The GM's Hall

[Triyun]

Support him all you want.

 

Just don't support him to dick with france. 

 

Which was what you were doing, you said so. 

 

Am I not allowed to have a realist foreign policy though?  It seems pretty clear what I've said OOC though has been how I handle foreign policy.  As I said my involvement has been to prevent a union.  OOC I've said that I'm going to oppose France so long as France is the biggest rival in Western Europe.  If that changes, I'm going to oppose the new big kid.  I'm RPing a traditional British State.  Britain sided against France in the War of Spanish Succession to prevent a union between France and Spain.  Then in the War of the Quadruple Alliance only a few years later, Britain went to war with Spain to prevent it from enforcing a personal union on France and allied with the French King.  This is how I intend to play Britain.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Triyun

[Lysergide]

I'm not, I simply just don't understand why its ok for you to declare Switzerland a zone of interest for yourself and support Nutmeg.  Eva and her bloc can support Nutmeg.  Markus and Lyser can support France.  But I alone cannot support a side.  This makes no sense and you really have not made it clear.

 

They key point that we can is that there are already existing relationships between those nations.

[Triyun]

Doesn't change the fact that its not in British interests.  A clear look at of the map shows that.  French power up in Norway means that in the event of a war with France France would force the British fleet to divide between protecting the channel and protecting its shipping lanes.  French power in Denmark means that it would give the French fleet a safe haven in the Baltic.  And the reason I single the French out is not because of who the player is but because of how France's allies are behaving and its power relative to the other European States.  The French military is much bigger than the Northlands or Alvonian military, and its allies seem to think its entitled to have treaties it has signed imposed on other nations who did not sign them.  All of this is In-Character and readily available to British policy makers, who I have RPed saying as such.  I fail to see how that's OOC.

[Lysergide]

The real issue here is that there is a general disregard for another player and their agreements at this point. An agreement is an agreement between one party and another. Certain parties did not exist before then, thus really just don't have a say on the matter. At this point I will say that there is just a general level of disregard towards a player and an agreement that they made with another player that would have automatically returned territory back to them after they collapsed. Regardless if that player is heavily active, inactive, or is on a leave of absence. I was largely content with ignoring most of this or all of this, as I was enjoying my own little private RP and was only interacting with people that I wanted to, but since people had been constantly bothering me on IRC about this, and after reading the high levels of stubbornness and lack of respect, I really think this has gone on far enough. 

 

At this point, France had a treaty agreement with Snowhaven that if it fell, that territory would be returned to France. We as the community are obliged to honor this agreement as fellow RPers, especially since this person does not have a voice in the matter. There shouldn't be a debate on the situation, and there shouldn't be a large pack of wolves sitting there licking their lips waiting to take their bite out of France. The territory should have automatically reverted back to being French, and any of the territory that was left over, could then have been fought over.

 

I request a Freeze on [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/123582-the-french-connection/]The French Connection[/url] RP and any related actions that have occurred as a bi-product of this thread, and the actions taken by the people involved, with the intent of retconing the entire incident out of the RP for the reason that we as a community have failed to honor an agreement between one player and another, and even though the one player is on a leave of absence and some might argue that they shouldn't have to honor that persons agreements, I remind that this players leave of abscence was approved by GM staff, and it is up to us as a community to be the ones that honor agreements for that nation.

[Centurius]

The real issue here is that there is a general disregard for another player and their agreements at this point. An agreement is an agreement between one party and another. Certain parties did not exist before then, thus really just don't have a say on the matter. At this point I will say that there is just a general level of disregard towards a player and an agreement that they made with another player that would have automatically returned territory back to them after they collapsed. Regardless if that player is heavily active, inactive, or is on a leave of absence. I was largely content with ignoring most of this or all of this, as I was enjoying my own little private RP and was only interacting with people that I wanted to, but since people had been constantly bothering me on IRC about this, and after reading the high levels of stubbornness and lack of respect, I really think this has gone on far enough. 

 

At this point, France had a treaty agreement with Snowhaven that if it fell, that territory would be returned to France. We as the community are obliged to honor this agreement as fellow RPers, especially since this person does not have a voice in the matter. There shouldn't be a debate on the situation, and there shouldn't be a large pack of wolves sitting there licking their lips waiting to take their bite out of France. The territory should have automatically reverted back to being French, and any of the territory that was left over, could then have been fought over.

 

I request a Freeze on The French Connection RP and any related actions that have occurred as a bi-product of this thread, and the actions taken by the people involved, with the intent of retconing the entire incident out of the RP for the reason that we as a community have failed to honor an agreement between one player and another, and even though the one player is on a leave of absence and some might argue that they shouldn't have to honor that persons agreements, I remind that this players leave of abscence was approved by GM staff, and it is up to us as a community to be the ones that honor agreements for that nation.

