Community Input on Improving CNRP, GMs and such.

[iKrolm]

[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.


-snip for long post-
[/quote]

I agree with pretty much everything here.

[iKrolm]

[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.
[/quote]


I think we would have trouble finding someone who actively follows CNRP but is not involved and isn't banned. All three current GMs are superpowers or aspiring superpowers with many and far-reaching treaty obligations so the chances for more than one to have a stake in a conflict is pretty high. Right now with all three GMs in the same conflict doesn't leave a semi-objective body is a position of power.

My suggestion would be to include one's nation in the selection criteria: the GM team should be geographically diversity and preferably composed of RPers who aren't likely wage war against each other or each others's allies.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1324275705' post='2881661']
My suggestion would be to include one's nation in the selection criteria: the GM team should be geographically diversity and preferably composed of RPers who aren't likely wage war against each other or each others's allies.
[/quote]

Considering any RPer can change their location whenever they wish, and pursue a different IC persona than their last nation, this would make this criteria extremely objective and unsuitable for the purpose of determining GM's.

[Captain Enema]

If the role of the GM is that of a mediator and their power is limited to bringing problems to a community vote...

What would it matter who they are treatied to?

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324282085' post='2881739']
If the role of the GM is that of a mediator and their power is limited to bringing problems to a community vote...

What would it matter who they are treatied to?
[/quote]

If the role is limited to starting community votes, then it wouldn't matter: problem (hopefully) solved.

[Captain Enema]

Well, not putting myself out there or anything, but if that isn't enough..

I am neutral..

lol.

[Centurius]

[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.

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]

Honestly that second point is quite ridiculous, I've been in more wars than you and have more casualties. Triyun has been in more wars than you and has a fair share of casualties. IG really shouldn't affect your ability to gain a superpower status in CNRP that much if you prepare well for a war.

[Triyun]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1324275705' post='2881661']
I think we would have trouble finding someone who actively follows CNRP but is not involved and isn't banned. All three current GMs are superpowers or aspiring superpowers with many and far-reaching treaty obligations so the chances for more than one to have a stake in a conflict is pretty high. Right now with all three GMs in the same conflict doesn't leave a semi-objective body is a position of power.

My suggestion would be to include one's nation in the selection criteria: the GM team should be geographically diversity and [b]preferably composed of RPers who aren't likely wage war against each other[/b] or each others's allies.
[/quote]

I'd point out that when I was selected, the criteria for likely to wage war probably decreased rather than increased as I was allied to both Cochin and Cent. Show's you can't really base things on that sort of judgement. For the most part with the exception of EM, there also a Cochin ally I had bad relations with either. So while this would be ideal in my own experience it is certainly not a judgement that I think that many have the information to really make well (no offense to anyone here).

I also would say that having a lot of diplomatic relations while not universally true is not so much a function of super powerdom as it is of activity. Like take you versus Sarah. Obviously you pack a lot more of a wallop in a fight with your nation. But Sarah's a lot more active and she has more allies. Thats a personal choice on how to play the game, I don't think one is better than the other, except extreme inactivity in a large nation is bad. But I do think that GMs should be generally on the more active rather than less active side of the player scale. So I do not think that assuming you have active GMs, you are more likely than not to have ones who have a lot of strong diplomatic relationships.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[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]


[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324273054' post='2881637']
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.
[/quote]
[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1324274162' post='2881648']
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.
[/quote]
True, no such thing as being unbiased, but otherwise...this wouldn't be creating plots, it would be takling real world natural disasters and such and applying them here, to spice it up, and nothing more. That gets two birds with one stone--using RL events eliminates the Bias to a large degree, and adds more drama to the RP without the need for war.

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1324275705' post='2881661']
I think we would have trouble finding someone who actively follows CNRP but is not involved and isn't banned. All three current GMs are superpowers or aspiring superpowers with many and far-reaching treaty obligations so the chances for more than one to have a stake in a conflict is pretty high. Right now with all three GMs in the same conflict doesn't leave a semi-objective body is a position of power.
[/quote]
I have been thinking about coming back to CNRP...but I am still having trouble deciding for sure if, when, and where.

