The GM's Court

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1295744280' post='2592655']
There hasn't been a plethora of abuses that require a formula in this case. I still have yet to see my request for more links to abuses answered.
[/quote]
Iran doesn't have to stockpile nuclear weapons [b]before[/b] the international community decides to do something about making sure they don't get them. It is far better to prevent an abuse from happening in the first place than to wait, let it happen, and [b]then[/b] do something about it. That we don't have many abuses in the first place is a testament to the effectiveness of the rules in the first place.

I remember when we used to allow an infinite number of chem/bio/fuel-air cruise missiles and it was essentially an unwritten common sense rule; it only happened after people started complaining that we eventually led to a 50-CM cap that was led into CN. While this is not on the same level as the CM abuse of years ago, it's still essentially the same argument.

[quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1295744567' post='2592661']
And abusers aren't possible to stop, right?

Wrong. All these set limitations cause a person to go for the maximum. If you say a person can only have X of something, they'll most likely take X. If you can say they can have as much as common sense allows, they'll probably set themselves at a sensible area.
[/quote]
I believe it was different interpretations of "common sense" in the first place that led to this. One person thought that another person had too much under the "common sense" rule. Your argument is invalid.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1295745130' post='2592672']
Iran doesn't have to stockpile nuclear weapons [b]before[/b] the international community decides to do something about making sure they don't get them. It is far better to prevent an abuse from happening in the first place than to wait, let it happen, and [b]then[/b] do something about it. That we don't have many abuses in the first place is a testament to the effectiveness of the rules in the first place.

I remember when we used to allow an infinite number of chem/bio/fuel-air cruise missiles and it was essentially an unwritten common sense rule; it only happened after people started complaining that we eventually led to a 50-CM cap that was led into CN. While this is not on the same level as the CM abuse of years ago, it's still essentially the same argument.
[/quote]

Please don't use RL examples to enforce your viewpoint for OOC RP rules. It's just going to steer the conversation off track and bring a lot of RL politics into CNRP where it doesn't belong.

Just because one abuse has happened doesn't mean we need to rush to the rules table and begin developing solutions to something that isn't a widespread issue. The last time we decided to do something because of one person was when the GMs began allowing auto-advancing based off of Mudd's lack of activity. That resulted in a massive @#$# storm that ultimately ended with three GMs being replaced and a headache to the community.

Until I see links that show a systematic abuse of the commonsense system that we have - I will continue to argue against the implementation of more fixed numbers that restrict one's ability to be creative in RP situations. If the problem is so massive that a rule needs to be put into place that surpasses the rule allowing GMs to wipe an RP then I look forward to finally seeing someone who supports the implementation of a new rule linking me to some examples of abuses.

[Centurius]

Under current circumstances I tend to agree with Yawoo, we probably are better of by not making a blanket rule but just letting abuses be wiped.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1295734266' post='2592422']
No more formulas.

Less formulas = less numbers
[b]Less numbers = more creativity[/b]
More creativity = more fun
[/quote]

I'm at a loss. What gold mines of RP are we sealing shut with the dynamite that is regulation?

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1295742443' post='2592625']
Less formulas = less numbers
Less numbers = more people abusing the numbers (or lack thereof)
More abusers = less fun

Rules exist for a reason, and they aren't to keep the little man down.
[/quote]

I agree (fancy that).

However, the main reason (at least for myself) as for why we would have such numbers:

During war, people tend to throw thousands of whatevers at each other... that's fact, and not necessarily bad. However- I would like to make it easier for the common RPer to have an accurate count or figure always on hand to ensure that there are no discrepancies between losses in combat, deployments and muster strength of his or her enemies. That's all.

Does this mean everyone needs to start RPing detailed orders of battle? No. What it does mean is that I can immediately check how many of whatever you actually have in almost an instant, and compare it to what i'm seeing in my war.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Executive Minister

[Triyun]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1295734618' post='2592431']
Except one of the reasons they HAVE so much artillery is because they're still at war.

Without an active enemy you have NO reason to invest so much in artillery when it can be invested elsewhere. It's common sense.
[/quote]

Some of us did/do, look at the border between the UFE and KOC in Tibet and Xinjiang.

[Uberstein]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1295759424' post='2592965']
Some of us did/do, look at the border between the UFE and KOC in Tibet and Xinjiang.
[/quote]
Then that's a perfectly good reason to have a giant artillery buildup in that region as far as I'm concerned, given RP of course. Then again, I'm not a GM so let's leave it up to them.

