The United Sovereign Nations


You are not connected. Please login or register

Roleplay Ban Rule - Effective August 23, 2013

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1 Roleplay Ban Rule - Effective August 23, 2013 on Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:32 pm

Roleplay Ban Rule - Effective August 23, 2013
Terms of the rule:
Any unrealistic roleplay, history, statistics, information, or events, as determined by a majority of the cabinet members, is punishable by a roleplay ban and/or a roleplay rollback to an earlier time, before the offending incident.
First offense: 1 week Roleplay Ban
Second offense:  2 week Roleplay Ban
Third offense:  Removal from Union


This rule has been proposed and is to be enacted in accordance with the Union Charter, Chapter Five, Section One, Articles 1 and 2, as follows:
1.  All registered users are required to follow all rules set out on the forums or alternatively by an Administrator. 
2.  New rules may be added to the list of rules on the forums by majority vote in the Executive Cabinet, all new rules must be announced publicly before enacted.

Razz

View user profile http://oktimes.canadian-forum.com

alerules22

avatar
Member (Oxacmela & Balisca)
Member (Oxacmela & Balisca)
I entirely support this rule.

I wish it was harsher...

View user profile http://www.usnw.net

Jack

avatar
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
We can't be too harsh. Razz But I think this rule is a good idea.


_________________
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  —John F. Kennedy
View user profile

Juls

avatar
Member (Sinope)
Member (Sinope)
I support this.
Inb4 victimize people.

View user profile
Wait, who are the cabinet members again?

View user profile

Willem

avatar
Member (Bruellen)
Member (Bruellen)
I support this.

View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
Jack's the Exec Sec, Jon's the First Minister and Carl's the Chancellor, they are the Cabinet.

I'd like to add that we need to put into place a set guideline on how to successfully roleplay with other users. I've been seeing in terms of conflict roleplay, people decide the reactions of other user's assets without their prior approval. I'll give an example between me and Jack.

"I send 10,000 troops into Acadia. They blow the hell out of your cities."

That second sentence was the violation. The correct way I should have roleplayed was to just say that I sent 10,000 troops into Acadia. Then it would be up to Jack to determine the reaction to that action, and I would trust him to make the fair call. Rinse and Repeat. It would not be fair of me to decide what happened to Jack's assets , as it would not be fair of him to decide what happens to mine.

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com
Me, Agunter, and Chris have been discussing our little conflict affair on Skype, though, so when he says that "I blow up your ship with a torpedo", that part of the battle was already pre-discussed and approved of by both of us (sometimes, we want to put a little more information than just a single line about what's going on into our posts). Wink

I agree with what Mike is saying, though. Plus, sending 10,000 troops into pretty much anywhere and then instantly having them start blowing up cities doesn't work unless those cities are quite literally right on the border. And even then, there should be approval from both sides. Razz

View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
sometimes, we want to put a little more information than just a single line about what's going on into our posts
I'm not saying Roleplay should be limited to just one little sentence. You can put in as much detail as you want, but just not to the point where you're roleplaying for the other team too. My example was very rough and crude as you could probably tell. But if you pre-approve everything in the chat beforehand then more power to yah, my rule would be considering those who don't.

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
I dislike it, it gives too much power to the admin

View user profile

Jack

avatar
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
I agree with you, Mike. Razz Roleplay guidelines is a good idea and should probably be written by and agreed upon by all members.  

I will make sure this rule is not abused, and only used for its written purpose, Agunter. Smile No need to worry.


_________________
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  —John F. Kennedy
View user profile

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
I trust you will jack but it still gives allot of power to too few people. Also I think all of us should be able to vote on this and have a say on its full power

View user profile

Scotch Moen

avatar
Member (Folland)
Member (Folland)
How exactly does it give a lot of people to a few people? I must be missing something..

View user profile http://www.dehyan.deviantart.com

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Alot of power

View user profile

Chris

avatar
Member (Mitron)
Member (Mitron)
I think the rule's fine, although I would prefer to see a more concrete definition of "unrealistic roleplay", seeing as so far the only set in stone rule is the whole don't touch other people's toys. I fully support that by the way! Razz
Also, we need more info, because then it's pretty much whatever 1 admin thinks is being unrealistic. Until we have a set in stone definition of "unrealistic", not just what you think, we should have more chances or something Razz

View user profile

Trevy

avatar
Member (New Terrance)
Member (New Terrance)
I'm totally fine with the rule, however it only seem democratic if we amend the charter to say somewhere in chapter 2, "(Full and Ambassador members) May override any decision made by the Executive Cabinet by a two-thirds vote of all members of the International Assembly." -Just as a way to keep a check and balance of power. That is all.

View user profile

Chris

avatar
Member (Mitron)
Member (Mitron)
trevy wrote:I'm totally fine with the rule, however it only seem democratic if we amend the charter to say somewhere in chapter 2, "(Full and Ambassador members) May override any decision made by the Executive Cabinet by a two-thirds vote of all members of the International Assembly." -Just as a way to keep a check and balance of power. That is all.

That's what I was getting at but I didn't know how to say it without sounding like defensive or anything Razz

View user profile

Jack

avatar
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
Unrealistic roleplay conduct isn't decided by one person; it is decided by a majority of the cabinet.  So there is no concrete definition, as circumstances can change.  However, it is easy to tell what is realistic and unrealstic. Razz Rules are not added by voting, only laws and amendments to the charter.  If anything is found to be unrealistic, the offender(s) will definitely be warned first.  If it continues, the first offense punishment is only a week of roleplay ban.  We want to keep the Union fun and functional.  If we see a possibility of things getting out of hand, we have to step in.  

Please feel free to ask questions and make suggestions. Wink


_________________
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  —John F. Kennedy
View user profile

Chris

avatar
Member (Mitron)
Member (Mitron)
Ok, I understand a lot better now. I just didn't want somebody to put something they feel totally realistic and then wake up the next morning to a one week rp ban, you know?

View user profile

Jack

avatar
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
Member (Acadia & Valessia)
I understand the concern. Razz I don't like big government.  If something is legitimate, it is unlikely that the Cabinet is going to decide that it just can't happen.  This is to be taken seriously and meant to help protect roleplay.


_________________
"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  —John F. Kennedy
View user profile

Chris

avatar
Member (Mitron)
Member (Mitron)
We can't forget about protecting people too Razz But I think overall it's fair. My full support.

View user profile

kj34

avatar
Member (Paradise)
Member (Paradise)
I think we should incorporate a bit of random chance in with the roleplay. Maybe roll a die or a random number generator or something to determine how events will play out. Like an RPG, but on a larger scale.

View user profile

Chris

avatar
Member (Mitron)
Member (Mitron)
kj34 wrote:I think we should incorporate a bit of random chance in with the roleplay. Maybe roll a die or a random number generator or something to determine how events will play out. Like an RPG, but on a larger scale.
I actually did a thing back in 7th/8th grade with my friend and we had a whole system where we'd have a Star Wars war and it was really cool. I had it all for dice/rngs. Everything from troop size to terrain to special advantages was decided. I could show you guys if I could find the file.

View user profile

Juls

avatar
Member (Sinope)
Member (Sinope)
I don't agree. If we RPed with a dice irl, the Vatican could win against the US, like no. Roleplays are based on the nations, on stats, on facts.

View user profile

Agunter999


Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
Member (Bergenstein & Kallvarde)
I have to agree with juls actually here

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum