Zebulon
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Zebulon
-
-
Global Kids Running the Block for the win.
Happy Birthday
-Z
-
I wish you the best of luck on your new enterprise.
The ruling Junta of Cimbria wishes me to convey their confusion at this announcement.
Is the high-priest about to change into something? Is there some arcane meaning behind the seemingly random capitalization of words?
-Z
-
So, perhaps the ODN will look into this Republic of British Minute Men then.
Edit: Also, are the RoBMM protected by Invicta or just "friends"?
-Z
-
I have no idea who Jeff is, unless this is some sort of obscure Izzard reference.
Jerdge, I suggest drafting a declaration of principles, (yours will look quite different from the one I was kicking around, and probably won't contain standards for IC behavior as well as OOC, except for insisting on a strict separation of the two) and inviting people to sign. I, for one, would probably sign. You might want to canvass prominent community figures for support and suggestions, because they have great potential to lead by example.
You should probably also run it by the mod team, since I suspect that signatories will want to report violations of the principle of keeping IC and OOC separate in the OWF, and it's important that the document reflect the vision the Mods and Admin have for what is appropriate and give good guidelines for what to report and when.
I know that there are vast swaths of the community that actually do know how to behave properly, I've met them and played with them and enjoyed it, even if we weren't always on the same side IC. Another potential avenue is to encourage them to invade the OWF and take it back -- increasing the signal to noise ratio. It might make sense to periodically remind and invite people who have signed the convention to come and participate. You should probably encourage people to sig a link to the declaration or make a symbol for it, so that signatories can recognize each other and encourage each other to do the right thing (or privately and politely remind each other to do so).
Outside of that, I suppose it comes down to "being all you can be" -- whether anyone else comes with you or not.
-Z
-
About people that are "malicious" both IC and OOC, I don't see how they exist, from one point of view, and I don't see why they should be dealt with an "unique policy", from another point of view.
The first argument is that, actually, "IC malice" is not an issue: it's not real malice. As CN is completely "fictional", we all "pretend" that our data/pixels are Nations, people, soldiers, ect. Imaginary malice doesn't require an organized effort to drive people from the game! just like OOC (serious and troublesome) issues do't need to enter the game, IC issues don't need to exit it, they don't need to affect anybody's ability to play CN (this ability being in the Real Life realm.)
But IC maliciousness does exist Jerdge -- you yourself spoke up for "the villain"
For example, the Nuke Rogue is IC malicious, role-playing a dangerous scourge to the IC international community by mounting unprovoked nuclear attacks. It stands to reason that those attacked or threatened by a Nuke Rogue will IC oppose him with IC attacks on his nation. No one should be surprised if their nation ends up on a ZI list or a PZI list for firing random nukes at members of an alliance. The intent in this case is not to drive the player from the game, but to turn the imprudent (impudent?) ruler's nation into a pile of pixelated rubble.
I suppose you could role-play a ruler who would not forcefully respond to an unprovoked nuclear attack -- that's fine, but I'm not playing one.
If someone is IC malicious, and OOC malicious, (say for the sake of example, nukes my alliance's members and DDoS'es CN Forums) I see no reason not to both report him to the appropriate mods/chanops/admins/police and attack his nation. At the same time, I agree with your assertion that making the accusation that he DDoS'ed CN Forums IC on OWF is inappropriate -- the only IC topics are his nuclear attacks.
Like I said Jerdge, I truly believe we're on the same page, but perhaps express it differently. My "special policy" isn't a special policy at all. It's merely a clarification that I will not withhold IC retaliation for IC attacks because someone has additionally made an OOC attack -- which was the circumstance that was on my mind at the time. Maybe it should just say that.
-Z
-
In short (I am always busy during the weekends), and without checking your queston again, "nothing".
OOC actions call for responses that are strictly OOC (this is one of the points of the OP, though not the most important).
Sorry you're busy, I didn't mean to put too fine a point on it -- RL is more important.
I believe you and I are in agreement Jerdge, I'm not talking about people who are only malicious OOC -- they're why moderators, chanops, admins, and police exist. I'm asking about people who are malicious IC and OOC -- do they not merit a response both IC and OOC? I assert that they do.
-Z
-
Agreed, I only had one instance in my entire existence playing this game, that would be on my previous nation, which had the same name, where I actually went out of my way making sure someone didn't play the game, Xiao Weng, Shamed Monkey and some of the older members of The USN will remember this clown, he went by the name of Dark_lunatic_K and believe you me, I did CN a favor keeping this nut case out here.
Yet another example of combined IC and OOC retaliation that is effective against an individual and ruler who is malicious both in and out of character.
Jerdge, you dodged my direct question -- if it had been up to you, what would you have done?
-Z
*edited for capitalization in the middle of the sentence*
-
Good Luck to you Archon, you and all the other Mushrooms always made me feel welcome in my embassy. Yours are big shoes to fill, and I hope everything goes smoothly for you all.
-Z
-
This thread isn't about any of the simulation aspects of the game. In fact, the game in itself has very little to do with the topic I posted about.
True, and I apologize for continually bringing the conversation around that point.
So, outside of your suggestion to "be all that we can be," what about people who are really malicious IC and OOC? Do you really find it objectionable to pursue them to remove them from the game and the community if the appropriate chanop/mod/admin can't/doesn't/won't do anything about them? Would you really have let some of the storied outrages of old continue unchecked? Why?
-Z
-
lol morals in a game that lets you simulate nuclear war against civilians.
Would you lol at morals in real life where nuclear war has been waged against civilians?
You raise a fair point though -- it's ridiculous that as a ruler in CN you can order your citizens to fight to the last man or to kill every last enemy citizen without any consequence. Wars would be waged differently if they could not always be total.
The longer this thread goes the more things I remember that I dislike about the structure of CN -- no offense Admin, I've had a good time.
-Z
-
There is no IC/OOC line as long as some "nations" and "rulers" use IP addresses to hunt down others. The illusion fades when rerolls are punished, when wars are launched for something that happens in a forum or on IRC, etc., etc.
But let's face it, your CN nation is not exactly an easy thing to roleplay correctly, is it?
I suspect that the reason many "nations" and "rulers" have resorted to using IP addresses to identify players is because they believe that some fraction of players are malicious OOC as well as IC. Frankly, from the things I've seen in my time here, I would have to agree. If you have another solution to keeping malicious individuals out of the game, I'm all ears.
-Z
-
Overall it's a nice work: congratulations.
Unfortunately it blurs "the line between in-character and out-of-character relationships"
<snip>
I believe that IC action is completely ineffective against significant OOC abuses, and it can instead be easily manipulated.
Playing the villain is a nice thing (we need villains, don't we?)
I agree with you that it intentionally blurs the line between in-character and out-of-character relationships, but I submit that it does so in the only possible positive way -- signatories commit themselves to honest and respectful behavior both in-character and out-of-character, and refuse to abuse the game, fellow players, and fellow characters in any situation. I can't possibly see how this blurring of the line between IC and OOC could be unacceptable to anyone. Those who are malicious, and those who like to pretend to be malicious, need not apply.
I disagree that IC action is ineffective against OOC abuses. LUE and /b/ are gone and are not coming back. Admin and moderators played their role in this, to be sure, but I submit that the rest of us here have something to do with that too. For a "long" time, we haven't had behavior like anything they used to orchestrate because the community as a whole rejects it and enforces this rejection with both an OOC and IC response. I have no problem with pruning those who are malicious both IC and OOC from the CN community by action in both places.
I didn't mean that signatories should go beat up other players that attack their nation. I didn't mean signatories should declare war in-game because someone supports <insert your favorite evil here> in a debate in the boiler room. I didn't mean that signatories declare war in-game because someone stole their girlfriend, pickup truck, or dog in real life. As a ruler signatories will defend their nation in-game using the war system. In the boiler room, signatories will write a well reasoned response or use the ignore function. In real life, signatories will feel sorry for themselves and write a country-western song.
