Jump to content

Referendum on the Vote/Kick Rule


Margrave
 Share

should the voting process/ kick rule be removed from CNRP2 M  

34 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I believe this vote/kick rule needs to be removed entirely. Its ridiculous and it robs the community of any chance at healing/removes any chance of real antagonists and conflict from the game. Lets say good riddence to bad rubbish, shall we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I null voted, there needs to be some level of community control over who is in the community, blatant rule breakers should not be given ten chances if they make no efforts to learn the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I null voted, there needs to be some level of community control over who is in the community, blatant rule breakers should not be given ten chances if they make no efforts to learn the rules.

 

Rule breakers should be brought before the GM team, repeated ruler breakers should be removed following the GMs and community's approval. Removing someone because of how you feel about them or think they may act should be forbidden. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I null voted, there needs to be some level of community control over who is in the community, blatant rule breakers should not be given ten chances if they make no efforts to learn the rules.

 

Yes but then we get to where we are now. Where the rules are interpreted based on favoritism. Also no I dont have any evidence of this because it's really hard to prove. If you know the community enough, you'll understand. If you don't, then you don't. If you know the community and disagree, no matter what I say it's going to lead to an argument between us because we both are going to believe what we want to despite who is right and wrong. That's just human nature.

 

Hope that nipped that in the bud before it happened.

Edited by Rotavele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​I don't mean to be that guy but there was no Recent discussion on this topic and really this should be two separate votes: 50k+ rule and banning rule by community vote. 

 

There needs to be a proper discussion on this first. There have been a lot of new people join since the last one, a few left, and a lot of things have changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

​I don't mean to be that guy but there was no Recent discussion on this topic and really this should be two separate votes: 50k+ rule and banning rule by community vote. 

 

There needs to be a proper discussion on this first. There have been a lot of new people join since the last one, a few left, and a lot of things have changed.

 

I agree.

 

Not to mention that like 5 different votes have been nullified due to having posted in the vote thread. Let's just make this the discussion thread and call it a thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this vote/kick rule needs to be removed entirely. Its ridiculous and it robs the community of any chance at healing/removes any chance of real antagonists and conflict from the game. Lets say good riddence to bad rubbish, shall we?

 

Hi Margrave, thanks for taking the time to make this referendum, the vote/kick rule is something that should be re-examined especially in light of current events. I am going to respectfully disagree, and outline my reasoning below, and hope that you and others can discuss this with me.

 

The first point you make is that it "robs the community of any chance at healing." I think it should be made clear that there are actually two communities playing on the same forum: CNRP1 and CNRP2. There is overlap between the two with some players, but there are many people participating in CNRP2 that are not in CNRP1 (and vice versa). Could you be more specific at what you mean by healing? The only incidents in CNRP2 that have caused some schisms (which are dramatically exaggerated in the OOC forum) are the recent events in Hawaii/USSE. Besides that, I would argue that the CNRP2 community is, while extremely dynamic and still trying to work out the kinks and growing pains of a legitimate RP that doesn't die after the first week, a healthy community of diverse players that have proven eager to RP together. Seriously, look at the amount of new players that have joined the CNRP2 community, it's outstanding and something I think has been a great thing. There are things and rules that we need to work on, but I would contest that the CNRP2 community is innately unhealthy and that this voting system is the reason for that. 

 

Secondly, you state that it "removes any chance of real antagonists and conflict from the game." Would you agree that some players are toxic to the community, whether that be from breaking rules in-character to being openly hostile out-of-character, and that there needs to be a way to remove these players if that happens? The problem is that these toxic players often do create conflict in-character that is not in of itself bad, but we need to acknowledge that it's more than possible to create conflict in-character without becoming a player that gets kicked out and we need to be able to separate the two. The vote/kick mechanism is one filter that allows us to do that. 

 

After talking with Voodoo, I agree the one thing that is inherently bad about the vote/kick is that it unfairly targets 50K+ nations. I understand the historical reasoning for this was that it was a compromise with those that wanted no 50K+ nations in the RP at all. Because of the benefits of the vote/kick system (removing toxic players from the community), I advocate for making all nations that form an RP nation undergo a vote, even if just a formality to ensure that it's a tool and resource applied to all equally. 

 

Edit: I agree with PD that there needs to be discussion on the banning rule as well. Also, based off the discussion I've had with the GMs this thread is to simply gauge public opinion and not a formal vote to change the rules.

Edited by Californian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forum doesn't support two continuities. The format won't let us play in the same box, and the majority of the old nations of CNRP1 are silent as the grave most of the time. They are coming here, period, or they will leave. The format in place doesn't have room for both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forum doesn't support two continuities. The format won't let us play in the same box, and the majority of the old nations of CNRP1 are silent as the grave most of the time. They are coming here, period, or they will leave. The format in place doesn't have room for both.

 

The forum does allow for multiple RPs to take place, CNRP2 is not the only alternative RP to have been played in these forums. As long as posts are properly labelled to distinguish between CNRP1 and CNRP2 it is possible to coexist.

 

I don't disagree that CNRP1 has become quieter. However, as I mentioned earlier, I view that fundamentally as a different community (with some overlap of players). That is an issue that should be discussed amongst CNRP1 players to rectify if it is viewed as a problem, and I wish them well on such a task. However, asking CNRP2 to modify or change rules that help it in order to mitigate the inactivity of another community is not something I believe is fair for the CNRP2 community.

 

It sounds like you don't believe there's separation, or enough of it, between the two communities for both to coexist. If this is the case, would it be more helpful to come to Socrates and the administration and jointly request an additional subforum for CNRP2, so that both CNRP1 and CNRP2 have one? It was not explicitly rules out by the administration, and I believe if we switched our focus from removing the vote/kill switch to providing a compelling proposal we could modify the format to 'let us play in the same box.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont view them as a seperate community. This is a map wipe and a rule change, one that was long overdue. The subforum request was already made and shot down. To pretend that this is a seperate community, fully formed from the head of Zeus, is abit obtuse, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a binding poll anyway. The only binding polls come from after a discussion by the community and are posted by a GM.

That being said, I agree.. do a single vote to determine the over 50k rule.

Do another vote to decide how to deal with tards.

The monday vote thread was supposed to be when it got decided on but there weren't any poling options and I was hesitant to start making them up on the spot.

So let's get this cart hitch to a donkey and whip that donkey right in the ass.


Simple vote to be held ASSAP.

hue hue.. get it.. ASS.. A.. never mind.

A simple vote to be held as soon as possible.


Remove the over 50k voting clause.

Yes.

No.


the rule for dealing with morons, that's another story.

It really needs to be a 3/3 vote by the GM team to determine if a vote should be held. Removing someone is a serious situation and should not be taken lightly. When we tossed Tywin the first time, 3/3 GMs approved a vote.


Now, the thing I would suggest is this.

As much as it grates on my nerves that the GM team overruled that vote based on their maternal instincts, they are right in the sense that people deserve second chances.

This being said, make the first removal from the map and rp be for 30 days. The next time, permanently.

No 3 strikes.. 1 chance after a 30 day time out and if you blow it again, you are history.


And finally, Community role play is not an alternative rp. It's the rp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...