[Arcades057]

I stress quite strongly in the preamble that this is NOT baiting, nor is this flaming or trolling. This is a REAL honest suggestion, in the suggestion forum, meant to request an alteration regarding in-game warns.

I've noticed a sudden increase in warns handed out for war-slot filling over the last 2 days (I noticed it yesterday and there seemed to be about a half-dozen posts regarding the charge all on that day). The majority of these posts questioning the warns, where evidence that war-slot filling had not been attempted, were answered with "in-game warns cannot be appealed."

This is an understandable position. 3 strikes and you're out, with those three strikes accumulating over an indefinite period of time, regardless of behavior.

However, the problem arises from alliance leadership; more to the point, orders from alliance leadership. In many cases, diplomacy is attempted before war is waged. The common train of thought in a person's head when a potential alliance-wide war with you as the primary target is going into peace mode at once. This is the one unassailable defense that nations have against war. Regardless of how big the bad guy is, there is nothing they can do to you. You can sit in peace mode until you run out of money, until you're deleted from inactivity, or--as is the case with the current GOONS/FAN wars--until people forget all about you and go "hey, uh, what did we want to kill GOONS for like a year ago?"

To stop a nation from quickly entering peace mode and escaping judgment or reparations payments, alliances perform what is called "shackling;" that is declaring war on a nation, while not actually authorizing attacks against said nation. Due to the ability of any nation not engaged in an active war to escape judgment by entering peace mode, shackling is a necessary tool that alliances employ to assure that an offending nation either a) pays whatever money/tech that nation owes, b) is held accountable for actions and cannot enter into peace mode, or c) is held by the shackling nations until an amicable solution can be worked out. This game is a political simulator that doubles as a war game; the threat of war enhances the political aspect of the game.

OK for the tl;dr people: Shackling, as already stated, is a necessary problem due to the ability of any nation not engaged in war to enter peace mode and escape judgment.

My suggestion is that the war slot filling law, much like the aid slot filling law, be enforced on a case-by-case basis, rather than a one-size-fits-all basis, as apparently happened yesterday (correct me if I'm wrong). This is not an indictment on the moderators, as I'm certain they have a great many things to deal with, but more of a suggestion regarding that one rule.

A simple way to enforce the law would be to take any ongoing war at the moment and look at the war slots. "Oh, we have FAN nation 1 and 2 attacking each other with the reason for war being 'helping a brother out.' Must be war slot filling." Since FAN is on the losing side of the war and since those alliances facing them are on the winning side, it would then stand to reason that any war slot filling being performed by FAN would be, in fact, against the game's TOS. However, two NPO/NpO/IRON/GGA/what have you nations involved in open wars against each other with, say, "Shackling," as the reason, might not actually be filling the war slots.

In addition to that, in a legitimate shackling case, there will likely be a great deal of evidence as to why, who, what, and how the offending nations are performing the shackling; not so much when two guys are like "OK, protect me from war by declaring on me."

The suggestion is as follows: Game warns (within reason) be allowed to be appealed. Within reason means things like war slot filling (where evidence can be provided to the moderation staff exonerating the accused nation; not things like sending crude messages and saying 'lol, it was a joke').

Ultimately this is a moderation decision, and while it would be great to get the input of other players, the decision to approve it or deny it lies with them, regardless of the general consensus. Keep it respectful (not to me, I couldn't care less; respect the moderation staff) and discuss.

[Max Beck]

I can't see why two of my alliance members got "war slot filling" warnings for not being at war with anything but rogues.

Quote

Game warns (within reason) be allowed to be appealed.

YES

Quote

Nations Anarchied: 73

Why do you keep count? Got the answer by PM.

This post has been edited by Max Beck: 05 February 2008 - 04:06 PM

[Bob Janova]

When war slot filling can be shown to be intended to harm the victim, you shouldn't get warned for it. But it would be hard to police ... if a FAN member drops his AA to 'New Polar Order' and declares on three other FAN members, how can you tell that from a real 'shackle'.

