Jump to content
Zachary Hudson

Suggestion: Remove the Consent rule

Remove Consent  

33 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

 As the name implies, this discussion has been made to suggest the end of the Consent rule, or at the very least, modify it so that we can still impact other nations without having to worry about consent. Here are my current suggestions, feel free to discuss them again:

1.) Remove the Consent Rule in it's entirety - Basically, we would completely remove the consent rule, thus no longer requiring consent to go to war and essentially creating a situation similar to Organic RP. No longer would anyone be able to hide behind the consent rule, and at the very least we would be able to have the occasional war.
2.) Modify the Consent rule - Allow nations to interdict trade without the need for consent. Personally, I don't like this idea that much.

Edited by Johan III
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are unable to declare war on someone, our nation or nations should be able to inflict some kind of damage to a nation. We will not be able to declare war ourselves whom hides behind the rule nor they on us if we hide. But we should have dif kinds of conflicts,  cyber warfare,  economical etc. We can prevent x nation's ships leaving ports and trade so their actions are limited and if that x nation doesn't like it then it can declare war. 

The RP has died off beforehand because of this rule and it will happen again. A Map reset doesn't change it much,  but a change in rules will make a larger dif. Now, there has to be a protagonist and antagonust and their supporting roles to make up a plot. Now I take in rping in a few ways,  one of them is the basic premise of it, writing which was already mentioned with the protagonist and antagonist sentence. The next is Total War. Each nation has it's history, economy, cultures, politics. And in a current standpoint there are some underdogs and upperdogs. Some nations are in decline some are the opposite. And each nation has x goals and it uses politics, warfare and other ways to achieve them. 

 

To Add

On the talk of Cultures and yada yada. Some people are made for Warfare,  some are for farminf,  some for trade and some for talking or writing. Some are determined and stubborn while some are more lazy you get the memo? 

Now what makes the removal or change of the Consent rule it would semi-force the rp'ers to add on to their rping. Something like what @Aguacenta did in ORP with covering every smallest essence of his nation,  but it can be more simplified. The hows, whats and whos should be written out to extend the rping. 

Edited by Rimski
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, everything except a direct war with a nation is allowed in NatRP without consent. Having the consent rule in place actually lets all parties involved in a war work together to resolve it, instead of just going back and forth until one gets frustrated and leaves. I'd say let things stay as they are. There's already the Organic subforum which was created for the specific purpose of disallowing the consent rule.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were consquences people would have less reason to be retarded, but since people are free to do whatever and hide behind the consent rule NatRP is going to stay dead, just without me having the map advantages for quite a few more months.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be more inclined to rejoin if the consent rule was abolished. All that rule does is stagnated the game after a certain point, because certain players want to be controversial without accepting the consequences of doing so.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the RP community especially NatRP has its 'top players' that kinda just dictate what rules should be in order to further their own RP progression. This was why I was so for Organic RP a while back when it was being created. 

its RP - iit isn't real, it doesn't actually change your in-game nation. Too many rules just restrict creativity and deter people from contributing.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By abolishing the consent rule, we'll once again be able to experience interesting events like in previous iterations. Right now, all we have is personal roleplaying and verbal exchanges between geopolitical opponents. NatRP should be about interaction, beyond mere wars of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions of the RP aside, NatRP is for those who want the consent rule in place, and Organic is for those who don't want it. People need to stop coming to OOC and whining for the consent rule to be removed every time something happens they don't like. Also, just because the consent rule exists, that doesn't mean that wars are disallowed. I'm willing to assume that the majority of people never actually bother to ask if someone wants to have a war. I could continue with why I believe consensual wars would be more organized and less intimidating, especially for new players, but I'll just wrap it up. If one reads the rules of the subforum and roleplay before signing up, like they should, they'd see that NatRP is consent-based as far as wars go, and Organic is not. The solution is simply to join the one that you wish to participate in, and not to join whichever and attempt to drastically change the rules cause you don't like something. Each subforum has its purpose. Organic's purpose is less restricted roleplay without the consent rule. In comparison, it could be said that NatRP's purpose is for acting as a gateway into RP for new players, and a more relaxed environment for experienced players who don't have the time to devote to constant wars and interaction. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I don't want to see this issue brought up again.

