Rules & Objectives: REVISION

[Brian von Gotha]

Well, I looked over the Rules and Objectives page as well as the Join page and I think we should just tackle it as a total revamp. We can use the elements that we already have then reorganize and expand upon them. It's possible that we could put the two pages together as a "Player Guide" (including the ledger how-to information) to avoid confusion in finding info... that is, if you guys think that's a good idea. Mainly we need to add a "Canon" section with a defined process for changes and/or amendments.

We should probably start by constructing a logical outline.

attached is the rules and objectives outline with an added canon section

[jph2]

I like the schematic and it looks like it covers pretty much everything.

What is the difference between "amend" and "modify"? Is there a difference in process for changing canon and changing rules/objectives in general?

I recommend we keep each topic on its own page, but they can be brought together via a "Player's Guide" series, not unlike the rw wiki sidebar nav boxes on some topics, e.g. Communism. This will allow for easy editing, easy restructuring (if ever needed), and easy navigation.

[Brian von Gotha]

i suppose what i actually mean by amend is to refine which might only take some discussion if a rule is a bit vague.. and modification would be a bit more involved esp. if something is partially developed

[Imperium]

Very well presented.

Are we going to go line by line or divide it up?

[Brian von Gotha]

First, we should approach the "Canon" section and define the different topics under it and which aspects of those are flexible (or not) with a brief explanation of why. After that we can create normalized processes for clarification, amendment and removal of a rule.

Second, we can review the existing material of the "Conduct" section as well as add some sort of penalty system to enforce it.

Third, address the territories portion which needs quite a bit of explanation. This is where a Q&A will be very valuable.

Fourth, review the remaining smaller sections and see if they can be improved. Identity/Disclosure could probably be included within "Conduct"

[Brian von Gotha]

Also, anyone can move ahead with your thoughts on this and i'll jump in with my views. Defining these rules and processes should clarify the mechanics of the game and foster more shared leadership which will benefit everyone.

The "territories" section is likely to be the most convoluted so i will take charge on that one when we get to it. Your questions on that portion will dictate what explanation is needed there and help me get that information out of my head and into writing for everyone to understand.

[Imperium]

I'm unsure if the canon should go in the "Setting" or the "Rules & Objectives" wiki pages. My best guess is "Setting".

Nomenclature

Nomenclature means names or more specifically proper nouns.

Consistency is most important. To be fair we must develop a test to determine if a name is appropriate.

Test 1: If used as a proper noun in the real world, the name is prohibited.

First we have to define a proper noun vs a common noun. A proper noun refers to a specific item and usually is capitalized. A Senate is a proper noun and a legislature is a common noun.

Strict interpretation of this test would prohibit the use of real world titles such as King, Emperor, Prince, Bishop, President, Prime Minister, Pope, Duke, etc. To allow a King but not a Bishop would be inconsistent and unfair. It would also prohibit real world names for institutions such as General Assembly, Senate, Congress, Church, Cathedral, Abbey, etc. You could not prohibit a a Cathedral but allow an Abbey.

A church by any other name is still a church and a king is still a king and invented names still represent a known real world concept. This rule is not prohibiting the real world concept. Monarchs, for example, are allowed but the real world proper name that is attached to the concept of a monarch is not allowed. You could have a king but could not call him King John. Instead you would make up a title, like Ouki John.

If the connection of a real world name to a real world concept is prohibited, what about a real world name that is connected to an invented concept? For example, Dhonowlgos has monastic bodies called Abbeys. Though this word is conceptually related, it is not exactly the same thing.

Test 2: If considered offensive in the real world, the name is prohibited.

***Anything could be construed to be offensive. Once anything is found to be offensive we have no recourse but to remove the offensive content. The LGBT discussion on FB could be construed as offensive. This could be construed as offensive. I personally find any offense objection to be BS.***

If we allow real world names, like Abbey, to be used out of context, there is a chance we could offend someone. Especially if a real world name is depicted negatively. For example, a player creates a country whose leader, called the "Priest", sodomizes little boys. This could be construed as very offensive to a Catholic.