I agree though, in game warns for war and spy slot filling (not for abuse) should be appealable – unless it's your last one and you get deleted, probably.

[SpoiL]

ODN members have also gotten war slot filling warns for being ordered to keep a rogue out of peace mode to further pursuade him to pay reps.

[Max Beck]

It's comforting to know others have the same problem. That means something must be done sooner or later.

[(DAC)Syzygy]

i agree, often an instant DoW is the only way to prevent a traitor slipping into peacemode. Only because he is "in the same alliance", it is no war-slot filling, its the whole opposite. Same goes for spy-operations or war-maneuvers between allied alliances. If TOP vs Grämlins hold some test-wars, that is no "war slot" or "spy slot" filling because we are *totally* out of any conflict right now, nobody is hurt with it and it brings a lot of fun for the players... - no reason to hand out warnings for this, just "because no real attacks have been launched"...

[zzzptm]

On the one hand, we don't want war slot filling, but on the other hand, we want the ability to do something that looks very much like war slot filling... and whatever looks sufficiently like war to hold a slot can be used to fill a slot.

Example...

Say you have to launch one airstrike per day, minimum. OK. Buy the cheapest plane and send it in. That's a war, right? Well, that cuts both ways. If NPO is at war with your alliance, get folks in groups of six and have three declare war on the other three with "rogue beware!" in the DoW. Gosh, amazing how alliances are split by civil war every time the NPO attacks...

And I don't think admin would like it where everyone is emailing him about reasons for war. Imagine if the recent BLEU-NADC conflict was preceded with BLEU declaring but not attacking on NADC... imagine the admin's reaction with over 1000 emails the next day saying, "Hey, just holding the guy down..."

How about allowing spies to pull a nation out of peace mode? Then there's no need to hold a nation down with a war slot. If he goes into peace mode, you'll find him and you'll grind him. It'll also end a lot of drawn-out wars a lot faster.

Or, allow a guerrilla war mode. Something that makes it hard to impossible to wipe out your last 10 infra, lets you keep five guerrilla camps on hand, and sets your bills to zero. OTOH, you can only buy soldiers in guerrilla war mode... that way, if you want a long, drawn-out guerrilla war, that's what you get. Not some fancy manipulation of hippy mode.

I know those ideas aren't fully fleshed out, but peace mode is not just for guys that are interested in paying bills every day. It's for guys that want to abuse the system. It allows for people with bad personalities to remain in the game, protected by their peace mode when they should be protected by an alliance.

[bill n ted]

Im in agreement with Arcades. This shackling has been something that has been going on since I have joined the game; whilst the rules are what they are I believe that the current rules whilst they were never really enforced on any great scale punished those who were blatant idiots; with the new and more vigorous approach that seems to have been adopted in the past 2-3 days people are getting warned for what I personally perceive to be incorrect reasons.

To my knowledge war slot filling was made illegal due to people purposely engaging their colleagues/RL friends to prevent attacks by other nations who wished to cause damage; however people are starting to get warned for the reasons that Arcades mentioned above (basically shackling) - whilst Im not going to argue semantics or interpretation of the rules of war slot filling, I believe the current spate of warns on nations certainly goes against the spirit of why war slot filling was made illegal. When people get shackled the intent is to cause damage if they dont play ball - if they do play ball it ends peacefully and thats that, now the people who declared get smacked with an in game warn for their troubles; this is opposed to why the rule was originally written to prevent people purposefully declaring war with absolutely no intent of causing damage.

On a side note I dont like the fact that in game warns are 'non appeal-able and thats that' - CN Forum Moderation has an appeal process as now and again moderation does make mistakes or maybe a warn was given thats not entirely justified (most of the time warns are fully justified and I dont see many mistakes). Im not sure why the same people who moderate the forums are subject to having their decisions challenged on a forum related matter; whilst when the same people moderate in game, the decisions they make - from where Im sat go totally unchallenged and the current system in place prevents challenges being made.



