+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Hall of Historical Records (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-8.html)
+--- Forum: Archives (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-141.html)
+---- Forum: Great Councils (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-234.html)
+----- Forum: 2022 Great Council (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-588.html)
+----- Thread: Why is RP under the MoC? (/thread-10704.html)
Why is RP under the MoC? - HumanSanity - 08-03-2022
I'm not going to pretend I know terribly much about this subject, but I'm just throwing out some thoughts and then pinging the people who might be able to fill it in for me.
Right now, RP is technically a part of the Ministry of Culture. However, in the past year and a half while I've been here (and, as far as I can tell, even longer before that), the MoC hasn't really done much with RP. And yet despite that neglect RP seems to be doing...pretty well. I'm not involved in RP, so I can't say I understand its goings on, but their forum and Discord server both seem active. There are RP mods who (as far as I know) do most of the work in organizing the RP and its community.
Do we need to have RP under the Ministry of Culture? Or is it fine (and perhaps better off!) as an autonomous thing with administration-appointed moderators to keep things organized with a longer-term focus?
@Jay Coop @Qwert @GI-Land
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - GI-Land - 08-03-2022
Just as a quick response: I'd like to come back to that question after sleeping one or two nights on it and having read your campaign in full first ^^
Generally speaking, I don't see how "seceding" from the MoC would harm the rp-community keeping the current MoC/RP relations in mind. On the other hand, this might need to get outweighed with the benefits it could bring, if the MoC and RP would reconcile and support each other more again.
While I think about it, the other two might already think about other points, that could be raised about this proposition.
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - Maverick - 08-03-2022
While as Gianni pointed out, "secession" might not be worse considering the current relations - despite my banter in the TSPRP discord - I do believe that amicable relations with the MoC are preferable. This way we may draw strengths from each other. The forum RP community needs more exposure and the MoC is a logical step to help provide that. Now I believe there should be more defined checks so as that these relationships do not erode to the current extent. A stream of new RP'ers is also detrimental to continuous RP on the forums and that must be "guaranteed" in a way. The main problem is the seclusion that has grown, not necessarily the "oversight" of forum RP by the MoC I believe.
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - Kris Kringle - 08-03-2022
HumanSanity Wrote:Why is RP under the MoC?
Strictly speaking because that was inherited from MoRA, and because MoRA was originally created to be an RP ministry (even if over the years its focus changed).
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - Pronoun - 08-03-2022
(08-03-2022, 05:39 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: RP is technically a part of the Ministry of CulturePersonally, I think the exact verbiage used by the Charter — the Minister of Culture being "responsible for supporting the roleplay community" — is a better way to think about it. Roleplay isn't part of the Ministry of Culture, but supporting it is part of the Ministry of Culture's responsibilities. The community may seem self-sufficient, but that doesn't mean some support won't be helpful.
Is culture specifically the best ministry to serve that purpose? I don't know. But I do think there is some untapped potential here. Events like PaciVision draw some parallels in my mind to other events that have occurred
and I think the structure of events like the Football World Championship (perhaps with a more concerted effort) could be a good stepping stone. That's just me spitballing. But more broadly, I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that the roleplay and gameplay facets of our government can and should form a symbiotic relationship. That may not come in the form of a ministry responsible for running roleplay, but it does take conscious effort on our part — as South Pacificans, not as gameplayers or roleplayers — to recognize not just areas where we can work together, but also areas where our goals fundamentally coincide.
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - A bee - 08-04-2022
For once I agree with HS's questioning in its' entirety.
If ''RP'' (as a general term) were to remain under MoC (the executive branch of TSPolitics) and the LC (''encouraging game-side activity'', which I understand as encouraging RP within NS TSP region);
-This ''RP'' as a general term should be limited to RP and activities within the main Discord Channel and NS TSP region.
-As for TSPRP (Treasure Island), I want two possible solutions:
1. If the current infrastructure of MoC and LC (albeit limiting it to just 'encouraging game-side activity' as it appears to be moving towards) is kept; a Representative of TSPRP must be included within MoC and LC staff members.
2. Ideally, the infrastructure is changed entirely, and TSPRP gains a permanent representative body; either in the form of a political party within the Assembly, a separate entity within the Executive or a separate entity within NS TSP region.
2-a. In my opinion, the ideal option is for TSPRP to have representatives in the Assembly as a political party which would form a ''Committee'' within it the Assembly, in to oversee all of TSPolitics proposals, resolutions, laws and policies. Ultimately raising concerns and or admiration for them.
If ''RP'' (as a general term) were to remain under MoC (the executive branch of TSPolitics) and the LC (''encouraging game-side activity'', which I understand as encouraging RP within NS TSP region);
-This ''RP'' as a general term should be limited to RP and activities within the main Discord Channel and NS TSP region.
-As for TSPRP (Treasure Island), I want two possible solutions:
1. If the current infrastructure of MoC and LC (albeit limiting it to just 'encouraging game-side activity' as it appears to be moving towards) is kept; a Representative of TSPRP must be included within MoC and LC staff members.
2. Ideally, the infrastructure is changed entirely, and TSPRP gains a permanent representative body; either in the form of a political party within the Assembly, a separate entity within the Executive or a separate entity within NS TSP region.
2-a. In my opinion, the ideal option is for TSPRP to have representatives in the Assembly as a political party which would form a ''Committee'' within it the Assembly, in to oversee all of TSPolitics proposals, resolutions, laws and policies. Ultimately raising concerns and or admiration for them.
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - Kris Kringle - 08-04-2022
Let’s not make things needlessly convoluted.
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - Hammerstar - 08-04-2022
If I may, Ive been in RP for over 7 years, almost as long as Qwert, Jay and Ryccia, three of the currently still longstanding roleplayers. I'd like to give a couple of words pertaining the matter
We are active, yes. In fact some of us are much more active in TSPRP than NS RP (Since NS Roleplay doesn't really translate well due to NS population increases and the bullshittery of the results from issue answering.) TSPRP provides a way for players to roleplay a country they'd like to roleplay, without answering NS issues in a specific manner to gain the specific classification or point in the index. Furthermore, everyone in this community, came to NS because they'd like to reimagine a country (whether for real roleplay or for memes). I have not seen a single person in The South Pacific, who joined NS for Military Defending, or join its government. The "Gameside" (As much as I disagree with the term) always started as a secondary approach for citizens who'd like to partake in those activities, which would then be, for some people, the primary reason of logging to TSP discord or NS time to time.
As far as I see all of the people joining TSPRP come from NS, and never the other way around. I have yet to see a roleplayer joining the TSPRP community without knowing what NS is, and I believe that our community will never be a forum that large. Therefore it is imperative for me to have the MoC's support for TSP-RP and not let it float by itself without any support, and amicable relations with the TSP govt is needed.
One of the biggest walls I personally see in TSP-RP is "If I have an NS account and access to its forums, why do I need to make a separate account for a separate forum for TSP?" Most players would make the account to just have a plot in the map, and not join into the TSPRP community.
I am one of the few players that try to bring in NS players into our events, specifically the two previous Women's FWC which was played also by region-side countries. I try to bring the two folds together, and despite the established canons of TSPRP do not look fondly at NS nations and NS stats, I believe that there is much fun in waiting for the next roll of dice and who'll win the next championships. Most in the MoC recall that I asked the MoC to help promote this event, only for it to be promoted once and seen as "irrelevant"
I fully disagree if we are to split away from the MoC and be classified as its own entity. However everyone in TSPRP would really appreciate if the MoC could finally take us seriously
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - Qwert - 08-04-2022
Roleplay on the forums has been an independent community since shortly after B&N made the map (which was commissioned by the MoRA?). The way I see it, the community does not need help organising roleplays and other activities, since it's pretty much self-generating. What we do need help with is visibility and advertisement (stuff like links to roleplay content on the WFE and the main TSP server and the Nation Showcase Week that has been run twice gameside), so that players find their way to the roleplays. This is something both the MoRA and MoC, in collaboration with other ministries and officials, occasionally have been doing. For this, we likely don't need to be attached to a specific ministry, but we do need to get in contact with officials with the right set of powers (like for editing the WFE, pinned messages on the server, TGs, etc), but we also should appoint officials from the roleplay community to serve as the main contacts. Since TSP has two separate RP communities (gameside RMB and offsite forum), we probably need two RP officials, one from each community.
To summarise, I don't think we need a full ministry to support us, rather some officials to contact for increasing visibility. But I don't think inventing new government roles to achieve this is necessary or desirable, so perhaps it's enough to have official community-appointed roleplayers as "liaisons" that can contact mods, admins the local council etc.
(This actually reminds me of the utilities that I proposed for the MoRA split debate. I might post something about that later.)
Oh, and I'm not sure what you mean with "administration-appointed moderators". The active mods on the RP side are self-appointed.
RE: Why is RP under the MoC? - HumanSanity - 08-05-2022
I'll be honest, I started this thread on a whim, I'm not particularly attached to removing RP from the MoC (or any future equivalent's) portfolio.
What I will say is I am opposed to expanding mandatory and legislated bureaucracy within the region's executive government to include liaisons for RP beyond listing RP as a part of the MoC (or future equivalent's) portfolio. In the short term, that sounds like a good idea, but in reality those positions will go unfilled. It's better to just know that you can DM the MoC with ideas, concerns, etc.
Regarding some things that are discussed here: if there are issues with promotion of RP (or what RP is being promoted) in the WFE or regional materials, I think those can be addressed to the Delegate and/or MoC just by saying "hey, can we try to add X to the WFE?". They're going to be willing to hear your idea/suggestion and talk about it. It doesn't necessitate governmental reform.