Discussion Nation Lock rule or whatever it is.

[Captain Enema]

If you cry babies want to whine about GM rulings regarding France do it in some other thread. Start the, "I'm whining about GM decisions France Thread". 

 

The topic is about how long we should be locking a nation for. 

 

 

I already put up one polling option. 

 

21 days without GM permission, 4 to 6 weeks with GM permission. 

 

If you got a damn polling option, throw it up, if not.. take your cnrp1 baaawwwing and kvetching elsewhere. 

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I am uncertain you are wording this sufficiently clearly TBM. I think the extension rules are fine and so is the nation lock rule. What you are technically arguing for is a max cap on existing extension rules with or without GM approval.

 

I propose an alternate wording of the poll.

 

1. Should there be a maximum cap on GM permitted extensions of nation lock times after which a nation is forced to become white space?

Yes/No

 

2. What should that maximum lock period be?

1 month, 6 weeks, 2 months, 10 weeks, 3 months

Edited August 30, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Hereno]

The option we have now allows someone to be gone for 3 weeks without notice, or two months with notice, with GMs being allowed to extend that two months indefinitely depending on the situation. All that's really necessary, from my point of view, is to eliminate the GMs being able to extend it past what I consider to already be a very long amount of time that you can spend without posting. The world map is huge and there's tons of white space... there's really no need to be giving nation locks for such long periods of time.

And it isn't like this even prevents FHIC from saving her spot on the map. You know what she could have done? Had her nation wiped immediately and have let her allies consider it a joint protectorate IC until she comes back. The land would, most likely, still largely be intact, and her government could have come back and picked up where they left off, without any GM ham-fisting necessary.

[Triyun]

Given the situation at the time and the realist views of Britain that I follow which is the long standing British policy to weaken the strongest continental power, I'd have aided France till it was bled and union broken with Sweden.  Now if the next day Hereno, Ty, and Markus united to form a united Gemany with more power and access to resources, I would've offset that with warming relations to France.  Eastern Europe isn't really a threat to Britain because it is very much land locked and therefore its ability to cross the channel is limited.  For me a lot of this is having fun playing the classic European balance of power thing, my Britain would vey much behave the way Britain in the 17th and 18th Centuries would.  I'm having fun with it, that's not being OOC, except sometimes I play a Stephen Colbert Court of George III version character on IRC.

[Hereno]

Now if the next day Hereno, Ty, and Markus united to form a united Gemany with more power and access to resources, I would've offset that with warming relations to France.

What if we got Horo on board, too? Because I'm getting a real itching for some lebensraum. :ehm:

[Triyun]

I'd reenact this scene:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvaVh6WGPE0

[Captain Enema]

I am uncertain you are wording this sufficiently clearly TBM. I think the extension rules are fine and so is the nation lock rule. What you are technically arguing for is a max cap on existing extension rules with or without GM approval.

 

I propose an alternate wording of the poll.

 

1. Should there be a maximum cap on GM permitted extensions of nation lock times after which a nation is forced to become white space?

Yes/No

 

2. What should that maximum lock period be?

1 month, 6 weeks, 2 months, 10 weeks, 3 months

 

I could agree to this poll. I'll see about rounding up some more supporters. Hopefully this thread won't get buried in more cnrp1babble.

[Lysergide]

Well since I am mostly out of the loop with these things, and this is the discussion for the "locked" nation discussion, I was under the impression France was going to be gone once FHIC left. There is an extent where we let them return to the RP unmolested, and the point of where their absence severely hinders the RP of one or many. France is a rather large and important nation for anyone that can RP it right, and has the statistical advantage to back it up in a European Theater of RP. They could theoretically make or break any coalition. While it is nice we are attempting to save the effort she put into the RP, at this point with her leave of absence to do Basic Training, and her future training she will have to go through for the actual job aspect of her time in the military, she may not be able to sustain a dedicated RP, and such things should have been considered prior to giving this huge leave of absence. While I would hate to lose France/FHIC as an ally and someone I roleplay, and we have developed plans months and months ago for how we were going to run the RP, I do actually kind of support what TBM said in the other thread, to retcon the entire thing. If she would like to return to the RP, and no one has France at that point, I say by all means allow her to take the nation. However at this juncture it isn't fair to her, or to anyone else that is having roleplay based around things that involve a nation that we can't actually interact with.

 

Granted it really is a moot point though at this juncture, she will be back in a few days time. By time we could make a unified decision it would be a dead point, but it would be better to use this as an example for future leaves of absences.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Lysergide

[Hereno]

Well you let them back in now you deal with the wonder twins.

However you're far from innocent and without them, you basically are them. (Mogar) You're well aware they play to have their name out on a map and spread as far as possible. A second chance did no justice.

However you did the exact same thing in their absence.

Eva's a $%&@biscuit and couldn't keep her loyalty to a tub of glue. She's going where the people and power are, and the wonder twins massive expansions as well as the muppets (Voodoo, Malatose, Justi, etc) are going to reinforce them and take land where they are so their name is larger as well.

