 |
| |
|
|
joncha
|
 |
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:35
|
|
Rules adopted so far
1. No god-modding or roleplaying actions out of relation to your nations ability
2. Weapons/technology should be based in semi-reality, and any slightly advanced weapons should be roleplayed out.
3. Maximum 3 spots on the map per player (Primary Nation plus 2 more for expansion, secondary nations or one of each).
4. No expansion is allowed until the primary nations reaches 500M.
5. Secondary spots can be "bumped" by new primary
nations.
6. Nations can have nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, but if they use them they are removed from the region. It's up to the remaining nations to roleplay the results of the attack (if any). Details of the vote can be found here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Points of Contention
1. "vacation mode" vs. "you snooze, you lose" (or, can you reclaim a lost spot?)
2. Size of each nation's spot on the official map (ie, should all nations be roughly the same size? or should the map reflect the differences in nation size, density, etc. that occur in RL).
3. whether further expansion (beyond the limit) can be possible through roleplay (and whether that expansion should be temporary or not)
3b. whether further expansion, if allowed, should appear on the official map.
4. group decision making need/process/etc.
5. Should nations created by relatives/spouses/whatever who are new to Apolyton be allowed?
5b. If so, should they be treated as primary nations? or the secondary nations of the Polytubbie in question?
6. Should we decide on a spread-sheet formula for workable military numbers?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary of the debate/discussion
This forum has been relatively inactive for quite awhile, until recently. The last couple of weeks has been a renaissance of sorts.
I think, rather than get into a pissing contest about, for example, the current roleplay vs. the old rules, we'd all be better served to have a full discussion about how things should be run in the forum.
This thread is an attempt to do that.
Rather than throw out a proposal, I think it might be better for me to start things off with an outline of the issues I (personally) think need to be resolved. The details will be filled in later, as a result of the discussion.
1. Roleplaying
joncha - "Roleplaying should be as "realistic" as possible. This means ( but is not limited to):
1.) No uber-weapons, no superheroes, no magical powers, etc.
2.) No god-modding or roleplaying actions out of relation to your nations ability
3.) Some attempt at a shared chronology (eg, 1 week RL = 1 month game time), to be decided on by the group
4.) Collective decision making for all region issues (ie, voting on game mechanics, region size, etc.)"
Frankychan - No uber-weapons and flippant usage of nukes.
-"I'll personally ignore any post which says that they nuke my population and invade and blahblahblah without my consent. If I don't approve of you messing around in my nation, it doesn't happen."
- We should base ourselves in semi-reality, so that roleplaying has some common ground.
Urban Ranger - Slightly advanced weapons should be roleplayed out (as was done with Fusion Power).
- "We tried that but no time scale would work. Simply population grows too fast at any reasonable intervals (a week, etc.), while nothing else can be done if we go with a year or a decade. Eventually we just ignored time."
- "There are also the military and economy issues. An important thing is how one determines the size of a country's armed forces, and what equipment they have."
joncha - Should Apolyton be nuclear free?
GeneralTacticus - "Well, being able to have wars without the constant potential for total annihilation would be nice..."
Squeblish Nef? - Nukes are fun. Relax, nobody would use them anyway.
joncha - You can have Nukes for roleplaying purposes, but if you use them your are ejected from the region.
GeneralTacticus - If both sides agree to a Nuclear exchange, it should be allowed.
Squeblish Nef? - Bioweapons should be allowed.
Rasputin - We need some agreement on military calculations.
xiaodave - population figures should be taken as a guideline instead of as a literal number.
2. Nations and Members
joncha - One nation per member.
- "Membership should be open to any who wish to participate, but that there should be some mechanism in place to deal with people who aren't mature enough to play well with others."
Frankychan - "As for the multiple nations-one user thing, I'm a little torn."
joncha - A maximum of 3 nations per person. (see limitations under section 3).
Basus - There should be a "vacation mode" so users aren't punished just because they can't access the internet.