Edited by Eva-Beatrice
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erin has said her/himself on the server that the Consent rule can be removed if the Majority agrees. ROs can be changed by players wishes. If there is a factor,  rule or something simmalar to this is discussed about,  allowed by the mod ti be talked and voted upon then the players can change it up the democratic way. You say "we canmit change because we don't like it",  the issue is that the rp is advancing to the majority of the RP'ers conditions on better rping,  we are doing this so that the rp has a spark so people can write and talk about it ic and ooc. If you join the rp just to write one unoriginal post per month with no logic behind it mor consequences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Firstly let's not kid ourselves. If anything about this RP was realistic economics or otherwise half of us would be failed states. Yes there are people on NATRP where consent is required for a reason, who will use it. Get over it, focus on ORP if you do not like NATRP simple as that. If the rules say drugs at X, don't to Y and say Yes Drugs. You are allowed to fight whatever on ORP, but don't bring in this ohhh its realism because it is not. 95% of you don't RP the economics, no one knows who you trade with, no one knows what your produce, no one even knows if you have an actual country. We let NATRP be NATRP to avoid that cancer we call consent. It protects players in their sandbox, if you want an interactive experience come to ORP that is just my two cents on the matter, but you are all entitled to your own. And to prove me wrong if thy wishes

To quote me on the Discord Channel. 

While I am all up for removing consent, let's remember why Organic RP was reformed? It was reformed because people wanted Consent Removed on NATRP which I strongly objected to because National Roleplay has been for the longest of time a Sandbox for Role-player. Consider it RP lite. There is no required interaction, people build their own story arc and invite people as they see fit. Is it the best for a group RP? No. However, it works because NATRP has never really been about war-waging, geopolitical, realism. It has really been about having fun. That is why in my opinon NATRP should not remove consent. 

Secondly, 95% of you all have these gigantic armies, D***-waving RP with no real plot. ORP which is meant for interaction has 0 to none interaction. Quite frankly, this isn't about Realism imo, it is about people annoyed over Salzar trying to destroy shit without them being able to lift a finger. 

Nearly none of you understand geopolitics, most of you don't understand warfare, and most definitely none of you understand economics in relation to your countries otherwise, you'd understand you can't have a 5 trillion GDP out of no where, an army the size of the UNSC, or that you don't set up artillery-fire-victory. And hey, I am not an expert and won't claim to be. I am not. To put it quite frankly, none of us have a real realism RP experience at least from my primitive knowledge - feel free to correct me. So let's stop kidding ourselves we want realism and interaction when all of you are inactive on ORP, do not interact, do not engage in warfare unless you can win, and just wave your d***s for the purpose you can. As a friend of mine says, you're all bark and no bite.

It is not about separating the community, it is about not alienating a portion of them that do not want these kind of engagement. Not everyone has 4 hours a day to RP and read the latest, keep up, etc...We need to be accommodating to others needs, not only ours. 

To wrap this all up, I say we should not remove consent because quite simply NATRP was never really about this. Let's stick to ORP being our hub of interaction so we can provide the best of two worlds without bring back no-consent. Does Consent ruin some of the RP? Definitely. But, people want their sandbox, let them enjoy it. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eva-Beatrice said:

Opinions of the RP aside, NatRP is for those who want the consent rule in place, and Organic is for those who don't want it. People need to stop coming to OOC and whining for the consent rule to be removed every time something happens they don't like. 

Remember when you pushed to reset the map because of a few players having a strategic advantage? Make a better argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Consent is kept then the Sandbox RP is going to be just usually unoriginal post that is talking about an ready existing book, gane or movie,  just with edits by our hands like Neuptania

If it is a Sandbox RP then 'everything is allowed in a RP'

 

Yes we are angry about Salazar but I have mebtioned many times,  the rule has killed the rp before and it is doing it again. Not even 50 Map Resets can make the rp more active or enjoyable. 

I would not mind taking a bullet for the interest of rp. I was willing to organize a civil war in both of my nations so "something" happens. The issue is that people stick to themselves and rp by themselves and what can we add on about it?  Someone writes a talk between government members with vampire powers or something,  what exactly are we supposed to do on that? 

RPing is like story writing alongside more writers. To write a story you need to know about many factors. Biology,  Mechanics,  Warfare, Psychology and more to make a post more descriptive and so people know what exactly is happening,  you can learn them here slowly/quickly or quit. Adaptation and going with the flow is neededn

 

Tbqf all of us are sick of civil wars and they always end in the original nation rping something against the regime he doesn't want so the old one is there

Edited by Rimski
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg 6 vs 3

  • Eva-Beatrice

  • Prince Hunter of Bavaria

  • Ivan Salazar

 

Your time is up!

