YD RP Plausibility Survey


Side note from any veterns, how was the senate Rp?


The very first senate featured me taking over a provincial government and founding a nationalist state with occult themes and libertine social policies. The second one was somewhat more tame, I didn’t participate in it so can’t tell you too much. The third one was mild though it had some entertaining stuff.


I’ll add this happened quite late on in the RP (maybe 4-5 months IRL?) Before the LLP situation, it ran like normal government.

And that’s not to detract from what the LLP did, it was thoroughly entertaining.

The Senates after that one I don’t remember taking part in, though that doesn’t mean I didn’t.


I remember @SirAloisHeinrich having his character drive into a brick wall after being BTFO’d by a news reporter on live television. It was entertaining to say the least. Founded a Nazi Party for lulz, though never really did anything with it.


Had some bad boys saved wew


thats actually not that bad


I remember @SamSt tearing into me because I just changed one of the proposals for the New Zealand flag referendum

Which is true






Specifically, a fern leaf that we established grew on Atlantis thanks to the climate


nice meme


Isn’t she beautiful


If only she had had better provincial names.

“Pancampo,” “Jane,” “Stanley,” come on,


Electing RP gamemasters isn’t usually a good idea.



What about some kind of RP that allows for a limited number of countries to be controlled by the users, with multiple people controlling a country and operating positions relating to foreign policy, e.g.

President / Prime Minister
Foreign Minister
Defence Minister
Trade Minister

Countries could have x number of military units, their economy broadly simulated (just growth and budget position), it could be done quite simply but allowing quite a good foreign affairs RP that’s less complex than a UN.



This sounds like a solid idea. It would be less high maintenance than the Senate RP and allow for players to create their ideal government where instead in the senate would basically crash the RP (e.g an anti-parliamentary party coming to power). I could support this.


If you do it, dibs on being President Assad.



I think if an international style RP is going to work then we need to do it within the context of a much more formal system than we had with Atlantis. In Atlantis the procedure was relatively informal, with people posting whenever they wanted with no constraints. This meant that people would become inactive, forget to post or vote and nothing would ever get done. I suggest we use a model similar to that of the MUN, whereby a motion is put forward and speakers have allotted times to speak.

So in a thread about X issue, everyone who wants to speak would post in a separate ‘speaker list’ thread and be added to the list of individuals planned to speak that day. Each speech would be arranged to take place at a certain time for a certain period of time (perhaps a few hours). So at, say, 12 noon the debate would open, and the moderator would say: would X nation like to speak, and if X fails to post by 3pm, he misses his opportunity to speak and the moderator would move on. After that nation speaks there would be a small period for questions, and then the moderator would move on to the next nation, and go through the entire list in that fashion. As the debate goes on, if someone wants to say something else they simply post in the list thread, and the moderator let’s them speak when their time comes. If someone misses their Once the list has been exhausted, the debate is closed and will move to voting procedures.

Obviously this could be supported by a separate thread for the motion which would allow informal discussion and debate, but I feel like without a formal process that takes place at a certain period of time, where members are directly obligated to fulfil their roles, then we would go back to an Atlantis situation where the Senate is plagued by inactivity and a lack of actual direction or flow.