- The should be a moderator (or moderators) to see to the rules and establish official polls.
Urban Ranger - Nations created by a member's girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse, etc. should be treated as that member's secondary nation.
- "I can't see her doing things against him in NS or in this forum. So for all intents and purposes, they are one person."
joncha - "[someone's special friend] is in fact a real, living breathing human being, and thus has the right to take part in the forum as she [or he] sees fit."
3. The Map and Nation placement
Crimson Sunrise - Rules on multiple locations should be lenient, but expansion should be overruled by new primary nations that request the space
joncha - Disappeared nations and conquered areas should appear on the map, but in a lighter colour (or some other identifier).
- Nations that don't pick a spot should have one assigned randomly.
ceroomaster - "How about one additional spot allowed per 400M people? 300M or 500M may also be workable solutions. This would prevent people with 5M grabbing 7 spots, but allow more established nations more breathing space if they desire."
joncha - 1 spot per 500M people, to a maximum of 3. This includes expansion and secondary nations.
Twileman - "As for expansion, given that the map contains about 190 spots and there are currently 94 registered members, I think it might be possible to leave certain spots as unclaimed territories. That way, for role-playing purposes, a nation can "conquer" the territory for a temporary amount of time. This would have to be only temporary (a time limit if needed) so that we don't have person acting like Napolean and trying to takeover the world. "
Rasputin - "id like to do some work on working out a density max formulae to figure out how much land a population needs, then work out how much land each territory has."
Squeblish Nef? - Not every area of land can support the same amount of people.
Urban Ranger - The size of the locations should be made more uniform.
GeneralTacticus - Conquest should be roleplayed. The expansion limit should only cover peaceful expansion.
Rasputin - Deleted nations that are re-founded should be able to get their old spaces back.
joncha - A disappeared nation and newer nation that has taken its spot both have valid claims to the spot. The Apolyton Court should decide.
Flinx - You snooze, you lose. Next time, log on to Nationstates once a month.
ceroomaster - "If a nation was conquored in an RP- then the map should retain that nation's details and colours.
If an empty spot was RPed as taken over in a military fashion (i.e. not for the expansion of population) it should remain just that- as an RP- constant colouring and recolouring of the map would get confusing.
This can be represented as the greater community not recognising a nation's claim to an area as they've entered it in a warlike fashion (perhaps?)"
Rasputin - A conquering nation's flag should be placed on an occupied region until they leave.
foolish_icarus - We should expand the map to allow for larger nations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by joncha on 13-06-2004 at 12:18
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ceroomaster
|
|
Casnewydd, Cymru
Aug 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
*removed
Last edited by ceroomaster on 02-05-2004 at 19:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncha
|
|
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:35
|
|
Here are my thoughts, some of which have been posted in various threads:
Roleplaying should be as "realistic" as possible. This means ( but is not limited to):
1.) No uber-weapons, no superheroes, no magical powers, etc.
2.) No god-modding or roleplaying actions out of relation to your nations ability
3.) Some attempt at a shared chronology (eg, 1 week RL = 1 month game time), to be decided on by the group
4.) Collective decision making for all region issues (ie, voting on game mechanics, region size, etc.)
I would prefer to see one nation per member, period. I think some reasonable allowances can be made, such as the grandfathering in of existing secondary nations, etc. Basically, I find it amusing that on a site that frowns on DLs (to put it mildly), Double Nations are ok. In terms of membership, I strongly believe that it should be open to any who wish to participate, but that there should be some mechanism in place to deal with people who aren't mature enough to play well with others.