I did mean that signatories do not tolerate the excuse that Alliance Forums or IRC channels are OOG/OOC and therefore malicious behavior in those places (hacking, impersonation, harassment, and the like) can't be held against the IG/IC Ruler and Nation if the behavior cannot be curbed in any other way (appealing to operators, mods, admins, police, etc.).
We will always have villains -- I do not flatter myself that the truly malicious are frightened by any walls of text I happen to create. Signatories of the convention merely refuse to be a malicious. I submit that even if you apply the categorical imperative here -- "what if everyone signed and tried to be good?" -- there would still be interesting international politics in CN. You don't have to be malicious to be a villain to someone else, it is sufficient to have opposing IC interests.
This brings me to another problem with CN and most MMOGs in general -- resources are not limited . There is always more land, tech, and infra, and I've never run out of furs or lumber. These things can never become a source of legitimate IC conflict as they do in the real world. The only limited resource in this game is the number of senate seats and sanctioned alliance spots. Shockingly enough, thats where most of the IC conflict comes from.
If you want better IC politics, we need better IC sources of conflict. What would happen if FAN's joke(?) post came true and Pacifican citizens were starving due to crop failures caused by nuclear attacks and lack of wheat. Would allies part with scarce resources to help them? Would they invade other nations and take the wheat they need? That's a simulator of real-word politics.
Again I find myself veering into suggestion box territory. I have more to say about alliances and I feel I didn't express myself very well there. I'll stop, and if you want to talk about alliances we can start a new thread or continue by PM.
-Z
-
This is one of these situations where you have to be the change you want to have happen. If you want OWF to be a safe place for people to play, you have to do your part to keep it that way. I remember feeling pretty disgusted with things last year around this time and drafting a declaration that codified my thought on the topic.
I present it here for the general interest:
The Falloran Convention on Civility and Respect in GamingThe Declaration of Civility
I. Preamble
In order to create an atmosphere of civility and respect for the benefit of all individuals and alliances, we, the undersigned, pledge to uphold the values of this declaration and obey a code of conduct above and beyond that which is merely required of us, in the hope that, we will improve not only ourselves, but also the world around us.
II. Applicability
This code of conduct set forth in this declaration governs the behavior of all signatories, at all times, in all places. It requires a solemn commitment that demands restraint, courage, wisdom, and fairness from all who undertake the path it prescribes. It requires a commitment above and beyond our commitments to our nations and our alliances, but all signatories believe that, ultimately, acting in accord with the principles of this declaration will be beneficial to both.
III. Declaration of Principles
A. The Cybernations Code of Conduct and the Cybernations Forum Rules
Recognizing that both the Cybernations Code of Conduct and the Cybernations Forum Rules are not merely compatible with the principles of this declaration, but that they form the very foundation of this declaration, the signatories of this declaration pledge that, at all times, and in all places, they will uphold both the Cybernations Code of Conduct and the Cybernations forum rules in both word and deed.
B. The Declaration of Civility Code of Conduct
Recognizing that the reach of the Cybernations Code of Conduct and the Cybernations Forum Rules are limited to the Game and Forums of Cybernations, and cannot not extend beyond those locations, that truly good behavior must come from within and cannot be imposed from without, the signatories announce their unilateral intention to adhere to an additional code of conduct, outlined below.
We believe that all persons are to be treated with respect, at all places, and at all times. To this end, the signatories of this declaration pledge to abstain from:
1. Trolling, flaming, flame-baiting, spamming, insulting, harassing, or taunting any individual or alliance.
2. Impersonating any other individual by imitating their screen name, forum name, handle, or nick.
3. Posting, linking, directing, or misdirecting others to inappropriate and illegal material (e.g. pornography, cracked software, etc).
4. Obscene, profane, disgusting, and sexually explicit language.
5. Cross-play, Meta-gaming, Hacking, and other acts which blur the line between in-character and out-of-character relationships.
We believe that these values are beneficial to the whole of the Cybernations community. Therefore, the signatories of this declaration further pledge to:
1. Treat all others with respect and dignity, in all times and in all places.
2. Build up our community through kindness, patience, gentleness, and good humor.
3. Conduct arguments and debates calmly, dispassionately, and respectfully.
4. Be mindful of these values whenever we find ourselves confronted with behavior that is against our code, and never respond to bad behavior in kind.
