Shave N Haircut Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 The more I hear the word "Hegemony" the more it annoys me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Ilyich Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 You really have no clue what I am saying, do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) First of all Real Life military numbers are as much a choice by nations as anything else.  Second of all I think everyone should keep in mind nobody here 'Founded' CN RP.  If anything the people who people complain about now were the people who shrank differences.  It was people like Cent and I who campaigned for abolishing tech efficiency which had been put in place to give players automatic kills with no RPs.  It was a lot of us old guard who shrank the tech scale down, and me who put up a tech floor.  It used to be a pure algorithm that had some people at WW I and some at 2040.   And yes, CN and CN RP are linked.  CN RP was created and still was when I started a link to your IG nation and stuff like alliance was still referenced.  Its pretty ahistorical for some of the comments, especially from some who know better and know the truth but are just manipulating it for the sake of expediency and appealing to new members.  Third, different policies were carried out by different people at different points in time.  I know for a fact people here who !@#$%* about UN or Athenian or Tianxia policies, whole heartidly supported and lent forces to previous hegemonies who flat out banned communist nations at would roll them.  The difference was mainly they were part of those hegemonies.  The amount of revisionism in these disputes is truly disheartening, and the inflexibility to accept someone may have a different position at a different point in time cause they want to play a different way a nation is governed (gasp that's never happened IRL), is equally so. Time makes fools of us all, doesn't it? I'm not keen on digging up ancient threads, but I'll give you credit for allowing the tech floor. The behavior of previous Hegemons doesn't justify your time as Hegemon. Or are you going to let Kaiser Martens set the moral bar for you? Additionally, you're not talking about me, as I never fought someone because they were communist, and the rest of the Nords are gone. Unless there is another signatory of the Martencist Union here? no? Just me?http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Martenscist_Union You're right: the revisionism in this thread is disheartening indeed. Edited February 19, 2015 by Margrave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 The more I hear the word "Hegemony" the more it annoys me. The more I hear people use the word "hegemony" just like the word "fascist" without regard for actual meaning, the more that misuse of political terms annoys me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 The more I hear people use the word "hegemony" just like the word "fascist" without regard for actual meaning, the more that misuse of political terms annoys me. Â EVA SAID SOMETHING SHE'S TOXICK NA;KSDF;LJKALNSDKKJSDÂ Â I'm surprised it took you this long to get annoyed with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Players who engage in wars have for whatever reason decided that this is the best course to take with their nation. It is morally no different than a person that chose to stay a tech farm or someone who neglected tech purchases or someone who played in any other manner that is not focused on growth. For all these other things, there also is no compensation. It is your job to look after your nation, not the RPs. It is your self-responsibility. And neutrals are not like people staying in peace mode, they are still open to potential attacks from rogues and other alliances. Neutrality is a decision of alliance foreign policy and comes with advantages and disadvantages. And as a foreign policy approach to security it should not be penalised, just as it is not differentiated whether you sit in an alliance that is more on the periphery and avoids most wars while not being strictly neutral, or in an alliance that is in the center and gets regularly done in or an alliance of raiders who are in almost constant war for whatever reason. Â So, complaint dismissed. Find something new, because this point will not be considered for any reform, it does not feature as exact rule in any RP and I'm pretty sure it won't ever find a proper majority. Â Â Why are these people with this mindset always in GPA or alternatives to assure they get no harm done ever? Edited February 19, 2015 by xoindotnler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Â Â Why are these people with this mindset always in GPA or alternatives to assure they get no harm done ever? Well they aren't doing anything with their nations IG, so why wouldn't they want to own the RP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Before I start these are not fully formed thoughts just rants to get us back on track instead of hurling jabs at each other like a bunch of Ukrainian lawmakers. Â As far as the poll goes I see a some popular things are coming up that come up over and over. Specifically the tech scale. It seems like every few months we have to revisit the tech scale. On one hand this is fantasy rp and