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.

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


YES


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

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.

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.

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

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"...

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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

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.



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.

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.

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...

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!

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?

Thats actually a great idea

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

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

Good idea is good.

This is the most elegant solution of all. And it means we'll have to have less tolerance for stuffs and itchier trigger fingers.

But then you come back to the current problem of inter-alliance slot filling.

I like having a spy operation idea. If they are in "war is an option" mode, prevents them from swapping for a day (2?). If they are in "Peace mode" it can pull them out but the chance of success is cut in half.

I'm up for the spy option. NPO recently shackled a few of our guys and told the people not to attack. Our guys did nothing, but one of the NPO nations still attacked our guy. Of course, nothing was done about that, but whatever. The spy idea is really good.

i think the spy operation is WAY too overpowered, because it would make spying way too powerful

and i agree with Arcades057 here (case-by-case) seeing as a friend of mine was once warned for a war slot that was 3 months old against each other when we had a duel

This is actually a policy discussion and hence belongs in Moderation, however, the root of it is technical change so it would belong in Suggestions. I'm moving this to Moderation because of the unique combination of both.

First let me get this one out of the way: we are not going to allow players to start appealing in-game rulings and that's not a debatable ruling. It is a very, very rare occurance that any kind of technical error occurs in-game resulting in a wrongful deletion. 99.9% of the time the rulings are fully accurate and documented with plenty of evidence. In-game appeals nearly all look the same: "My brother/cousin/uncle/parrot did it, not me" or "I didn't know." Three warnings are more than enough for any player regarding slot-filling and other more minor offenses. When it revolves around a suggested rule change such as this players may approach the mod staff in the Moderation forum and respectively request a discussion as has (mostly) been done here.

In terms of war slot filling, despite the recent reiteration of confusion this has been addressed several times in the past.

I posted this in a couple of those appeal threads as well: Precedent for this has been that if attacks are not taking place then it counts as war slot filling. This has been well-established through similar questions regarding inner and inter-alliance war games and through scenarios much like the one you describe--the technical declaration of war being used to prevent someone from slipping into peace mode and/or as a threat of sorts over the head of another player. However, this has been ruled illegal in the past, and admin has clarified that we continue to not allow it because if we do it presents a big loophole that anyone could use to cheat, "Oh, I didn't attack because I was threatening him or just trying to keep him out of peace mode instead." We cannot make subjective rulings of that nature and hence it has always just been disallowed.

Because it seems like players see it as more of a mod ruling as less of a technical issue, let me clarify that the opposite is true. We see the value of "shackling" and can understand why you'd want to use it as a legitimate threat tactic, but from a technical standpoint we would have to subjectively judge each instance of "shackling" in an attempt to determine the honesty of the players involved--and that's just not possible (or if we tried, potentially unfair).

Technical changes are admittedly not my forte but perhaps one of you could come up with an alternative which could be implemented to make this possible without relying solely on subjective mod judgement (this should always be avoided, IMO). I would suggest a new "shackling" option which would not tie up war slots but achieve the same effect, but that would seem to lead to the same problem with current war slot filling--allies filling up another player's "shackling" slots in attempt to keep enemies from doing so. Thoughts?

This makes sense, I for one would second the suggestion of a spy mission that prevents a person from entering peace mode until the following update.

The problem I see with this is it turns from war slot filling (in which you're filling one of 3 warslots) to Spy Slot filling (in which you're filling one of 2 spy slots every day) for the same net effect. For example,I could see alliances coordinating with a close ally to use this regularly, since they have no intention of entering peace mode and can save nukes from enemy spy attacks, and you have no way of telling where to draw the line without invoking judgement. Though you could do the same with the other weak spy attacks anyway (say religion change) so it wouldn't make too big a difference.

Also spy slots generally have much lower value than War Slots, and a lower duration, so it may be more acceptable.

I think making the spy attack hold the person for a few days (3?) would be better.

imho it is by far easier to use an already existing feature for hat:

To enter peacemode, you have to be in DEFCON5.



So, if you want to nail someone in war-mode, you just launch a spy operation to change his DEFCON to 1. Deal done, he cannot leave war mode then until the next update. For inter-alliance war-slot filling it would be unlucrative, because it basically eats up a lot of cash for the operations, lost spies from failed missions and during war it would not be useful because most of your nations ALREADY are in DEFCON1 and you would weaken them (DEFCON5) with such an operation.

The way I see this is that there is a general need to be able to enact punishments against nations for whatever, however, it is expected to want some evidence. Guilty parties are going to escape if they know someone is aware of what they did. However, in my opinion, there is a certain right for anyone to go to peace mode if they can.

I think the suggestion made by (DAC)Syzygy is a good one, which would prevent nations from entering peace during that day. If you really believe that someone is extremely dangerous to your interests and resolving whatever issue will take more than a day, then shoot first and ask questions later, rather than messing around. If they're not that important, then let them run off to peace mode.