If the Moderation staff are subject to their actions being moderated on the forums, why are their actions not being moderated in game as well?

Sorry if this comes across as ignorant, but from where Im sat I see no justification as to why in game warns are not subject to the same process as forum warns; the only fair way I can see in game warns being dished out is if moderation comes together and collectively decide to issue an in game warn.

This post has been edited by bill n ted: 06 February 2008 - 08:05 AM

[Electron Sponge]

'Shackling' is stupid. If you are going to declare war on someone, fight the guy. If you want to keep him out of peace mode you evidently have ill intent toward him already.

[Brotherington]

So you are recommending bias against certain alliances and in favour of your own?

[Seerow]

Brotherington, on Feb 6 2008, 11:40 AM, said:

So you are recommending bias against certain alliances and in favour of your own?

I'm pretty sure he was arguing bias against any alliance seeking to use something like 'shackling'

I'm inclined to agree with him. If you're going to war, kill the !@#$%* you're at war with.

[Dublandia]

Electron Sponge, on Feb 6 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

'Shackling' is stupid. If you are going to declare war on someone, fight the guy. If you want to keep him out of peace mode you evidently have ill intent toward him already.

Exactomundo, and I think it is what the mods are trying to tell people.

[Arcades057]

Electron Sponge, on Feb 6 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

'Shackling' is stupid. If you are going to declare war on someone, fight the guy. If you want to keep him out of peace mode you evidently have ill intent toward him already.

I agree fully with this statement; however it is the prerogative of some alliances to shackle first, war later. While I may not agree with it, I am a soldier of that alliance. I just don't want to be warned for following the orders of the Orders.

Quote

How about allowing spies to pull a nation out of peace mode? Then there's no need to hold a nation down with a war slot. If he goes into peace mode, you'll find him and you'll grind him. It'll also end a lot of drawn-out wars a lot faster.

I like idea more than my own, but I think it's been suggested and shot down before. Maybe instead of immediately pulling the nation out of peace mode, it pulls them out after 5 days or something.

[(DAC)Syzygy]

Electron Sponge, on Feb 6 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

'Shackling' is stupid. If you are going to declare war on someone, fight the guy. If you want to keep him out of peace mode you evidently have ill intent toward him already.

i disagree, not every alliance ZIs others without proof. Some even ensure others a "fair trial" and are intentionally just "nailing" him into war mode until the evidence has been reviewed and the sources have been heard and checked. Its only to prevent him from fleeing in case he is found guilty. If they are found to be innocent, they are released without terms.

[zzzptm]

Well, if we had the trade slot thing in thread 7268 implemented, then we could attack, have a quick trial, and then pay reps easily if the guy really was innocent.

Or do like in medieval times... if the guy fights back, he was guilty. If he goes to ZI without firing a shot, he was innocent...

[Bob Janova]

Quote

While I may not agree with it, I am a soldier of that alliance. I just don't want to be warned for following the orders of the Orders.

Honestly, this is silly. An alliance that war slot fills is certainly doing it by having its nations 'following the orders of <alliance>'. Just because your alliance is big and red doesn't automatically mean that its orders are valid even if they are against game rules!

[x Tela x]

Uhh. Add a spy option.

Shackle Opponent:
Shackling an opponent will prevent them from entering peace mode for that day.

Cost: Same as destroying a nuke.


Solved?

[Andrew425]

Thats actually a great idea

But maybe make it so it can only happen when that nation is not at war

[Stylesjl]

Maybe a rule whereby if you don't launch attacks in a war the opponent can enter peace mode anyway? (So once you declare you must then launch an attack if you want to stop them fleeing into hippy mode). Just throwing an idea out there

[Bob Janova]

x Tela x, on Feb 7 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

Uhh. Add a spy option.

Shackle Opponent:
Shackling an opponent will prevent them from entering peace mode for that day.

Cost: Same as destroying a nuke.


Solved?

Good idea is good.