(OOC, TWI) Bold Territories - Progression

[Vancouvia]

What I'd like to have done in the next two weeks is formatting data for all bold territories into a table for easy and comparative access. I'm thinking about what's important, but so far I definitely would like to have links to all RPs (or major posts if they're in different threads), a small, well-written edited paragraph encapsulating the territory's status and future like Ost has in the RP list dispatch, and a list of nations with their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Like for San Javier, a list of the most active players on the island.

Another thing I'm thinking about doing is removing all obvious ownership of them i.e. the nation's initials on the map. I think the point of these should really be battlefields/environments, not just extensions of some nation's territory.

Finally, I really do think we just need to cut some of these, especially ones that A. do not have a well-done dispatch or B. used to be "owned" by a CTE'd nation.

[Ainslie]

What I'd like to have done in the next two weeks is formatting data for all bold territories into a table for easy and comparative access. I'm thinking about what's important, but so far I definitely would like to have links to all RPs (or major posts if they're in different threads), a small, well-written edited paragraph encapsulating the territory's status and future like Ost has in the RP list dispatch, and a list of nations with their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Like for San Javier, a list of the most active players on the island.

Would you like that to come under the Office of RP Dispatches?

[Vancouvia]

What I'd like to have done in the next two weeks is formatting data for all bold territories into a table for easy and comparative access. I'm thinking about what's important, but so far I definitely would like to have links to all RPs (or major posts if they're in different threads), a small, well-written edited paragraph encapsulating the territory's status and future like Ost has in the RP list dispatch, and a list of nations with their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Like for San Javier, a list of the most active players on the island.

Would you like that to come under the Office of RP Dispatches?

I'm going to keep it on the map dispatch under the spoiler where it is now but you can help me collect info and display it elsewhere too

[Noronica]

Vancouvia - I'll write up something for Arván and Charbagnia. By the way, I think keeping the initials makes sense as RP's can change things. Initials change. Territories can be changed over and the new person can take their place, but they are still people's territories for that amount of time. Places like Lövsk and Illa Isle are all places that are central to regional RP so it makes sense that they are clearly marked.

Why don't you keep territories like Charbagnia and San Javier without initials as they are the ones that are designed to be fought over constantly. The aforementioned territories change in longer periods and so they are nation's territories until changed over.

Just a thought, but I think due to the nature of RP's some territories are more ambiguous than others.

[Ainslie]

Vancouvia - I'll write up something for Arván and Charbagnia. By the way, I think keeping the initials makes sense as RP's can change things. Initials change.

We need to show people that they can join in on NPCs even if someone is doing the lead RP. The wiping away of initials would support that. I propose that we have people that manage individual NPCs so we have a cohesive, organised set of canon coming from them.

Why don't you keep territories like Charbagnia and San Javier without initials as they are the ones that are designed to be fought over constantly. The aforementioned territories change in longer periods and so they are nation's territories until changed over..

Not all NPCs which aren't owned by someone are in conflict...
Exhibit A: Keverai

This would just mess things up - Initials have and will continue to send the message we don't want to send to RPers - then we get more NPCs when multiple ideas could've been merged into one NPC and then we're being inefficient with map allocations.

[Vancouvia]

Vancouvia - I'll write up something for Arván and Charbagnia. By the way, I think keeping the initials makes sense as RP's can change things. Initials change. Territories can be changed over and the new person can take their place, but they are still people's territories for that amount of time. Places like Lövsk and Illa Isle are all places that are central to regional RP so it makes sense that they are clearly marked.

Why don't you keep territories like Charbagnia and San Javier without initials as they are the ones that are designed to be fought over constantly. The aforementioned territories change in longer periods and so they are nation's territories until changed over.

Just a thought, but I think due to the nature of RP's some territories are more ambiguous than others.

I don't like Lovsk and Illa seeming to look unable to be touched. I think there needs to be some degree of being able to challenge any nation for any bold territory.

[Ainslie]

I think there needs to be some degree of being able to challenge any nation for any bold territory.

What exactly do you mean?

I'm going to keep it on the map dispatch under the spoiler where it is now but you can help me collect info and display it elsewhere too

Alright.

[Vancouvia]

I think there needs to be some degree of being able to challenge any nation for any bold territory.

What exactly do you mean?

I'm going to keep it on the map dispatch under the spoiler where it is now but you can help me collect info and display it elsewhere too

Alright.

I think there exists a sort of barrier for nations to participate in old bold territories. I'm really talking about a relaxation of the OOC barrier of consent for these. If someone wants to invade Illa, then we should have to literally battle for it. If someone wants to invade Vancouvia, I have the OOC ability to just say no. See the difference?

[Noronica]

Vancouvia - I'll write up something for Arván and Charbagnia. By the way, I think keeping the initials makes sense as RP's can change things. Initials change.