You all know I am quite vocal in the opinions I have. You also all know I never let my opinions interfere with my duties when I served as a GM, whether I was ruling in favor or against someone I liked. (TBM should especially know this )

I would be willing to take Mael's suggested part if it would spice things up and keep a balance to CNRP...

Edited December 19, 2011 by Subtleknifewielder

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1324320559' post='2881966']
True, no such thing as being unbiased, but otherwise...this wouldn't be creating plots, it would be takling real world natural disasters and such and applying them here, to spice it up, and nothing more. That gets two birds with one stone--using RL events eliminates the Bias to a large degree, and adds more drama to the RP without the need for war.

I would be willing to take Mael's suggested part if it would spice things up and keep a balance to CNRP...
[/quote]

You know I think I've heard this idea before, actually I think Mael had this idea before when he was trying to create a God of CNRP. People already complain that they have to be in forced wars, if they had to be in forced natural disasters they would have a brain aneurysm. Also, nothing eliminates bias, people accuse each other of bias on a regular basis and that is never going to change. But I'm going to have to say something of bias here Subtle that you were friends will Mael and still are, so of course his suggestion doesn't bode poorly for you. That's the idea of bias.

That said, the idea of a narrator is a terrible idea. You have 30 some people all competing for narrator of their own stories and sometimes that gets screwed up. One Omniscient narrator, who will most likely become a character after so long. No, I don't like that at all.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1324320559' post='2881966']
True, no such thing as being unbiased, but otherwise...this wouldn't be creating plots, it would be takling real world natural disasters and such and applying them here, to spice it up, and nothing more. That gets two birds with one stone--using RL events eliminates the Bias to a large degree, and adds more drama to the RP without the need for war.

[/quote]

A lot of drama happens without war already, look at France, UFE, Athens or Sweden. Unless you give every nation an equal sized flood or the same exact disaster, it will be a biased system. Even to that extent, they could say it occurred in an unpopulated area and did no damage. Therefore, no new story.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324322741' post='2881979']
You know I think I've heard this idea before, actually I think Mael had this idea before when he was trying to create a God of CNRP. People already complain that they have to be in forced wars, if they had to be in forced natural disasters they would have a brain aneurysm. Also, nothing eliminates bias, people accuse each other of bias on a regular basis and that is never going to change. But I'm going to have to say something of bias here Subtle that you were friends will Mael and still are, so of course his suggestion doesn't bode poorly for you. That's the idea of bias.

That said, the idea of a narrator is a terrible idea. You have 30 some people all competing for narrator of their own stories and sometimes that gets screwed up. One Omniscient narrator, who will most likely become a character after so long. No, I don't like that at all.
[/quote]

I fully agree with this, not even players who no longer rp are unbiased and the idea of forced rp in the form of natural disasters is the exact opposite of what we should desire.

[Triyun]

I don't see why people can't just like ask to do narration or a narrator for specific RPs? Like the thing TBM is doing in the Amazon should be proof that system is in place now.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1324323715' post='2881992']
I don't see why people can't just like ask to do narration or a narrator for specific RPs? Like the thing TBM is doing in the Amazon should be proof that system is in place now.
[/quote]

I should have mentioned that earlier, but more or less what I was getting at. A narrator for all of CNRP has the potential for more crying and whining than we have now.

Mind you... I think it would be interesting if we had global random events, but how that is chosen would be a huge debate in itself and probably not worth the hassle. Also it forces people to rp and if we are working towards preplanning events it seems unfair to suddenly, "randomly", strike someone down with a plague of toads or something.

[Captain Enema]

As an asides maybe we ought to do a rough straw poll on what we agree with versus what ideas we dislike?

Might be more useful for HK-47 if he knew what we all were more or less supportive of. Gives the guy more to work with in the long run.