Exactly like you'd be if you could.

FHIC didn't do that and role played well. Forget it though as soon as she's back she's going to be eaten alive because you know as well as I do that cent wants that land. However she's a colossal !@#$%* and has no loyalty like Eva.

I hope you all destroy each other. Whoever gets beaten out, well you deserved it. I've asked you all to come back and offered to help you in. You took it but the moment public hostility turned against me, tou jumped on the bandwagon. So please I hope you all destroy each other. I think the best thing would be to have two CNRPs. However the wonder twins and muppets have no one to prey on when all together and no one wants to play with them.

Happy hunting and let the hunger games begin.

GET GOOD NUB Edited August 31, 2014 by Hereno

[Hereno]

I'd love to see you get handled.

Are you calling me fat or hitting on me?

Also I see you too are taking my swag of role playing a female IC character. Nice. Just wait till you are called a transgender too along with Mogar.

I fully expect to be burned at the stake.

[Lestari]

Also I see you too are taking my swag of role playing a female IC character. Nice. Just wait till you are called a transgender too along with Mogar.

til rotavele is the first person ever to rp a female character

 

what a trailblazer

[Captain Enema]

 

 

I propose an alternate wording of the poll.

1. Should there be a maximum cap on GM permitted extensions of nation lock times after which a nation is forced to become white space?
Yes/No

2. What should that maximum lock period be?
1 month, 6 weeks, 2 months, 10 weeks, 3 months

 

As proposed by Mael.

 

He clearly supports it, he wrote it. I support it. That is two.

[Yerushalayim]

 

As proposed by Mael.

 

He clearly supports it, he wrote it. I support it. That is two.

This looks good.

[Californian]

Edit: I restated what's already been said. I agree with what has been posted.

 

I think another question should be added first: Are GMs allowed to grant locks that exceed the time in which a nation would go inactive? I'm under the impression that locks are to be used to prevent nefarious roleplay when someone is unable to respond due to vacation, etc., not get around the inactivity rule. 

 

Therefore I think that distinction should first be made, before voting on whether a max cap and what that max is are decided.

 

For the record, I believe the answer to my question is no, which means I would not support granting someone an extension longer than three weeks. 3/4ths of a month is a long time to be doing nothing, and I think the most recent episode shows the can of worms that gets opened from stuff like that.

 

Perhaps:

 

1) Are GMs allowed to grant locks that exceed the time in which a nation would go inactive?

Yes/No

2) If yes, Should there be a maximum cap on GM permitted extensions of nation lock times after which a nation is forced to become white space?

Yes/No

3) If yes, What should that maximum lock period be?

4 weeks/6 weeks/8 weeks/10 weeks/12 weeks

 

Edited September 1, 2014 by Californian

[PresidentDavid]

 

As proposed by Mael.

 

He clearly supports it, he wrote it. I support it. That is two.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself! However if there are going to be options voted on, I believe one of those should be 25 because that is when a nation "expires". I don't see anything wrong with someone locking their nation for 25 days, but if you lock your nation for 26 days then you have suddenly.... defied what is CNRP's laws of physics. So yeah. 

 

Also there is one other thing, let's say we vote and decide to make the limit 10 days. Okay that's great, but what if I lock my nation for ten days, then I unlock it for five minutes, then  I lock it for ten days again? See the problem?

 

The logical conclusion is to make a limit between locks, however this can become a problem. If I lock my nation for, say, two days and then four days later I want to lock my nation for one day, this new rule might say "Well technically you can't lock that close together, even if the combined total of your lock is 72 hours!" So that needs to be resolved as well. 

 

 

But what we have now does not work because people can have excessively long lock periods. So let's vote on it. 

[Mogar]

30 days for your nation to disappear IG now.

[Lysergide]

 

As proposed by Mael.

 

He clearly supports it, he wrote it. I support it. That is two.

 

 

I think another question should be added first: Are GMs allowed to grant locks that exceed the time in which a nation would go inactive? I'm under the impression that locks are to be used to prevent nefarious roleplay when someone is unable to respond due to vacation, etc., not get around the inactivity rule. 

 

Therefore I think that distinction should first be made, before voting on whether a max cap and what that max is are decided.

 

For the record, I believe the answer to my question is no, which means I would not support granting someone an extension longer than three weeks. 3/4ths of a month is a long time to be doing nothing, and I think the most recent episode shows the can of worms that gets opened from stuff like that.

 

Perhaps:

 

 

These both look good. Ty's just seems to be a more expanded version of TBM's.

[Captain Enema]

Just to make sure I know what we are voting for, and you guys as well..

 

 

We get 21 days without permission.

 

This new rule would require we seek gm permission to take up to a month, 6 weeks, etc.

 

Not 21 days plus a month.. but one month total.. or six weeks total.

[Triyun]

Just to make sure I know what we are voting for, and you guys as well..

 

 

We get 21 days without permission.

 

This new rule would require we seek gm permission to take up to a month, 6 weeks, etc.

 

Not 21 days plus a month.. but one month total.. or six weeks total.

 

Sounds fair