[king of cochin]

My opinion is similar to that of Cent: Leave it to common sense. We GMs can regulate/moderate when someone abuses numbers during a war. When we see evidences of numbers abuse, we will adjudicate on a per case basis. As regards the common RPers need to know, the community, the GMs and the OOC thread are there for discussing on these things. No one is stopping anyone from asking a question, in fact it is encouraged. When in confusion, ask the others, rather than we make an unnecessarily complicating ruling.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1295748140' post='2592721']
Please don't use RL examples to enforce your viewpoint for OOC RP rules. It's just going to steer the conversation off track and bring a lot of RL politics into CNRP where it doesn't belong.
[/quote]

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post because I don't care, but you're missing the point of the examples. They were meant to show examples of trains of thought rather than beliefs.

[Kankou]

Since we seem to be going with artillery, I ask the GMs to rule on this:


I wish to be allowed to have 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, and 0.5 Japan worth of ground equipment (except tanks) as of my current territories.


I also wish to be allowed to have the maximum of 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, 1 Japan, 1 Shenyang Military Region, 1 Beijing Military Region, 1 Russian Siberian Military District, and 1 Russian Far Eastern Military District worth of ground equipment (except tanks)in the future, when my territory extends to the approximate lands.


I've warned you.

[Zoot Zoot]

Why should it be one rule for you, and another for us kankou?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295870958' post='2596419']
Since we seem to be going with artillery, I ask the GMs to rule on this:


I wish to be allowed to have 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, and 0.5 Japan worth of ground equipment (except tanks) as of my current territories.


I also wish to be allowed to have the maximum of 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, 1 Japan, 1 Shenyang Military Region, 1 Beijing Military Region, 1 Russian Siberian Military District, and 1 Russian Far Eastern Military District worth of ground equipment (except tanks)in the future, when my territory extends to the approximate lands.


I've warned you.
[/quote]

Please provide the numbers of various ground equipment you plan to RP as 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, 0.5 Japan's worth and your current max IG tank count.
Also provide the numbers of various ground equipment you plan to RP as 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, 1 Japan, 1 Shenyan Military Region, 1 Beijing Military Region, 1 Russian Siberian Military District and 1 Russian Far Eastern Military District'w worth and your estimated max IG tank count at that point of time.

Provide the detailed list of numbers you plan to RP in both contingencies and the GMs would discuss it and pronounce a ruling.

Please do know that if those numbers do not tally up to common sense standards of CNRP and/or RL, we would be requiring you to RP reduced number of equipments.

[Michael McBride]

Um... pardon my French... but $%&@ no. This would be like me saying "I took over the East Coast so any military equipment that the USA had there I now have." Sorry, the rules of CNRP don't work that way. With your rule, you'd have 3.5x your max ground equipment currently, and 8x your max ground equipment in the future? Yeah, not happening. If she gets this rule, then I want an entire extra over my max for each of my states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Flordia). So, everyone's cool that I have 12x my current max ground equipment, right? What's that? No? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Sargun II]

What Pravus Ingruo said times a thousand. If we followed real life numbers for anything relevant, just about every nation that isn't made up of "first world" geographical areas would be !@#$ out of luck.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295885125' post='2596646']
Um... pardon my French... but $%&@ no. This would be like me saying "I took over the East Coast so any military equipment that the USA had there I now have." Sorry, the rules of CNRP don't work that way. With your rule, you'd have 3.5x your max ground equipment currently, and 8x your max ground equipment in the future? Yeah, not happening. If she gets this rule, then I want an entire extra over my max for each of my states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Flordia). So, everyone's cool that I have 12x my current max ground equipment, right? What's that? No? Yeah, I didn't think so.
[/quote]

Before you went on your "outrage" have you ever considered that the reason I asked her to state the numbers is to see whether it fits in the realm of common sense or not? Or have you so conveniently ignored the part where I said she would be required to conform to a reduced set of numbers if we decided it is unreasonable? Also it is simple courtesy to wait for her to submit the numbers she wants and then wait to hear our opinions before making such stupid assumptions.

Reading, it is a very good thing. Do it.