putting a "present day" limit on our toys is going against the spirit of the rp. However I think there would be a lot less fighting if we limit tech to only the stuff that has entered service. Â OOC/IC separation is something we all have said is lacking among cnrpers. The problem is how do we define what crosses the line and how police that? I can argue that Eva not rping any diplomatic relations with Russia is an ooc snub. Should she be punished? No. Even if she should be punished, how would we do that? Banning people because we don't like them or because they do things in the rp that are contrary to our liking is not the way to go. That brings me to another popular opinion. Â Another is the ability to ban people. One of the primary rules the Mods laid out when this version of the community started forming was that this is not our rp and we can't tell people they aren't allowed to rp here. I stand by that and interpret that to mean that banning people from our mini rp's is against the forum rules. Certainly people disagree with me and will tell me to take it up with a mod. Ok. Another problem I see is who is and who is not "toxic" is subjective. Â Now, preventing massive empires, that's tricky, because there are naturally going to be areas that are less popular or too remote and nearby people are going to gobble them up. Saharan Africa, Siberia and Northern Canada are good examples. There is a problem of very desirable land being gobbled up and that needs to be addressed. There should be military and civilian penalties to absorbing large areas with high populations and independent cultures. Perhaps a decrease in available soldiers since an occupying force is needed to pacify the locals. The problem is there can't be five Germanys and that is not something we can fix unless we go back to the space sharing scheme we had pre 2008 (?). Other than that I see no way fix this problem. Â Finally,re balancing soldiers. I know a lot of people tout the merits of an upper tier cap, and you can argue it all you want, but I like the idea of having huge armies. I would vote to raise the lower tier floor from 250k to 500k or more. This undercuts the million man armies that Cent Triyun Eva and I have while allowing wars to be bigger and bloodier and silly WWII style. Â On a personal note, some of you guys write war posts that I am totally unable to understand. I would like to see people write war posts as if they are speaking to a 12 year old kid, because I am 12 and don't understand big concepts. Â EDIT: TL:DR: Lets focus on some of the things that are trending in the poll, and work to find solutions for them. Edited February 19, 2015 by Justinian the Mighty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Â EVA SAID SOMETHING SHE'S TOXICK NA;KSDF;LJKALNSDKKJSDÂ Â I'm surprised it took you this long to get annoyed with it. Just needed this long to state it. Â OOC/IC separation is something we all have said is lacking among cnrpers. The problem is how do we define what crosses the line and how police that? I can argue that Eva not rping any diplomatic relations with Russia is an ooc snub. Should she be punished? No. Even if she should be punished, how would we do that? Banning people because we don't like them or because they do things in the rp that are contrary to our liking is not the way to go. That brings me to another popular opinion. I am RPing diplomatic relations with you. The Sakhalin border is the most militarised border I have. And it isn't OOC snub, it's because the one time I did bother with a diplo thread you didn't respond to it and the sole two interactions we had since were you torturing Japanese agents trying to assist Poland and the fallout from you nuking Melech. I have IC rationale to not trust Russia and I do hope Melech doesn't mess up the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Ilyich Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Finally,re balancing soldiers. I know a lot of people tout the merits of an upper tier cap, and you can argue it all you want, but I like the idea of having huge armies. I would vote to raise the lower tier floor from 250k to 500k or more. This undercuts the million man armies that Cent Triyun Eva and I have while allowing wars to be bigger and bloodier and silly WWII style. Â Agreed on that note. Â If not connected to RL population, at least let the people who don't enjoy advancing their IG nation not get punished by that fact and give them some dang soldiers. Edited February 19, 2015 by Peter Ilyich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 The problem is there can't be five Germanys and that is not something we can fix unless we go back to the space sharing scheme we had pre 2008 (?). Other than that I see no way fix this problem.I vote we give everyone a box. The people in the boxes next to your box are your neighbors. The geography (including land size), resources, culture, history, population, and everything else inside your box is completely up to you. Essentially, we turn the CNRP map into SimCity 4.Finally,re balancing soldiers. I know a lot of people tout the merits of an upper tier cap, and you can argue it all you want, but I like the idea of having huge armies. I would vote to raise the lower tier floor from 250k to 500k or more. This undercuts the