A suggestion about NPC countries.

[Korpen]

I had a little suggestion for how to handle NPC countries, more specifically their foreign politics. To avoid the kind  of crap that 1916 have seen I suggest that all and every kind of dealing a NPC country have with a PC country should be posted openly for the review and debate from any and all player. Final decisions would still be the mods (but a motivation should be posted).
There are IMO no drawback to such a system and several major benefits.
1: The country in question will act more reasonable as there will be more viewpoints for it to take into account.
2: Less risk that the country will snow in on a single line of thinking and overlook other related and/or important issues.
3: More transparency in what is happening and the reason for the way a NPC act, reducing the risk that the moderators are perceived as corrupt.
4: Might get more players involved at an earlier part in the diplomacy surrounding a country, rather then just finding out that the first PC country to "contact" the NPC got it all.
5: Reduce the risk the mods are using NPCs to "stir things up" in a destructive fashion.
6: Remove any secrecy surrounding NPC countries, if people want secrecy they should deal with other players.

[Guinness]

Though I fear hearing the answer to this question, I'll ask anyway:

Are there incidents other than Siam discussing the Kra canal with France you are referring to here?

[Kaiser Kirk]

Perhaps NPC countries should have their own message thread. If you do something with that NPC, you post it there, noting if covert or overt. Etc. This also forms an easy track record for the Mods and others to follow.

Bavaria is tinkering in the Ukraine, Mughal, Rumania, Greece and the Principality of Accra. The only way to know that is to read Bavaria's sims and news and pay attention.

[miketr]

1) You assume Siam acted unreasonable is not the same thing as really did act so
2) Such issues are going to happen the mods in the end still need to make the call and could still ignore things for whatever reason.
3) ???
4) More active PC's and NPC's would be good
5) Random and destructive things happen from time to time.  Not everyone makes perfect calls sometimes NPC's just as PC's will do dumb things.
6) What advantage is there to this?

I like Kaiser Kirk's idea of an OPEN NPC message thread if you want to talk to a country in the open you can.  But that does't prevent people from doing things behind close doors either.

[Blooded]

Hello,

I love the idea.

2: Less risk that the country will snow in on a single line of thinking and overlook other related and/or important issues

This is probably my biggest problem... Well.... that I will admit to....  ::)  ;D

The hardest thing is pretending one does not know what is going on behind closed doors.

BTW, I would love to get ideas on what the Ottomans and the Ukraine are up to. The Ottomans treaty lasped a while back, and the Ukrainian one is due for a revamp now(up at the end of the year).

[The Rock Doctor]

I think it is appropriate for NPC/PC interaction to enjoy the same kind of privacy that a PC/PC interaction would.  Allowing for every possible NPC activity to be publically debated will be time-consuming and, I fear, deter players from actively engaging NPCs in schemes/plots/ploys.  There is also the problem of ensuring players can and do differentiate between what they know and what their nations know.

As I believe I have stated before, there are three moderators, making decisions on a consensus basis.  If you think the moderators are acting in a corrupt or abusive fashion, make your case and nominate a replacement for whomever you think should step down.  I'm sure I/we/they would be entirely willing to set aside the responsibilities of moderating for the good of the sim.

[maddox]

 

As I believe I have stated before, there are three moderators, making decisions on a consensus basis.  If you think the moderators are acting in a corrupt or abusive fashion, make your case and nominate a replacement for whomever you think should step down.  I'm sure I/we/they would be entirely willing to set aside the responsibilities of moderating for the good of the sim.

I support this completely.

[Guinness]

As I believe I have stated before, there are three moderators, making decisions on a consensus basis.  If you think the moderators are acting in a corrupt or abusive fashion, make your case and nominate a replacement for whomever you think should step down.  I'm sure I/we/they would be entirely willing to set aside the responsibilities of moderating for the good of the sim.

I support this completely.

ditto

[Korpen]

I think it is appropriate for NPC/PC interaction to enjoy the same kind of privacy that a PC/PC interaction would.  Allowing for every possible NPC activity to be publically debated will be time-consuming and, I fear, deter players from actively engaging NPCs in schemes/plots/ploys.  There is also the problem of ensuring players can and do differentiate between what they know and what their nations know.