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1295886946' post='2596687']
What Pravus Ingruo said times a thousand. If we followed real life numbers for anything relevant, just about every nation that isn't made up of "first world" geographical areas would be !@#$ out of luck.
[/quote]

Again I would suggest you to wait for Kankou to post what numbers she had in mind and the GMs' opinion regarding those numbers before jumping the gun.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295870958' post='2596419']
Since we seem to be going with artillery, I ask the GMs to rule on this:


I wish to be allowed to have 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, and 0.5 Japan worth of ground equipment (except tanks) as of my current territories.


I also wish to be allowed to have the maximum of 2 DPRK, 1 ROK, 1 Japan, 1 Shenyang Military Region, [b]1 Beijing Military Region[/b], 1 Russian Siberian Military District, and 1 Russian Far Eastern Military District worth of ground equipment (except tanks)in the future, when my territory extends to the approximate lands.


I've warned you.
[/quote]


Huh.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295887471' post='2596697']
Before you went on your "outrage" have you ever considered that the reason I asked her to state the numbers is to see whether it fits in the realm of common sense or not? Or have you so conveniently ignored the part where I said she would be required to conform to a reduced set of numbers if we decided it is unreasonable? Also it is simple courtesy to wait for her to submit the numbers she wants and then wait to hear our opinions before making such stupid assumptions.

Reading, it is a very good thing. Do it.

Again I would suggest you to wait for Kankou to post what numbers she had in mind and the GMs' opinion regarding those numbers before jumping the gun.
[/quote]

The basis of her request is real life numbers. The numbers themselves are inconsequential, the fact that she wants to use real life numbers as a basis for her request makes the "common sense" argument invalid; were she to be granted this, Triyun could use the exact same logic to get the numbers of the Chinese military.

I am fully against this proposal regardless of the actual numbers - what she [b]could[/b] have done is instead simply put forward numbers with a different rationale.

[AironthFlamewing]

Meaning in my case I would use the armed forces of my lands and that just totally imbalances the system

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295887471' post='2596697']
Before you went on your "outrage" have you ever considered that the reason I asked her to state the numbers is to see whether it fits in the realm of common sense or not? Or have you so conveniently ignored the part where I said she would be required to conform to a reduced set of numbers if we decided it is unreasonable? Also it is simple courtesy to wait for her to submit the numbers she wants and then wait to hear our opinions before making such stupid assumptions.

Reading, it is a very good thing. Do it.
[/quote]

Before you fall off that high horse of yours, maybe you should take your own advice. I don't need to see the numbers because I already know how absurd they are. I already know how absurd her suggestion is. She wants to take the CN out of CNRP and base her stuff of RL numbers. This should have been shot down immediately due to that fact alone. Your RP numbers are based off of IG numbers, not any RL numbers. Period. The fact that you would even consider otherwise makes me severely question your abilities and qualifications to be a GM.

Rules, knowing them is a very good thing. Do it.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295890452' post='2596777']
Before you fall off that high horse of yours, maybe you should take your own advice. I don't need to see the numbers because I already know how absurd they are. I already know how absurd her suggestion is. She wants to take the CN out of CNRP and base her stuff of RL numbers. This should have been shot down immediately due to that fact alone. Your RP numbers are based off of IG numbers, not any RL numbers. Period. The fact that you would even consider otherwise makes me severely question your abilities and qualifications to be a GM.

Rules, knowing them is a very good thing. Do it.
[/quote]

As you could have seen if you actually started to read was that there is a pretty strong lobby to make the rules in this area more loose. Nowehere did cochin say that she would be allowed those numbers, he only stated that she should submit them so they will be toned down to reasonable levels taking into account her in-game status. Save your rant until a ruling has been made.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1295890770' post='2596785']
As you could have seen if you actually started to read was that there is a pretty strong lobby to make the rules in this area more loose. Nowehere did cochin say that she would be allowed those numbers, he only stated that she should submit them so they will be toned down to reasonable levels taking into account her in-game status. Save your rant until a ruling has been made.
[/quote]

Actually, I have read it all. I've read every single post in this thread. And for the most part, I don't have a problem with what is being suggested. Do I think it is unnecessary? Yes. Do I think it will lead to more "lolblitzing"? Yes. Do I think those suggestions concerning basing APC/IFV/atry units off of IG numbers are unreasonable? No. Now, on the flip side, which you would have actually picked up if you had read what I just said, is that her suggestion for her "special rule" is coming from basing her numbers off of [b]RL[/b] numbers. I'll say this next part slowly so you can understand.

