establish a line of communication with their foes beforehand, in a method I like to call "Keepin' things classy", it can go a long way, I feel, in dealing with the OOC banter, I've used it before, and I feel like if people can sit down and talk in a reasonable manner to one another, it will work.

So even if we can't get all wars to that "planned" status, at least encouraging people to sit down and be reasonable with their opponents, should allow for more fun, and less haggling. War shouldn't have to be a chore in something that I assume we all do for fun.

[quote]-Possibly removing or replacing some rulings to create a simpler model and allow more freedom.[/quote]

I couldn't agree more on making things simple, when it comes to many things, the KISS method goes a long way to keeping things streamlined and efficient, why weigh things down with excess baggage and thought. If it means some de-regulation of the community that will put things in a positive direction, I'm for it. Of course I don't exactly know which rulings are being removed or replaced, but overall, I can see where rulings have made things more complex then they should be, so streamlining rulings is something I can support, so long as they move things in a progressive direction.

Edited December 19, 2011 by TheShammySocialist

[Maelstrom Vortex]

About GMs:

If you really wish to improve the situation, find a person who is willing to serve as a GM without having an active role in the RP or using their influence to affect the rp, to act as an unbiased moderator for the sake of telling the story. Lack of interaction removes the person from undue bias outside of the writing capability of the rpers.

To keep this person interested, give them influence over random global events which will bring the world around them to life based on some sort of system such as RL weather or disasters. It will also challenge the players by giving them things to overcome. We're missing out on a lot of good opportunities for RP because the world currently exists as a non-functional pile of dirt that has no apparent tectonic system, weather system, etc. This leaves for lots of holes in the RP such as how weather affects war, and disasters affect nations. Some people say it's not necessary and to arbitrary to the one given this power, but if based on a non-biased system like basing events on real events that occur each day, it wouldn't be arbitrary and would add flavor to the global environment.

Half of what you see in international news isn't about man-made events typically, it's about how man is responding to challenging environmental conditions such as disease, climate changes, weather phenomena, and other assorted geological events. It's only when a war breaks out that the news id dominated by man made conditions. Bob needs more than a GM it needs animator.

Also..

Warring vs Non-Warring nations.

Some CNRPers go out of their way to preserve their IG stats.. avoiding in game wars (not to be confused with rp wars), changing their alliances.. everything for the sake of preserving their nations statistics purely for rp purposes. Many of them then use their preserved clout to bully the rest of CNRPers, which is totally unfair and hurts new and old players alike who actually play CN for CN.

The rest of us actually play CN for the game.. and for the war. Just because we participate in one game should not penalize us in another. A means of accounting for the war participation IG of players in CNRP needs to be added so that just because you've actually fought for your friends and comrades in CN doesn't cost you your entire standing in CNRP.. and saved stats just won't cut it.

I've pondered this.. and multipliers to NS, or troops.. called an experience modifier.. might be considered for both IG and RP wars. It would reflect a nation's increasing tolerance of conflict and capability to cope therewith.

I am probably one of the most vetted warriors in CN.. but I can't play a nation in CNRP that's worth a crap because I know the NS isn't there to prevent me from being curb stomped at a whim by the existing hegemony. I consider this dilemma a major contributor to the decline of the community.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1324270072' post='2881592']
About GMs:

If you really wish to improve the situation, find a person who is willing to serve as a GM without having an active role in the RP or using their influence to affect the rp, to act as an unbiased moderator for the sake of telling the story. Lack of interaction removes the person from undue bias outside of the writing capability of the rpers.

To keep this person interested, give them influence over random global events which will bring the world around them to life based on some sort of system such as RL weather or disasters. It will also challenge the players by giving them things to overcome. We're missing out on a lot of good opportunities for RP because the world currently exists as a non-functional pile of dirt that has no apparent tectonic system, weather system, etc. This leaves for lots of holes in the RP such as how weather affects war, and disasters affect nations. Some people say it's not necessary and to arbitrary to the one given this power, but if based on a non-biased system like basing events on real events that occur each day, it wouldn't be arbitrary and would add flavor to the global environment.

Half of what you see in international news isn't about man-made events typically, it's about how man is responding to challenging environmental conditions such as disease, climate changes, weather phenomena, and other assorted geological events. It's only when a war breaks out that the news id dominated by man made conditions. Bob needs more than a GM it needs animator.[/quote]

That's not a GM role, but something entirely else.. a Narrator's role. But I do like the idea.

[quote]Also..

Warring vs Non-Warring nations.

Some CNRPers go out of their way to preserve their IG stats.. avoiding in game wars (not to be confused with rp wars), changing their alliances.. everything for the sake of preserving their nations statistics purely for rp purposes. Many of them then use their preserved clout to bully the rest of CNRPers, which is totally unfair and hurts new and old players alike who actually play CN for CN.

The rest of us actually play CN for the game.. and for the war. Just because we participate in one game should not penalize us in another. A means of accounting for the war participation IG of players in CNRP needs to be added so that just because you've actually fought for your friends and comrades in CN doesn't cost you your entire standing in CNRP.. and saved stats just won't cut it.

I've pondered this.. and multipliers to NS, or troops.. called an experience modifier.. might be considered for both IG and RP wars. It would reflect a nation's increasing tolerance of conflict and capability to cope therewith.

I am probably one of the most vetted warriors in CN.. but I can't play a nation in CNRP that's worth a crap because I know the NS isn't there to prevent me from being curb stomped at a whim by the existing hegemony. I consider this dilemma a major contributor to the decline of the community.
[/quote]


Nah.. experience modifier is too subjective. If you are relying on your stats for a good time it is up to you to figure out how to work it out.

[Triyun]

If people want someone to create plots for them, then they should volunteer to do it. I personally like developing my own plots, and developing plots with a couple others.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1324270072' post='2881592']
About GMs:

If you really wish to improve the situation, find a person who is willing to serve as a GM without having an active role in the RP or using their influence to affect the rp, to act as an unbiased moderator for the sake of telling the story. Lack of interaction removes the person from undue bias outside of the writing capability of the rpers.

To keep this person interested, give them influence over random global events which will bring the world around them to life based on some sort of system such as RL weather or disasters. It will also challenge the players by giving them things to overcome. We're missing out on a lot of good opportunities for RP because the world currently exists as a non-functional pile of dirt that has no apparent tectonic system, weather system, etc. This leaves for lots of holes in the RP such as how weather affects war, and disasters affect nations. Some people say it's not necessary and to arbitrary to the one given this power, but if based on a non-biased system like basing events on real events that occur each day, it wouldn't be arbitrary and would add flavor to the global environment.

Half of what you see in international news isn't about man-made events typically, it's about how man is responding to challenging environmental conditions such as disease, climate changes, weather phenomena, and other assorted geological events. It's only when a war breaks out that the news id dominated by man made conditions. Bob needs more than a GM it needs animator.
[/quote]

There are two issues with this concept.

1) There is no such thing as being unbiased.
2) It goes against the concept of not forcing people to RP what they do not want to, barring the exception for war.

If people want to write those stories, let them. There is no plausible enforcement of this idea and only leads to animosity if someone feels their nation is singled out.