More time-consuming in general, but not for the mods as such, and not in a destructive fashion.
The problem with plots is IMO smaller then the one at present, as I think that a NPC should broadly follow an advice I gave new player; "do not accept the first offer on the table; ask around to see if you can get a better deal".
Another problems is the NPCs automatically becomes vessels for the ones trying to disturb satus que, at the expense of the ones that are happy with status que. Having more transparency in NPC actions would both aid the ones trying to keep a status que, as well as the NPC country that would have greater ability to play one country against another. Sure it is possible at the moment, but to do that running would increase the moderator workload.

[miketr]

I am confused...  In the latest round of diplomacy what NPC become a vassel of one of the player nations?

[Korpen]

I am confused...  In the latest round of diplomacy what NPC become a vassel of one of the player nations?

Not a vassal, a vessel as in a container or carrier.

As happened were the moderator thought that it would be fun to start another war in asia, more from a meta game perspective then from the NPC perspective. THe NPC became the carrier of someone else rather then acting in its own self-intrest (as I have been told).

[Sachmle]

As happened were the moderator thought that it would be fun to start another war in Asia, more from a meta game perspective then from the NPC perspective. The NPC became the carrier of someone else rather then acting in its own self-interest (as I have been told).

That's hitting a little close to saying someone's being underhanded.

[The Rock Doctor]

I'm going to state this very, very clearly:

1)  Siam's neighbour, another NPC - Burma - was nearly gobbled up by the RRC after a border incident that was very suspicious.

2)  The three moderators decided that Siam would consider itself the next target of RRC attention.  We felt it logical to have Siam look for friends.  

3)  It is true that Siam could have offered investments in IC as the basis for friendships.  We didn't explore that route; there are plenty of other places offering IC investment opportunities, with a lot less risk of invasion.  We focused on what made Siam unique, and that was the Canal.

4)  We decided that Siam would approach France as a possible partner in a new canal project - not because Maddox is self-serving and corrupt, because he isn't - but because Maddox has opted to play our world's major power as a state that makes expensive and stupid decisions, like building unnecessary canals.

5)  It is true that Siam could have approached the Dutch with a "we'll fill in the canal in exchange for help" deal, but as has been noted elsewhere, the Siamese probably resent the Dutch for their long-standing policy on the Canal.  You as the Dutch have made no effort whatsoever to change Siam's views in this regard.  Therefore - why would Siam look to the Dutch for help?

6)  Yes, the moderators are aware of the Dutch position on the canal.  So what?  Nothing had been signed; no canals were being built.  Siam was proposing a canal, and your reaction was to issue an unacceptable ultimatum, then immediately attack.

So, while we're equally tired of war and 1916, here we are with another one.  If you don't like it, you have two options:  beat the shit out of Siam and make them cry uncle, or seek a reasonable peace.

Either way, the three moderators are growing weary of your accusatory tone.  As I said previously, if you want to accuse one or more of us of something, state it clearly and the moderators in question will step aside.  

Otherwise, stop it.  Now.

[Korpen]

I'm going to state this very, very clearly:

1)  Siam's neighbour, another NPC - Burma - was nearly gobbled up by the RRC after a border incident that was very suspicious.

Answer the rest at a later time, as that really is another issue.
But 1) is kind of my point, as it is a statement of opinion, not a fact. The fact is that there was a minor border skirmish, that after some heated langue was resolved diplomatically, and that the RRC seemed quite pleased with the result.

I am still convinced that open dealings with NPCs would encourage more people to get involved with them diplomatically, rather then just see the finished result of things that a single players dealings (and even then that might not be made public)

Just as significant, it would encourage more debates about the real politics in navalism, which is interesting in its own right.

In a way as I imagine such a system would be that any player in a sense have control of a senior civil servant for the NPC cabinet (or whatever for of executive they have), with the ability to give advice and ideas, but no final decision making power.