CNRP does not use RL numbers. Never has, never will. Because if it does, it is not CNRP. Regardless of what her numbers are, her most recent suggestion should not even be considered. Her most recent suggestion would base her numbers on RL factors, not IG factors. No matter how reasonable or unreasonable her numbers are, this should be tossed out. Period. All our numbers should be based off our IG nations, not anything having to do with the RL area of the world we inhabit on the map.

Was that simple enough for you? Because if this continues, I will go to the moderators to have this monstrosity of game management stopped, because it is obvious the two of you are blind to even the most basic tenants of CNRP.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295890452' post='2596777']
Before you fall off that high horse of yours, maybe you should take your own advice. I don't need to see the numbers because I already know how absurd they are. I already know how absurd her suggestion is. She wants to take the CN out of CNRP and base her stuff of RL numbers. This should have been shot down immediately due to that fact alone. Your RP numbers are based off of IG numbers, not any RL numbers. Period. [b]The fact that you would even consider otherwise makes me severely question your abilities and qualifications to be a GM.
[/b]
Rules, knowing them is a very good thing. Do it.
[/quote]

Congrats, Cochin, and welcome to the GM team.



With the AFV rule proposed earlier, all absurdities are gone. Again I ask all of you that oppose the IG, 'CN into CNRP' tank multiplier on the basis of 'stifled' creativity - what creative, innovative RPs are we hindering with this regulation?

[Centurius]

Well like proposed earlier I think the status quo is the best, the armed APCs/IFVs/Self-propelled artillery/etc. is limited. The APCs just armored but without any kind of offensive capabilities apart from troop transports, fixed artillery, etc. are left in the air. We've had this system forever and it worked well.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295870958' post='2596419']
1 Russian Siberian Military District, and 1 Russian Far Eastern Military District worth of ground equipment (except tanks)in the future, when my territory extends to the approximate lands.
[/quote]
I was under the impression that Zargathia and Rebel Army were in control of those lands. What makes you so sure you'll get them?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1295890452' post='2596777']
Before you fall off that high horse of yours, maybe you should take your own advice. I don't need to see the numbers because I already know how absurd they are. I already know how absurd her suggestion is. She wants to take the CN out of CNRP and base her stuff of RL numbers. This should have been shot down immediately due to that fact alone. Your RP numbers are based off of IG numbers, not any RL numbers. Period. The fact that you would even consider otherwise makes me severely question your abilities and qualifications to be a GM.

Rules, knowing them is a very good thing. Do it.
[/quote]

A lot of CNRP players try to get their numbers from various RL corollaries then find that they do actually have to conform to the CNRP regulations. What does it matter where Kankou claims her numbers from! KaiserMelech could claim to have the armed forces of USSR, but does that mean we would permit it? GMs are here for moderation, in case you did not know. I assume my job here to see that players in CNRP are assisted in their roleplaying with special regards to their conformity to existing CNRP rules and regulations.

I just dont care where anybody pulls their numbers from. What I do care is that whatever numbers they claim, it conforms to the community accepted standards. If they claim higher than the community accepted numbers, then we, GMs, will ensure that those numbers would be struck down.

The reason why I asked Kankou to submit her numbers was precisely for this, to give her the benefit of doubt. To give her a chance to submit a proper set of numbers. If you think being impartial in that way is undue of a GM, please go ahead and express your almighty indignations and campaign to remove me from the post of GM.

Again, please read and think, not just from your perspective but from a second person as well as a third person perspective. Jumping the gun could be injurious to sensibility.

[Michael McBride]

You're still not getting it, and that is the saddest thing. Your numbers for your nation CANNOT come from anywhere else except being DIRECTLY corrolated to your IG numbers. No one here uses RL numbers to base their CNRP numbers off of. Even allowing the flirtration with such a suggestion creates a dangerous precident and a long, slippery slope that will take this game somewhere that completely goes against teh rules it was founded on.

Secondly, I'm tossing this suggestion out there given current events beyond our borders. With the global war now looking like it will impact just about everyone, I'm proposing a freeze on CNRP stats until the war is over. I know we tossed out stat saving a while ago, and I'm not proposing we go back to it. What I'm proposing is people's stats are frozen as they are now, so that it is easier for people to play CNRP during the war. Not having to adjust your stats every day and figure out what you have and don't have will make it easier for people heavilly involved in the war to continue to keep this community active as well. Once the war is over, people would have to RP why their nations are different, but to worry about that during the war itself may put undue stress on people and lead to a rash of locked nations (as we are already seeing), which would stagnate the community and make it less fun for those not in the war.