Edited by Mad Max
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not ahear.

8 minutes ago, Olive said:

Seems the winner is clear. Gonna give this 24 hours, if the votes for yes is still higher, than Consent will be removed.

 

Edited by Ivan Salazar
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the No voters are catching up, so I feel like I should say this: even if the consent rule is maintained, it must be modified to include certain actions as consent. Currently, if Nation A chose to genocide an ethnic minority native to Nation B, Nation B would be powerless to prevent the massacre. This clearly makes no sense, and bears no relation to reality. Obviously, genocide is tantamount to a declaration of war. Other actions which could be included as a form of consent are embargoing, sanctions, diplomatic slights, nuclear weapons testing, and making military threats. This will make the consent rule more reasonable than it is in its current state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because I don't care

Vote is invalid - you need to know whos actually playing/going to play and compile their names for a proper ratio vote. Anyone could have voted in this, including me, who doesn't play NatRP and won't be. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Why would you? Frankly, consent rule has to exist, as long as further rules do not exist on how to resolve whatever conflict would come about. What happens after consent is removed? Look at ORP. It's a clusterfrick. Thanks to an absence of enforcement of "staying within your means", it now has like 3 tech levels that can barely interact with each other. I'm pretty sure if I wanted to have peace in that RP, I could just fall back to preindustrial and be untouchable. And what do we have in NatRP? Even less regulation.

I'm not a massive fan of rules and the rules lawyering that comes with it, but the amount of conflict potential there is requires that either there is a consent rule and people have to work it out in a fashion all parties to the conflict can agree on cooperatively, or there are rules to regulate the competitive conflict resolution. Everything else is just irresponsible and mismanagement of the RP. And I find it weird that noone seems to think that far ahead. I mean, what when consent is removed? Then every tinhat Napoleon and Nelson will just come, post whatever, whine about why the other side thinks its shit, that the other side is not doing anything properly, until one side has enough of bickering and leaves.

There is a reason I left ORP and it mainly has to do with 

  • You cannot interact with the majority of nations in the world on a normal basis. Most are on some nonsensical tech level that goes way beyond "within your means" and most are not even willing to RP out meetings or such in any proper way. It gets boring to be involved in that.
  • The amount of grandstanding is hardly bearable, as is the almost constant shitfest that is the Discord server. In the RP, people are pretty much not going about proper interaction, it's all about frustrating each other to the maximum degree, also because seemingly noone ever engages into open war, because tech level disparity and unwillingness to move any steps into a direction to resolve that.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having some invisible ooc protective barriers make the rping less interesting and we wouldn't be allowed to do as much. If we keep Consent and all of the above then why even have Militaries when no one can touch us. If we remove Consent then it wouldn't allow everyone to do as they please with destroying Cultures,  Massacaring peoples and more things that would provide a Valid CB aka an actual reason to wage war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rimski said:

Having some invisible ooc protective barriers make the rping less interesting and we wouldn't be allowed to do as much. If we keep Consent and all of the above then why even have Militaries when no one can touch us. If we remove Consent then it wouldn't allow everyone to do as they please with destroying Cultures,  Massacaring peoples and more things that would provide a Valid CB aka an actual reason to wage war. 

Sure and then nation A attacks nation B and what happens? You think either will admit defeat? Are there any rules to determine the outcome? How is this going to be regulated? Repealing consent with no proper system to fairly determine conflict outcomes afterwards is just short-sighted and simplistic and all it leads to is whining and !@#$ing from people who think they are entitled to victory and cannot cooperate.

The only reason you don't have this in ORP is because of loltechlevels that prevent it from happening. Come up with a decent approach on how wars should be decided and it might actually be convincing to move away from consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every nation has a different way of waging wars but from what I have picked up no one wrote their losses,  not even an estimate nor the army numbers. Most of the community doesn't like to take in losses and so war in their thoughts is an insta win. I have no idea at this given momment on the consent rule udpate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mad Max said:

because I don't care

Vote is invalid - you need to know whos actually playing/going to play and compile their names for a proper ratio vote. Anyone could have voted in this, including me, who doesn't play NatRP and won't be.

Only invalid cause your preferred choice is losing, hm?

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.