Helreich's leader is called the Anführer and Aedeland's leader is the Fører. Both are real world loan words meaning leader in German and Norwegian and are a variation of Führer, a real world proper title with a strong association with Nazi Germany. In both cases, the title is used in a way that is different from the real world use in National Socialism. But it technically fails both the proper noun test and the offense test.

---

I think we should make nomenclature guidelines that fall short of being hard rules. Real world proper nouns should be allowed but players should be encouraged to use restraint.

Hellreich's Gründer is a perfect example of a well executed name. It is a real title and means founder or entrepreneur in German. Because it has real meaning it has a depth that no invented word could.

Even at the risk of being unoriginal or unimaginative, real world proper nouns do convey useful emotions that invented words cannot. I personally enjoy seeing a well placed real word over an obviously invented one. Furst is another great one, even though it is a real world title. Sometimes you can say much with very little by using real world names.

Some players prefer elements of speculative allegory over total fantasy. While bluntly transplanting the Catholic Church or United States into Gotha would be unimaginative, exploring something akin to alternate history (what if the Roman Empire survived into the 1890s) is creative. In these cases, using appropriate nomenclature would be useful.

[Brian von Gotha]

I personally have no issues with using real world nouns (king, parliament, battleship etc) where logical though it's great when people create their own versions. I was actually thinking more of the naming (or modification of names) of places and various things (languages, religions, mountains, seas etc) that span nations and how we should address that.

Some things can obviously have multiple names between nations but a canon name would be displayed on an international map. Some things may be umbrella names such as the language groups, religions and ethnic groups which we've had issues with people wanting to modify right away. Determining which of these are set in stone (or not) and why would be helpful as well as how flexible we are when it comes to changing them and the process used to do so.

[Imperium]

Brian von Gotha Wrote:I personally have no issues with using real world nouns (king, parliament, battleship etc) where logical though it's great when people create their own versions.

I think proper nouns should be included in the nomenclature section just to prevent future misunderstandings. I recall that one of the problems Felipe had with Covenant is that Thomas used the word Bishop. If we don't address this in the rules, it would be implied that anything goes. Any attempt to criticize a name wouldn't be based on anything.

Maybe something like: "Players are encouraged to develop creative names but are not prohibited from using real world proper nouns (King, Bishop, Parliament, Church, etc) where logical and reasonable."

This would provide some ground rules. The United States of Anaria could be logically and reasonably explained if criticized. Though it would be tough to reasonably or logically defend something like the Caribbean Sea.

Quote:I was actually thinking more of the naming (or modification of names) of places and various things (languages, religions, mountains, seas etc) that span nations and how we should address that.

Some things can obviously have multiple names between nations but a canon name would be displayed on an international map. Some things may be umbrella names such as the language groups, religions and ethnic groups which we've had issues with people wanting to modify right away. Determining which of these are set in stone (or not) and why would be helpful as well as how flexible we are when it comes to changing them and the process used to do so.

I like seeing more than one name for things. Some times the first name we come up with is hard to pronounce or is hard to remember but a later variation seems to catch on right away. We can't constantly change maps so some standard name needs to be chosen. This could reflect the perspective of the map maker. Since Brian has made nearly every map, perhaps the best map makers in Gotha are in Anat Tahan and the names they use become "canonical". If the cannon name becomes completely obsolete, Brian can get rid of it or we could make a note in the wiki saying "xxxx, more commonly known as XXXX..."

[Thor99]

Most current global names were created early on in the game and many then changed in collective collaboration to correspond to a logical etymology with relation to local languages, that was another "unwritten" agreement which we could just jot down too.

A way to write down all established conventions and agreements that occur day to day in gotha chat would be to post them as they happen in a wiki page with a date, that way when they are refereed to a player can be directed to that page. An admin would have to be present at the convo in order to be accepted and add the agreement into the cannon.

FYI the issue wasnt the word bishop but the overall christian connotations the overall article had, which seem to have been resolved at least to some extent.