We need to show people that they can join in on NPCs even if someone is doing the lead RP. The wiping away of initials would support that. I propose that we have people that manage individual NPCs so we have a cohesive, organised set of canon coming from them.

The RP's would support that and from the map rules it states that territories fluctuate. People know that they can still be involved.

Also your second point would put a lot of pressure on this with territories at the moment. For example, if it was based off of IC occupation "ownership" I would have to write as you say. Yet RP plans are miticulous and cannot be held to a deadline. Arván has plans for revival as with other territories, yet people can't just push things out every week.

What exactly do you mean?


Alright.

I think there exists a sort of barrier for nations to participate in old bold territories. I'm really talking about a relaxation of the OOC barrier of consent for these. If someone wants to invade Illa, then we should have to literally battle for it. If someone wants to invade Vancouvia, I have the OOC ability to just say no. See the difference?

I'd support that. That makes a lot more sense, but I think that people should be encouraged to come up with a good reason for doing so. Someone shouldn't just crop up and say "mine", instead they should be encouraged to provide a reason for such a battle.

[Vancouvia]

They can't pop up and say mine on Illa because I've developed IC alliances that would hopefully put a stop to even a planned attack. Bold territories help mitigate the lack of RP opportunities due to OOC consent law.

Obviously if someone is just trolling or godmodding then we ignore it, but I think there really needs to be a high degree of laxness and accessibility.

[Noronica]

That's fine, let the rules be that territories are entirely open for conquest, however defending nations can utilise their alliances and any defence they can to hold them off. No OOC rules, as long as you can hold it it yours, until someone can take you down.

[Vancouvia]

That's fine, let the rules be that territories are entirely open for conquest, however defending nations can utilise their alliances and any defence they can to hold them off. No OOC rules, as long as you can hold it it yours, until someone can take you down.

Unless, they are widely used for some sort of other collaborative RP. Like no invading a territory solely made to conduct a scientific RP, etc. until it's done

[Ainslie]

The thing that bothers me about all of this is the military bias that would be placed on NPCs, which isn't necessarily what NPCs should be doing in my opinion. There shouldn't be an OOC barrier to consent I agree, but there needs to be someone sitting there, making sure the NPC is providing the most it can to TWI canon. That person should be able to block a war or armed conflict if they see it incohesive to the nature of canon or think they won't do a good job of it. Perhaps we need to categorise NPCs into military and non-military (or a similar classification).

[Ostehaar]

Van - I agree with your general view, but removing the initials could create confusion regarding RP plans. For example - and I know I've been saying that for quite a while but I'm really going to start it soon - I have plans for Lovsk which would make the place good grounds for RP (basically destabilizing it and developing a guerrilla conflict there). I started going towards that direction with Atnaia's Contagion RP, but there's more work to be done. I just fear that "opening up" the place by removing the connection would ruin that. Also, specifically about Lovsk - It's ICly under Oster occupation, and I imagine that's how it is viewed by other governments in the region. This view is important for the story.

I guess Arvan is in a similar state for Noro.

[Ainslie]

Van - I agree with your general view, but removing the initials could create confusion regarding RP plans

This is where having a nation managing the NPC could come in handy

[Noronica]

That's fine, let the rules be that territories are entirely open for conquest, however defending nations can utilise their alliances and any defence they can to hold them off. No OOC rules, as long as you can hold it it yours, until someone can take you down.

Unless, they are widely used for some sort of other collaborative RP. Like no invading a territory solely made to conduct a scientific RP, etc. until it's done

That would be a lot more agreeable. Why don't people who want to create an NPC write an application to you to ask your permission for OOC blocks? So if someone does do a scientific RP no one can touch them until they're done as you said.

The thing that bothers me about all of this is the military bias that would be placed on NPCs, which isn't necessarily what NPCs should be doing in my opinion. There shouldn't be an OOC barrier to consent I agree, but there needs to be someone sitting there, making sure the NPC is providing the most it can to TWI canon. That person should be able to block a war or armed conflict if they see it incohesive to the nature of canon or think they won't do a good job of it. Perhaps we need to categorise NPCs into military and non-military (or a similar classification).

Who would be those Prefects/Overseers? How do we choose people to oversee NPC RP unless it's the person who created the RP in the first place?

Van - I agree with your general view, but removing the initials could create confusion regarding RP plans. For example - and I know I've been saying that for quite a while but I'm really going to start it soon - I have plans for Lovsk which would make the place good grounds for RP (basically destabilizing it and developing a guerrilla conflict there). I started going towards that direction with Atnaia's Contagion RP, but there's more work to be done. I just fear that "opening up" the place by removing the connection would ruin that. Also, specifically about Lovsk - It's ICly under Oster occupation, and I imagine that's how it is viewed by other governments in the region. This view is important for the story.