As for the map, I think "disappeared" nations should stay there until they are replaced (maybe without a colour, or in a lighter tone than the master pallet). I think limited expansion is ok (with incorporated areas in the same lighter tone as lost nations), but subject to group approval. Ditto secondary nations, if allowed. Any nation that doesn't pick a spot after a certain amount of time should be placed randomly. New nations should be able to claim secondary spots as their primary spots.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frankychan
|
 |
In the Kingdom of Hawaii (CPA Member)
Sep 2001
time: 19:35
|
|
I don't mind. With the insurgence of new dictator-led nations, this forum has really revitalized itself. I remember when I checked in here a few times, there would be a few months before a new post would be entered.
With this said, I agree that no uber-weapons and flippant usage of nukes. I'll personally ignore any post which says that they nuke my population and invade and blahblahblah without my consent. If I don't approve of you messing around in my nation, it doesn't happen.
Anyway, I agree, Joncha that we should base ourselves in a semi-reality. I mean, I don't think we should dictate to others how they want to play NationStates, but when interacting with other players there should be common ground.
As for the multiple nations-one user thing, I'm a little torn. What if one person has two nations, but decides that one nation is going to join the "Iron-Fist Union" and the other nation to join the Free World? That would be pretty interesting to have a little war between their own nations.
Basically, we shouldn't put too much rules into this, but at the same time keep our stuff practical.
(oh, btw-Thanks for the Hawaiian Flag Joncha   )
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
1.) No uber-weapons, no superheroes, no magical powers, etc. |
I think any advanced technology should be RP'ed out first, like what we did initially with fusion power and some other slightly futuristic stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
2.) No god-modding or roleplaying actions out of relation to your nations ability |
That's for sure.
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
3.) Some attempt at a shared chronology (eg, 1 week RL = 1 month game time), to be decided on by the group |
We tried that but no time scale would work. Simply population grows too fast at any reasonable intervals (a week, etc.), while nothing else can be done if we go with a year or a decade. Eventually we just ignored time.
quote:
Originally posted by joncha
4.) Collective decision making for all region issues (ie, voting on game mechanics, region size, etc.) |
For the UN or intra-region?
There are also the military and economy issues. An important thing is how one determines the size of a country's armed forces, and what equipment they have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Basus
|
 |
Nijmegen
Apr 2004
time: 05:35
|
|
Basus refrains from the use of Mass destruct weapons. But we do have orbital ,land and seabased defence systems against such weapons. We would be willing to host a summit on the reduction of massdestruct weapons
Last edited by Basus on 26-04-2004 at 17:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ceroomaster
|
|
Casnewydd, Cymru
Aug 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
re: multiple spots for nations-
How about one additional spot allowed per 400M people? 300M or 500M may also be workable solutions.
This would prevent people with 5M grabbing 7 spots, but allow more established nations more breathing space if they desire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncha
|
|
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:35
|
|
I like the idea of 1 spot per 500M, especially if we tie it to, say, maximum 3 spots and include secondary nations. So, until you reach 500M in your primary nation, you only get one spot on the map, regardless of how many nations you control. At 500M you can choose to expand, either through the creation of a puppet state or the physical expansion of your primary state. You can expand again, if you wish, at 1B, and again a final time once you reach 1.5B (or 2B or 10B or whatever).
I don't care so much about what the actual numbers turn out to be, as long as we hold to some kind of formula along these lines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
joncha
|
|
North of FOPOG
Jan 2003
time: 21:35
|
|
I think having areas of various sizes is not such a bad idea, as countries in RL have very different sizes and population densities. I think allowances should be made for people with feelings of, erm, inadequacy in terms of their, uh, size.
Just to clarify, the 3 territory limit I suggested is per player. That is, you may have up to 3 nations, or 3 spots, or combination of nations and spots. This way, Auldonina can expand to 2 other islands, Squeblish Nef? can bring/keep 3 of his 5 nations here, and Ceroo can expand and keep San Antonio Bay. I think having a population threshold for expansion is key to this idea, in that it gives long-established nations some benifits (ie, expansion) over new nations, without letting them dominate the whole map.
I see this as a workable compromise, especially considering folks like me think that we should try to stick to one nation, one territory period.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-04-2004 05:46
|