I think the best way to deal with this would be to create a spy attack that can pull someone out of peace mode. Then there are no war slot or spy slot filling issues.

The one days no peace mode spy attack sounds to me to be the best solution.

Pulling people out of peace mode would be too overpowered, and would definitely be abused.

Most Alliances consider spy attacks to be declarations of war anyways, so it's not much different than declaring and not attacking, it would just cost you money.

I disagree. For example my alliance recently had to deal with a rogue attack, we tried o go the diplomatic route in order to settle the situation reps were agreed upon and a timframe was given for the payment. Now we could have left the nation at his word but we instead declared offensive wars on him and informed him that as long as the agreed reps were paid in the time frame agreed upon we would make no attacks.
Well the rouge did not make his payment and had we not declared the wars he would have most likely escaped without punishment. If our nations are going to get warned for that than it completely removes any incentive for us to attempt diplomacy in this type of situation.

That's a horrible idea. If someone wants to play CN without having to worry about war then they should be able to do so.

Problem solved!




Agreed: the subjectivity can't be removed from this problem, as an enough smart cheating group could always conjure "good excuses" that are impossible to check.
The rule ("no appeal for in-game warns, not even for warslot-filling warns") should therefore stay as it is.

Also, the real point of the 'Shackling' proposal is practically equivalent to abolishing Peace Mode.
I'd say no. The powerful is already enough powerful as it is, and Peace Mode has already enough handicap.
Killing Peace Mode means leaving no ground for the weaker to actually stay in this game. It means that only one power will remain, and the game will die for boredom.

1. If your allies ask to you to do something illegal, say "no". Explain why.
2. If they insist, change allies.
3. If you then get "abused", report it to moderation.

(By the way, I don't believe that the Orders would go beyond 1...)

What most here don't seem to realize is that we can't know if your intention are malice or simply trying to declare war on a rogue. I understand the tactic of declaring on a nation in order to prevent it from going into peace mode, however you did declare war so you must attack. By not attacking you are technically war slot filling and despite your intentions, you are breaking the rules. If you declare war you must attack, is that simple. We have the ability to see how many attacks you have made against your opponent, and to declare war then not attack you are holding a spot that another person could use to actually attack. Even if you are the only one declaring war on the person, you are war slot filling by not attacking that person. Now when a person of another alliance declares on a nation for a reason of it being a rogue nation, they usually are fine as long as they are making attacks daily on the rogue nation. We usually check the status of the wars to see if you are actually attacking the rogue, and if you aren't then there is the problem.

that's probably the best solution to this problem (although i have never seen it as a problem. i agree with ES, if you want to attack him, attack him, if not, don't declare on him)

adding a spy option to deny them the ability to enter peace mode for a day is a TERRIBLE idea. it would make spying way too overpowered (which people were afraid of when spys first got introduced

The problem with yanking them out of peace mode once they're already in it is that some players actually do go on vacations and don't want to lose everything in a period of a few days. If someone wants to take a break for a few days, they should be permitted to do so.

If something was to be implemented regarding preventing the engagement of peace mode, I think it would have a far greater chance of being accepted by admin and the mods. The idea of using a spy attack to prevent a target from going into peace mode for 1 (or 2) days seems the most logical to me. If it was reasonably expensive, then there would be a choice to make as to the value of the keeping the individual out of peace mode.

This isn't directly related to war-slot filling, but a true 'vacation mode' could be implemented, in which no taxes or bills accumulate, and it could have a fixed duration - maybe 7-10 days. Once you turn it off, you can't turn it back on for a week or so. Just a secondary thought there...

If it's a technical issue, how about a 48 hour rule? If a nation does not attack within 48 hours of declaring, then they could be warned for war slot filling. It's easy to track and would make a clear, bright line rule. It would also take out concerns of AA issues.

I do have concerns about what happens if a nation stops attacking for a couple days. For example, my alliance recently declared war on an alliance that surrendered 18 hours after the first attacks. We then went into a ceasefire that lasted 3 days before we gave the actual order to peace out. I was concerned that our nations would be warned for slot filling if they did not attack after the initial attacks. Would they have been warned if they had attacked before and after update on day one and then not attacked for three more days before peacing out on day five?

The fundamental problem with this suggestion is that you are askign admin to mold the world to fit your gameplay style. Not his problem or concern.
You're talking about trials and justice and alliances' ability to implement their forms of it, and asking admin to change the game so that your policies, which are against the rules and always have been, will be legal. When I'm playing RISK, I'd love to be able to move as many units as I want from one territory to another regardless of whether they're touching or on different continents, that would be awesome; however, the rules of a game are not set up to make it easy for the players to play, they're to create an environment that makes the game interesting and fair for everyone.
If you're seeking a justice system with handcuffs and trials and justice, you should have suggested a Court of CN, not a free hand to break the rules or for the rules to be changed because they make it more challenging for you to play and you're tired of meeting the challenge.

Is the only criteria for this then not attacking?