That's the thing though, those agreements are in no way automatic. If a player goes inactive someone else still needs to make the 7 posts to get the land returned to them(see: Mael and Sri Lanka), the land is also still contestable. Land transfers are IC agreements and thus can be disputed ICly. There is no way they should be enforced by OOC means.

[Triyun]

The Treaty is an [i][u]IC[/i][/u] Document not an OOC one.  FHIC being away is an OOC issue not an IC one.  The Treaty can be addressed IC, FHIC being away at basic cannot inform IC decision making at all under the rule because its an OOC fact.  As a player I'm not bound to honor any IC agreement which I did not sign.  Neither is Nutmeg, neither is Eva, neither are you.  You have the right to uphold it, but you also have the right to oppose it. 

 

The point Eva and I have made is that it makes no sense for the rest of Europe to simply follow the lock in of French preference.  From my [i]IC[/i] perspective, what I see the argument being is France is the oldest state so it should get first dibs on Europe and everyone else is junior.  That's creating a conflict with Britain which does not want to subordinate itself to French preference.   If you give away territory its no longer yours.  You just have to live with it.  

 

France is going to have wolves waiting for it when FHIC gets back from basic if France attempts to exert outsized influence to other European states and impose agreements on them that they did not sign onto.  FHIC as a player has no more right to claim that land then Nutmeg does.  Its an IC issue.  

 

The problem which you don't seem to get is its not FHIC creating this issue right now.  Its you and Markus.  ICly I do not know FHIC is away, I cannot use that information in my decision making process in character because it is an out of character piece of information.  So the IC logic is that there are two states telling Britain that other nations are bound by French treaties that they never signed.  Which means definitionally, their sovereignty is subordinated to French Sovereignty.  If this was simply France asserting its claim it would be different and I may still oppose it, but it would not have the legal and normative implications beyond that of a normal land dispute because it'd be a bilateral issue between Cis Rep and France alone.  By raising it to a regional multi-lateral level the IC implications for norms and customary law become raised.  I'd still arm them but it wouldn't require a double down beyond arms sales.

[Lysergide]

Despite all your Italicized and underlined IC's, you seem to fail to realize that the OOC information of FHIC being away and would not be able to do anything about it, is being used IC. If anything with OOC knowledge of the situation, a certain level of respect should have been held by the players to dictate their actions IC, and not grossly abuse a situation where a player who is on leaves nation had a treaty with another for a piece of territory, and then that territory becomes available it shouldn't be seized from them because of extenuating circumstances. We are all here to RP, we aren't here to play a strategic game of risk, which is what this is all turning into. "QUICK THAT PERSON ISNT LOOKING TAKE THEIR TERRITORY!" We should all have the decency and respect for one another to not take advantage of another player, and give them time if they have an approved leave of absence to address a situation that directly effects their nation based on treaties or other agreements, I mean if you cannot do that, why even be a part of this community? 

[Chicago Noise]

Slightly off topic but kind of on, didn't part of Snow Haven's territory come from the Old Italy ,(Pongoz, I believe) anyway?

[Mogar]

it was lfkht, and the parts of snow haven that came from italy was  RL swiss, I am sure lynneth or myself can post maps for evidence if need be.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Mogar

[Chicago Noise]

Yes, that's right Pongoz was Portugal. I think Triyun and Lysergide have points on either side, but did the players of Snow Haven and FHIC even have an OOC agreement between themselves? And if so, does an OOC agreement have a place in the IC portion of this game?

[Triyun]

That's exactly my point the only people the agreement binds is France and Snowhaven IC.  If Snowhaven ceased to exist only France is bound and its on France to enforce its claims.  If France isn't on at the right time that's tough, but that happens to everyone.  The game doesn't wait for one person for 3 months just like it doesn't wait if someone's the first to claim a protectorate if you're at the office all night.  Nobody denies it was once part of France but its uncontestable OOC that it currently is not and therefore only its IC claim applies.  And France is the only nation bound to that treaty no other nation.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Triyun

[Chicago Noise]

Sure, I get that, and even more so, was there ever an IC agreement for reversion between the two states? Because if not, I don't see why there would be something binding as it pertains to the lock, even if there was an OOC agreement.

[Mogar]

It's still RPing in bad faith to do something that you know another player would disagree with but has an inability to react to due to prior commitments, FHIC explicitly posted on her limited time to even be able to be online what her feelings on the subject were, and I'd hope that the fact she took the time to do so proves she wishes to remain a part of this community. I know the concept of not being a dick is hard for you to understand triyun, but it seems like more people understand why you are being stopped than don't.

