Roleplay Arbiters

This topic is dedicated to the discussion of the RP Arbiters.

Ok, this is my idea for the RP Arbiters:

I don't think we should get rid of the position; it can be useful.

However, I think we should reduce it to only one nation, seeing as there is very limited roleplay in the region and thus not much to look after. Second, I think the RP Arbiter should be able to hold another position, since this is restricted to making sure roleplay activities don't go too far. It's nothing of major authority in the region.

Its a pretty informal position. I like your idea.

I agree with GROSS. We can always expand the position if we find that role playing increases.

Our goal is to increase roleplaying, so I don't like the idea of downsizing because it sounds to me like giving in to the idea that roleplaying won't be expanding anytime soon.

Perhaps we can compromise at two arbiters, with the potential to add more as demand increases.

I like Vizindolf's idea.

All right, we'll do that, then. I believe that suggestion is pretty agreeable; there isn't much to argue against. So here is the new arbiter plan:

--There will only be two RP Arbiters.
--The Arbiters CAN serve in other government positions.
--The Arbiters will check over roleplay activities to ensure that actions remain stable and controlled.


If there is anything that anyone disagrees with on this, please post it. In the meantime, we'll move on to the next topic.

I would also believe it a good idea to allow individual nations to be "RP Arbiters," (more like a DM, rather) as well of RP's they create - though allowing overarching control to the designated Arbiters. 

Anyone creating an RP should also outline rules of godmodding.
It's not exactly well thought out.
Some people consider god-modding to never allow a hit to cause damage.
Others consider it god-modding to never allow a reasonable hit to cause damage.
Where's the difference? It's actually one that got me kicked out of my first NS war RP. I wasn't allowing hits to cause damage to my ships and I wasn't allowing anti-air fire to hit my aircraft. They called it god-modding. I didn't, because he was using a 2-mile-range gun to hit aircraft 40 miles away and he was using WWII tactics with PMT level weaponry that simply don't work the way he wanted them to. (Specifically: Battleship volleys over-the-horizon at fast ships).
TL;DR: "I throw a rock at you"
"It does nothing. We're four miles away, there is no way you could hit me. If you could throw that far, you probably would still miss."
"WTF THATS GODMODDING."

Though, when considering what is reasonable for people to know, it also comes down to a "Let's Have Fun" vs. a "Battle of Wits" style RP (Or "What You Don't Know Won't Hurt You" versus "What You Don't Know Will Make You Lose"). I personally go for the Battle-of-Wits-style, but that's in part because I do have access to knowledge many people don't.

Another way to look at it: (I'll continue to use the same example.)
You want to use Naval guns in ship-to-ship warfare over the horizon? You fall into the "Let's Have Fun!" category.
You understand that in modern warfare that guns are only viable in ship-to-land combat, and you'd rather use a missile-volley and well coordinated air-strikes to play in Naval Warfare? You get to play in the "Battle of Wits" style RP.

What happens if the two arbiters are deadlocked over handling a dispute?

I would say that would depend on what the dispute is.
Another idea I had was to try to incorporate "Field Experts," and gather people most likely to know something about a certain field, and have them be available to help inform Arbiters.
I don't know how well that would work out, though, since I'm likely to be causing the disputes and would probably be a military-field expert.