[Sal Paradise]

More rules and more structure is a result of the community's own laziness. Presumably you're all here to write stories together role playing world leaders. The parameters of this game are of your own making and if cannot agree on them, then you shouldn't be working together. You've created a reasonable position for a mediator and then slowly abrogated your own decision making in favour of an institution. The mediator became an arbiter and then the arbiter became the police officer. Conflicts are not disagreements over story but violations to take offence from. You then become dependent. Appealing to rules is your knee-jerk recourse to solving the most minor problems. And when this doesn't work, who do you blame? The rules and the enforcement structure, not the attitude that created it.

More rules will just make you more dependent. Most of these suggestions will just create more disagreement. You'll have more reasons to have a sense of violation and you will take the opportunity to be offended. The complex structure will steer away new players not because it's hard to understand but because you will come down on new players for perceived offences. The system will be manipulated by those with weight (more rules added, decisions made to calcify the status quo) and you'll all end up in the same position you're in now.

What you need to do is follow the only necessary rule: no RP without consent. If you can't work together, don't.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Sal Paradise

[Captain Enema]

Role play in general does work on that principle and I know I've beat on that drum quite a bit. However, I also recognize this is Cybernations Roleplay and there is no peacemode in it.

Which is why in general anyone who isn't doing anything to me will get left alone. But really, the consent rule is a bit of a two edged sword. You don't want to get hassled you have to sit there and do nothing but internal rp. If you want to fight, you have to go fight.

So yes I think we need to put effort into discussing wars beforehand, I do recognize this is not always possible. In those events I suggest that the attacker limit their ambitions to modest gains and leave it at that so the defender isn't completely run right off the map.

It's a tough one though and I really don't have a simple answer for it. The no consent rule though is far too simple of an answer to be practical. Particularly when you have people who like to rp groups that are highly predatory in nature.

I know it sounds like I'm flip flopping around on the issue, because I am. Not quite sure how to address, but as we are a community I'm sure we can come up with something that fits the actual template of "CNRP" while still remaining at heart an RP.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324338215' post='2882165']
Which is why in general anyone who isn't doing anything to me will get left alone. But really, the consent rule is a bit of a two edged sword. You don't want to get hassled you have to sit there and do nothing but internal rp. If you want to fight, you have to go fight.[/quote]

It shouldn't be any sort of revelation that the consent rule works both ways. I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make. You don't need to restrict yourself with internal RP. You merely RP with people when you're in agreement with what you're RPing.

And that is to some extend what CNRP is. People are agreeing to this kind of competition and to GMs resolving disputes. But ultimately, people aren't in agreement with what they're RPing, not even the GMs between themselves. So the problem isn't solved. If the system is based on consent, then consent is all you need. The system is irrelevant, but your expectation of it to solve your problems makes you think the system is failing when you can't solve problems.

[Captain Enema]

There in lies the problem. Consent isn't needed and never really has been needed. It merely was an expectation in the past without ever being a rule.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1324339814' post='2882186']
It shouldn't be any sort of revelation that the consent rule works both ways. I'm not really sure what the point is that you're trying to make. You don't need to restrict yourself with internal RP. You merely RP with people when you're in agreement with what you're RPing.

And that is to some extend what CNRP is. People are agreeing to this kind of competition and to GMs resolving disputes. But ultimately, people aren't in agreement with what they're RPing, not even the GMs between themselves. So the problem isn't solved. If the system is based on consent, then consent is all you need. The system is irrelevant, but your expectation of it to solve your problems makes you think the system is failing when you can't solve problems.
[/quote]

If that's the case then, you should get rid of the map and people can just interact with who they want to interact. That's fine if this is what everyone would want, but its not the way we have CNRP now. So you can get rid of the map, some people can build the perfect nations and the others can just do constant war. I mean it wouldn't matter to me either way, but I mean isn't that what !@#$%* was, utopia RP?

[Captain Enema]

AS an historical asides..

I started RPing as a hobby back in 2002. At that time you had two choices if someone attacked you. You could fight or you could refuse to fight. However, you couldn't refuse to fight incharacter. Meaning you either had to flee or post out and leave the ongoing rp. Unless you were in a No-Kill Zone. Such a thing does not exist in CNRP for a good reason.