The reason I am asking is that is seems that you would be able to, say if you were attacked by the entire cyberverse, to get blocks of 4 nations declaring on each other and lobbing a single CM every day at each other and since they attacked, they are not war slot filling.

Or am I missing something?

or attacking with a single soldier?

at what point is it NOT warslot filling?

what if you declared on a nation much bigger than yourself, got attacked right after you declared, and had no warchest? Suddenly you may not have teh ability to fight back, nor would you choose to, as turtling and not fighting back or defending yourself is teh best defense in the game atm.

The rules are fine as they are, adding a spy attack to keep people from going into peace mode for a few days would be best. Spying on someone to get them out of peace mode shouldn't be done though, since it would upset the balance of the game too much.

You're missing that you need blocks of seven Nations:
1 declares on 2, 3, 4
2 declares on 3, 4, 5
3 declares on 4, 5, 6
4 declares on 5, 6, 7
5 declares on 6, 7, 1
6 declares on 7, 1, 2
7 declares on 1, 2, 3

The fact is, if 1 declared on 2, 2 can't declare on 1: with 4 Nations you would be able to fill only one Nation's defensive slots (at most).

Oh, by the way: what I described is not legal and will have you warned if you attempt to do it...

What about implimenting the spy mission...but have a slot that is reserved only for the purposes of "shackling". If someone uses the shackling spy option then it uses the "shackling spy slot" and doesn't affect the other regular spy slots and vice versa.

tl;dr Set it up as a completely separate option that happens to use spies in its implimentation

Suprised no oen else has commented on this et. Seems like th emost rational, logical, 'problem solved', approach yet. No?

it's mildly broken. For it to have the same effect, it needs to auto work, which allows an alliance to keep an entire alliance out of peace, without actually using war or spy slots, and if it doesn't auto shackle, it tips them off to get into peace mode, and defeats the entire purpose.

But the entire point here is that when you try to shackle someone by declaring but not attacking there is always the chance however small that the person reports it as war slot filling...and it thus gets deleted...allowing them into peace mode

I don't see why coordinated declarations are any different to what i've proposed...as soon as the first declarations happen the entire alliance knows about it because of the war screen...thus allowing them to escape into peace mode

IF it was done with spy attacks then when it succeeds the entire alliance is not informed about it in game unless the person being shackled happens to be online at the time. The only time that it would be shown is when the identity of the attacker is revealed...thus only in a failed attempt could someone escape...just like shackling using war decs.

If they have large numbers of spies should their spy apparatus not be able to lower the chances considerably of someone launching an attack upon their nation? If you have a sufficient number of large nations with maxed out spies...which i presume the continuum would a coordinated spying action where they all attempt to shackle designated targets at a designated time would more than likely shackle the vast majority of the enemy nations...thus keeping the majority out of peace mode and able to be declared upon should things go downhill.

I think a better idea would be a specific shackling war slot, but it still takes up a regular war slot. That way the nation knows they won't be attacked immediately, and to respond. After maybe a day, the nation has the option to change it to a regular warslot, or keep it as a shackle. It could expire at the end of the war period.

Hmm I see your previous post's point about needing to be automatic to work right. :/ darn, sounded good otherwise. The idea that tipping off an alliance with failures would be the same as DoWs now, but the problem is you cant fail a DoW

I am confused as to what you mean by specific shackling war slot? As in one of the 3 slots (ie the first slot used) could be considered for shackling and not ever get warned as a war slot fill? That doesnt seem to make sense as that would effectively be slot filling one slot all the time, with no consequences.

Or did you mean have a DOW that is "shackle" instead? IE if you have them shackled three other nations could still come by and atatck them. The shackle slot only keeps them out of peacemode. Is that the idea?

Ok it can't use the war slots because thats what is causing the problem in the first place. They need to be completely divorced from the current War Slots as they stand.

Here is my modified suggestion:

• Each Nation has one slot which can be used to shackle a nation, and one to be shackled with.
• When a Nation uses the DoS (Declaration of Shackle) option they must commit a percentage of their soldiers to keeping the nation shackled (20% of the defending nations military say). These soldiers would be the same as deployed soldiers, they don't count towards keeping your nation out of anarchy and are "deployed to shackle so to speak".
• If the Shackling Nation is put into Anarchy (by whatever means) or their deployed to shackle army is reduced below the required percentage the target nation ceases to be shackled and may escape into peace mode (provided they don't have any active "real" wars).
• They must perform a Shackle Attack (SA) at least once every two updates for the shackle to remain. If they don't the target nation ceases to be shackled and can escape into peace mode (provided they don't have any active "real" wars).
• A DoS can last for a maximum of 7 days at which time a new DoS must be performed.
• If the Nation doing the shackling wants to go into peace mode they must cancel the DoS. Cancellation can only be done by the Shackling Nation, it does not need to be confirmed by the targeted nation and once a cancellation has been confirmed by the Shackling Nation the target nation is free to go into peace mode (provided they don't have any active "real" wars).