[Triyun]

Yes there was between Snowhaven and France, but not Cisalpinia and France so Cisalpinia is no obligated to respect a treaty IC it never signed, and thats an issue in the conflict.  Some of our nations don't want to set the precedent that people are bound to treaties they themselves never signed onto.  

[Mogar]

I don't recall signing a treaty that said I couldn't build nuclear weapons in RP1, you didn't seem to mind binding people who didn't sign it to that treaty though.

[Triyun]

I didn't ask a GM to stop anyone from building a nuke.  I've got no OOC problem IC taking action promoting or even enforcing the French claim, just that its not a matter for GMs.  IC and OOC are not the same thing.

[Mogar]

I didn't ask a GM to intervene in this dispute either, though I am pleased they apparently agree that RPing in bad faith should not be allowed, which it a concept you are seemingly enjoying pretending you don't grasp.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Well, there's a couple issues by now. First off, you cannot enforce IC treaties OOCly. Even if I'd sign an agreement, I could break it ICly. That's not really a nice thing to do, but it is not against the rules. And in some cases, might not even be bad RP. In this case, there was an IC agreement, which hardly anyone involved in this conflict is party to and which does gets ignored by the great majority of the RP. Think this is unrealistic? Look at the Pragmatic Sanction. Most great powers in Europe vowed to acknowledge it, just to start the War of Austrian Succession before Charles VI was cold. Now, guess how much of a damn Europe gives about a treaty noone of us, except France was party to (rest are gone). That does not mean we're jumping in on the action with the intention of just blocking FHIC. There's a plethora of interests, and for example, my interests have been accommodated in a settlement with Sweden. ICly, things can get worked out, just like IRL, and I think, it's actually interesting RP, to see how the diplomacy works, without yet a shot being fired. IC treaties need IC enforcement, but surely no OOC one.

 

Now, is that RPing in bad faith? I'd say no. It is RPing the political line I follow. Disregarding a treaty is most likely not even getting to the level of throwing an ultimatum at Markus. And honestly, I would see the situation being hardly different, if FHIC had been here. More dynamic, sure, because then France would be involved too. But if one correctly assesses the political reality of CNRP2 Europe, France being active contributes not much to the 'legitimacy' of her claim and would actually, just lead to an actual dispute, where people cannot say we did it, because FHIC was away, but the diplomatic developments would be pretty similar. And being in opposition to another country isn't necessarily bad faith. Else, you'd have an awful lot of conflicts to wipe.

 

The problem that is present, is that FHIC had an incredible lock put on her nation, which naturally, causes trouble when events happen, to which she cannot react. If anyone had thought that there's going to be 10 weeks of utter silence, that person would be pretty ignorant. And now, there are events transpiring. And you either make the case for a narrow interpretation of the rule, which is, France cannot be attacked, but we can take stances, in which case all RP up to now is legit, or a broader interpretation, by which France may not be attacked and no stances can be taken, in which case, the whole thread "French Connection" needs to get wiped and unless Markus challenges based on Alvonian interests, Nutmeg can go annex the land, because he has a legit IC interest. Naturally, if Alvonia challenges out of self-interest, then the Bloc will militarise the border again and we know how it'll end. But, that's the consequences of being away. You will miss out on things and the RP does not stop for you.

 

Now, regarding Triyun's actions, Triyun pretty much did one thing, that is, selling weapons. Up till Lysergide started to get involved, claiming we are all bound by an agreement of France and Snowhaven and that he'll defend this agreement, due to the personal union in the making. Naturally, this kind of forces a reaction, which will not be favourable towards this Franco-Swedish position, when one country tries to tell the rest of Europe that they are bound by agreements they did not sign. I don't get anything for honouring an agreement like that and neither thus Triyun or Nutmeg. ICly, we just went on to tell Lysergide that we'll not uphold such ridiculous agreements, which is a legit position to take. And given Lyser mentioned the personal union, we reacted to this as well, with various degrees of distain, because the prospects of a personal union to me is nothing to be happy about, to Triyun, it actually can pose a security risk (if you ignore player skill, but that's an OOC factor). That there have been statements on the personal union that were negative is tied to this.

 

What however then happened, is that a good few people cried out that Triyun was going to roll FHIC once she returned and based on this fear, did everything to throw accusations of OOC intent, bad faith and whatnot at us, when it is simply the combination of an extreme lock that was approved without the necessary thought, as we see now, and the pretty horrid diplomacy done by Markus and Lyser when they entered the conflict and during the conflict, expanding it far beyond Savoy. Because apart from Nutmeg, noone here is involved because they give much of a damn about Savoy. Says not that we are in it for OOC motivations. But hardly anyone in the summer of 1914 was in it for a murdered Archduke either.