I do believe we need to plan our wars when possible. Even when not possible we need to be modest in our gains.

For example, when I was Legion I could have had Markus blasted off the face of Africa. This was even with a certain someone threatening me with war in IRC. I had all the just cause to boot Markus out of Africa, I just didn't want to because I felt that having him change governments would be far more reasonable.

He still rerolled later but the outcome is better as he was allowed to do so on his own terms.

So yeah, I mean seriously.. even if the person won't speak to you or cooperate just tell them what you are going to settle for without going for the whole pie and do it. You'll probably get more out of it later in terms of ongoing role play.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1324340418' post='2882193']
There in lies the problem. Consent isn't needed and never really has been needed. It merely was an expectation in the past without ever being a rule.
[/quote]

Of course consent is involved. No one is really being forced to do anything. I don't play CNRP anymore because I think the system is corrupted and the community dominated by bullies and pixel-hoarding squatters. Dominant forces in CNRP shape RP into the dullest form possible. I'm not being forced to participate am I? I withdrew my consent.


[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324340637' post='2882196']
If that's the case then, you should get rid of the map and people can just interact with who they want to interact. That's fine if this is what everyone would want, but its not the way we have CNRP now. So you can get rid of the map, some people can build the perfect nations and the others can just do constant war. I mean it wouldn't matter to me either way, but I mean isn't that what !@#$%* was, utopia RP?
[/quote]

Well it's already utopian isn't it? Nobody RPs economies. Some players barely even RP internal or external politics. And no one seems to have a problem with this. The only thing everyone really insists people RP is war. Judging from your reply that seems to be the only thing that makes the difference for you.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1324344320' post='2882241']
Well it's already utopian isn't it? Nobody RPs economies. Some players barely even RP internal or external politics. And no one seems to have a problem with this. The only thing everyone really insists people RP is war. Judging from your reply that seems to be the only thing that makes the difference for you.
[/quote]

I mean I think that for most people war and conflict are the easiest things to understand and write about. The key factor I think in this is finding subjects which are both interesting and can gain an audience. You only need to look at modern movies and books to see that war is one of those things that people enjoy reading and writing about, and for that matter, watching. I agree with you Sal, I think it would be cool to see economy RPed out. What I wouldn't want to see however, is this turn into Victoria II or Hearts of Iron, etc, however if someone would RP economic problems a la French Revolution, Great Depression and so forth I think would be really cool. So there are a lot of things to write about, aside from war, I think war is just the go-to thing. I apologize if I didn't mention other things in my post.

Now...if you were move into economic RPs, the global economy impacts a lot of people and it would have the same effect as with War in CNRP. People saying they're not effected by external changes to the economy, to ideologies, to culture. I personally do think economics would be hard to RP and am against it for complexity reasons. However, if you think it could work and explain how it could be implement, I'm all ears...er...eyes.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1324344320' post='2882241']
Of course consent is involved. No one is really being forced to do anything. I don't play CNRP anymore because I think the system is corrupted and the community dominated by bullies and pixel-hoarding squatters. Dominant forces in CNRP shape RP into the dullest form possible. I'm not being forced to participate am I? I withdrew my consent.
[/quote]

Good to know nothing has really changed from when I started role playing in 2002 to now.

Your inability to create a niche for yourself really isn't inspiring a whole lot of sympathy for your argument. If you can not roll with the big dogs, not get in their way when they line up for their turn on the food bowl. Find something else to do that works for you.

If everyone took your approach there would only be four Rpers left in CNRP.

Failure to adapt to the situation isn't really a problem of the community, it's yours.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1324345052' post='2882246']
Now...if you were move into economic RPs, the global economy impacts a lot of people and it would have the same effect as with War in CNRP. People saying they're not effected by external changes to the economy, to ideologies, to culture. I personally do think economics would be hard to RP and am against it for complexity reasons. However, if you think it could work and explain how it could be implement, I'm all ears...er...eyes.
[/quote]
The only "economy" (and I should have been specific from the start) that CNRP should add is getting an approximate budget encoded, to prevent all these extraordinary things done at the same time in high speed.