I guess Arvan is in a similar state for Noro.

I think if an RP is running on an NPC full-stop, there shouldn't be any opportunity for someone to ruin the RP by invasion until the RP runs its course or requires an invasion.

[Ainslie]

The thing that bothers me about all of this is the military bias that would be placed on NPCs, which isn't necessarily what NPCs should be doing in my opinion. There shouldn't be an OOC barrier to consent I agree, but there needs to be someone sitting there, making sure the NPC is providing the most it can to TWI canon. That person should be able to block a war or armed conflict if they see it incohesive to the nature of canon or think they won't do a good job of it. Perhaps we need to categorise NPCs into military and non-military (or a similar classification).

Who would be those Prefects/Overseers? How do we choose people to oversee NPC RP unless it's the person who created the RP in the first place?

Most likely the person who starts the NPC. It would be like an RP manager type role but rather for an NPC.

[Ostehaar]

I think if an RP is running on an NPC full-stop, there shouldn't be any opportunity for someone to ruin the RP by invasion until the RP runs its course or requires an invasion.

You're right, but putting the initials there would allow for some clarity - if you want to know what's up with a certain NPC, ask this player. It might not be fully under his control, but he manages the canon for it so he'd know best.

So what Ainslie said, basically. I think.

[Ainslie]

I think if an RP is running on an NPC full-stop, there shouldn't be any opportunity for someone to ruin the RP by invasion until the RP runs its course or requires an invasion.

You're right, but putting the initials there would allow for some clarity - if you want to know what's up with a certain NPC, ask this player. It might not be fully under his control, but he manages the canon for it so he'd know best.

So what Ainslie said, basically. I think.

Yeah, but we'd need to make completely obvious to people that they do not control it - but rather manage its canon.

[Noronica]

Who would be those Prefects/Overseers? How do we choose people to oversee NPC RP unless it's the person who created the RP in the first place?

Most likely the person who starts the NPC. It would be like an RP manager type role but rather for an NPC.

But wouldn't that be putting too much pressure on them to create RP's all the time? For example, as Ostehaar said, he has plans for Lövsk, yet I can't imagine that he can write them in a week. He already said that it's been a long time in the making.

I think if an RP is running on an NPC full-stop, there shouldn't be any opportunity for someone to ruin the RP by invasion until the RP runs its course or requires an invasion.

You're right, but putting the initials there would allow for some clarity - if you want to know what's up with a certain NPC, ask this player. It might not be fully under his control, but he manages the canon for it so he'd know best.

So what Ainslie said, basically. I think.

I agree, but what is being suggested is that new stories for the TWI canon are being produced which can't be done to deadlines.

[Ainslie]

But wouldn't that be putting too much pressure on them to create RP's all the time? For example, as Ostehaar said, he has plans for Lövsk, yet I can't imagine that he can write them in a week. He already said that it's been a long time in the making.

They don't have to make RPs all the time, but rather also oversee others making RPs in that NPC. They can create as well, but they need to be there so that people understand what's going on with the NPC, that there's a decent level of information about said NPC and that people can openly participate.

[Ostehaar]

They don't have to make RPs all the time, but rather also oversee others making RPs in that NPC. They can create as well, but they need to be there so that people understand what's going on with the NPC, that there's a decent level of information about said NPC and that people can openly participate.

To strengthen that last point - Atnaia's Contagion RP took place, among other places, in Lovsk.

[Noronica]

They don't have to make RPs all the time, but rather also oversee others making RPs in that NPC. They can create as well, but they need to be there so that people understand what's going on with the NPC, that there's a decent level of information about said NPC and that people can openly participate.

Fine, I just don't want there to be too much of a regulatory structure to those who create RP's in NPC's. As long as people don't feel as if they need to make RP's all the time then that's alright.

[Ainslie]

They don't have to make RPs all the time, but rather also oversee others making RPs in that NPC. They can create as well, but they need to be there so that people understand what's going on with the NPC, that there's a decent level of information about said NPC and that people can openly participate.

Fine, I just don't want there to be too much of a regulatory structure to those who create RP's in NPC's. As long as people don't feel as if they need to make RP's all the time then that's alright.

It would probably somewhat relax what we currently have

[Verdon]

\
Yeah, but we'd need to make completely obvious to people that they do not control it - but rather manage its canon.

I've been thinking about this quite a bit the past few weeks. How much of a right to an npc does its creator have?
Right now, a whole lot - and I think that's a problem. NPCs are created to be a sandbox for RP - microcosms within the region. I could go up to someone who 'owns' an npc and say 'I want to do this RP in your npc' and the controller can say no, but that means the NPC is failing at providing RP - given that no RP is currently taking place there.

I think the problem IS that a specific person is managing canon. If you create an npc, you're entitled to its history and initial state - that's all.