million man armies that Cent Triyun Eva and I have while allowing wars to be bigger and bloodier and silly WWII style.I think 250K is a fine base. In the world, only 22 countries have 500,000 troops or more in total (active and reserves), so it seems like something you would need to work for. I am 12 and don't understand big concepts.Well, this drastically changes the nature of our reationship. I have IC rationale to not trust Russia and I do hope Melech doesn't mess up the meeting.I think I'm doing quite well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shave N Haircut Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 The more I hear people use the word "hegemony" just like the word "fascist" without regard for actual meaning, the more that misuse of political terms annoys me. Equally annoying, which only makes its use all that much worse about half the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Just needed this long to state it. Â I am RPing diplomatic relations with you. The Sakhalin border is the most militarised border I have. And it isn't OOC snub, it's because the one time I did bother with a diplo thread you didn't respond to it and the sole two interactions we had since were you torturing Japanese agents trying to assist Poland and the fallout from you nuking Melech. I have IC rationale to not trust Russia and I do hope Melech doesn't mess up the meeting. Â We've had this discussion, so I'm not debating this with you here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Â We've had this discussion, so I'm not debating this with you here. Then don't blame me for the cool relations across the Sea of Ochotsk. Â Also, reform proposals can be brought up, but if someone wants to actually initiate a rule change, you'll need a new debate topic with your idea and to discuss it. A GM will later make a poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) Hrmm should be an option in the tech section: Â Tech should be algorithm weighted around the current tech year and range from 0 BCE to 2030 Theoretical Tech. Algorithm might be as simple as Tech/1000=tech year with 2030 as max cap. I'd vote for that. Edited February 21, 2015 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Connor Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Or everybody just has the same tech, 2014 tech. Sounds good to me because people can't argue about it anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 I don't want the return of a ruleset that cripples nations like mine because we choose to be tech sellers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 I don't think that everyone should be the same year, but I do agree that the difference between high and low shouldn't be more than a few decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted February 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Hrmm should be an option in the tech section: Â Tech should be algorithm weighted around the current tech year and range from 0 BCE to 2030 Theoretical Tech. Algorithm might be as simple as Tech/1000=tech year with 2030 as max cap. I'd vote for that. Or everybody just has the same tech, 2014 tech. Sounds good to me because people can't argue about it anymore. I don't want the return of a ruleset that cripples nations like mine because we choose to be tech sellers. This is a survey I made so I can gauge community opinions on specific issues. It is not about what kind of tech scale is used or whether there is a scale, it is about the upper limits of scale and about how much customisation of technology is allowed. Thus, there is no options about algorithms vs same year or how much the difference between low end and high end should be, because all that is not contributing to the specific point that is the reason for this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) Well they aren't doing anything with their nations IG, so why wouldn't they want to own the RP? quoting this because the fact that all of you are pursuing your IC interests OOC by trying to $%&@ with the ruleset to give your nations a bonus is exactly the sort of thing that makes this community absolutely awful"but it's in my interests!"actually no it !@#$@#$ isn't because look at the community now - you're just !@#$@#$ idiots who can't see past the ends of your nosese: for clarification, this post is in agreement with margrave. Edited February 21, 2015 by Hereno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 The above is an accurate if blunt summation. a fair deal is one that does no harm to any; failing that, one that does equal harm to all might suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 no nations for anyone, we all get singular characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDCJT Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) no nations for anyone, we all get singular characters. Â Each character is a nation or vice versa if you'd like, like Hetalia Edited February 22, 2015 by JEDCJT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Ultimate UN Duels will be the new war system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 Â Each character is a nation or vice versa if you'd like, like Hetalia My character will be sitting in a kiddie pool eating glue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.