 

My recommendations, either wipe it all, or let it run its course. The rulings should take place due to rules, not due to the suspicions of people. Because, quite honestly, suspicions are a bad thing to make rulings on, especially when they have no proven record of being 100% correct. The IC matter can be solved ICly and it is being solved ICly, which is why I see an option to not wipe it all. Especially, given the huge amount of RP tied to it, which is, most of the diplomacy done between various nations, which would need to be wiped as well.

[Californian]

Official GM Ruling Regarding the Fall of Snow Haven and Corresponding RP

 

After reviewing the appropriate roleplay threads, reading through the comments, and soliciting input from players, we’ve reached a consensus on the following agreement.

1. The entire “French Connection” thread is wiped. All corresponding and simultaneous roleplay should be revised to reflect this fact.
2. All of former Snow Haven is considered “white space”
3. No future thread involving this land or actions taken towards these lands shall include France. Essentially, France cannot be used as a reason for being involved with actions that take place in this white space. This would include involvement in order to weaken France. This would also include use of previous agreement or discussions made with France.

Essentially, this allows for a do-over for what becomes of Snow Haven without bias given towards France, a locked-nation. Both “pro-French” and “anti-French” motivations will not be tolerated; instead involvement must be made on the basis of actions that occur from this point forward. As an example, if the Cisalpine Republic chooses to claim these lands, your nation’s involvement must be based on whether you support or disapprove of that action or on the actions of your allies/enemies.

 

The underlying problem of this debacle is the long term lock of a nation, and how this affects neighboring states and agreements made prior to the lock. The lock was granted by a previous administration, and we must deal with the consequences whether it was a good or bad decision. As of now, France is locked and no nation may interact with it. It is incredibly unsportsmanlike to actively try to weaken France while the player is away, and likewise it is poor form to use an agreement made with a locked nation as a justification for having the land given to the locked player.

 

There is a discussion topic on this subject and we will have a community vote on whether longer term locks should be permitted in light of the complications it causes. I suggest everyone comment in that thread, especially if you feel strongly about how things have developed as a result of it.

[Centurius]

Official GM Ruling Regarding the Fall of Snow Haven and Corresponding RP
 
After reviewing the appropriate roleplay threads, reading through the comments, and soliciting input from players, weve reached a consensus on the following agreement.

• The entire French Connection thread is wiped. All corresponding and simultaneous roleplay should be revised to reflect this fact.
• All of former Snow Haven is considered white space
• No future thread involving this land or actions taken towards these lands shall include France. Essentially, France cannot be used as a reason for being involved with actions that take place in this white space. This would include involvement in order to weaken France. This would also include use of previous agreement or discussions made with France.

Essentially, this allows for a do-over for what becomes of Snow Haven without bias given towards France, a locked-nation. Both pro-French and anti-French motivations will not be tolerated; instead involvement must be made on the basis of actions that occur from this point forward. As an example, if the Cisalpine Republic chooses to claim these lands, your nations involvement must be based on whether you support or disapprove of that action or on the actions of your allies/enemies.
 
The underlying problem of this debacle is the long term lock of a nation, and how this affects neighboring states and agreements made prior to the lock. The lock was granted by a previous administration, and we must deal with the consequences whether it was a good or bad decision. As of now, France is locked and no nation may interact with it. It is incredibly unsportsmanlike to actively try to weaken France while the player is away, and likewise it is poor form to use an agreement made with a locked nation as a justification for having the land given to the locked player.
 
There is a discussion topic on this subject and we will have a community vote on whether longer term locks should be permitted in light of the complications it causes. I suggest everyone comment in that thread, especially if you feel strongly about how things have developed as a result of it.

Hear, hear.

[Captain Enema]

Hear, hear.

 

iknorite? amen.

[Hereno]

Hear, hear.

Indeed.

[21:26:20] <Ty> Also, in the interests of transparency, I wrote and published the ruling, as both Markus and Hereno are actively involved in Snow Haven.

It had Markus' approval as well, but not mine. Just making sure this is posted here for transparency's purposes. :)

[Mogar]

Requesting two spy rolls against nutmeg, the first to get a team into former Snow Haven through Alvonia, the second to seek out separatist groups, disenfranchised youth, those types to fight against the Italian troops within French Snow Haven.

 

RP here

Edited September 1, 2014 by Mogar

[Zoot Zoot]

Dont you need a roll to get into alvonia, then a roll to get out of alvonia followed by a roll to enter the former snow haven. So in order.

 

Roll 1 - Entering Alvonia

Roll 2 - Getting out of Alvonia

Roll 3 & 4 - Getting into Snowhaven FROM Alvonia (rolls against Hereno AND Nutmeg here as both have boots on the ground.

[Mogar]

If I'm getting permission from Markus why would I need rolls against him?

Edited September 1, 2014 by Mogar