5. Privately remind other signatories of their pledge and place them in mind of the code when we see them fail to uphold it.
6. Uphold this code in the decisions we make while in positions of authority, be it as a forum moderator, an IRC channel operator, or an alliance leader.
We believe that, no matter how sincere our efforts, we will often fall short of our goals in upholding this code. When we find ourselves in the wrong, the signatories of this declaration pledge to:
1. Immediately desist and consider our actions.
2. Resist the temptation to justify our failings with force.
3. Humble ourselves, and both privately and publicly apologize to the offended party.
4. Attempt to make amends for what we have done.
C. Protocol for Conflict Resolution
Recognizing that there will always be those who do not agree with our values, it is necessary to outline our approach in dealing with behavior that we deem unacceptable. Therefore the signatories of this declaration are resolved to:
1. First, privately and respectfully ask the offending party to desist.
2. Second, should the offending party fail to desist, privately appeal to the appropriate forum moderator, IRC channel operator, or Alliance Leader to intercede to resolve the situation.
3. Third, should the offending party fail to desist, respond as necessary and appropriate to discourage the offending party from further offensive behavior.
We recognize that some behavior prohibited by this code may be viewed as grounds for a declaration of war, and that the declaration of war to resolve conflicts should be viewed as the last resort in a panoply of possible responses, but that war is indeed a possible outcome. This declaration shall not be construed to limit the sovereignty of nations and alliances. Those who would poison our community with offensive and disgusting behavior should beware; we will fight to protect our values, our friends, and ourselves.
IV. Specific Understandings
A. On In-Character and Out-of-Character Relationships
We recognize that some make a distinction between appropriate behavior in-character and out-of-character; the signatories of this declaration do not. We commit ourselves to hold up the same values both in-character and out-of-character, in public, in game, in private, and out of game. Some people may want to choose the in-game persona of a nefarious, rude, or obscene character; we both reject these personae and the notion that they can be assumed without consequence. Freedom cannot be conflated with licentiousness. We dedicate ourselves to oppose licentiousness in order to preserve our freedom.
B. On War
We recognize that war has been, and will always be, a part of Cybernations. We also believe that while diplomacy is preferable, war is sometimes necessary, and we recognize that signatories of this declaration may find themselves on opposing sides of a conflict due to honest disagreement or binding treaty commitments. This declaration shall not be construed to limit the sovereignty of nations and alliances to conduct war or espionage as is necessary for the security of signatory nations. However, we believe it is possible to conduct war with respect and honor, and we commit ourselves to prosecuting our wars with gallantry and chivalry.
C. On Alliances
We recognize that there have been, and will continue to be, alliances that will find themselves opposed to this declaration and its values. We recognize that some other alliances have these values at their core. This declaration shall not be construed to limit the sovereignty of nations to join whatever alliance they see fit. It is not the purpose of this declaration to make specific recommendations as to which alliances signatories should or should not join. Some alliances may decide to require their members to become signatories to this declaration; some alliances may decide to forbid their members to sign it. We trust that all signatories will have the integrity to not join and not remain in alliances that are fundamentally opposed to their own values, but instead to seek out those alliances whose values match their own.
D. On Enforceability
We recognize that the demands this declaration places upon its signatories cannot ever be fully enforced by anyone. The Administrator and Moderators enforce the Cybernations Code of Conduct and the Cybernations Forum Rules within Cybernations and on the Forums, an often thankless task for which we would like to express our appreciation. This declaration is not about merely following these rules, but is about going beyond the rules, to be better than the rules require, not only when and where the Administrator and Moderators are watching, but also when and where they are not. We voluntarily make a commitment to civility and respect in order to build a community of trust.
E. On Common Sense
We recognize that many will regard the principles set forth in this declaration as common sense and our pledge as unnecessary. We believe that history has shown that it is self-evident that these principles, no matter how sensible, are not common. We strongly encourage those who agree with the principle of this declaration to sign it, but deeply respect all who follow its principles, acting with civility and respect towards all, even if they never add their signature.
V. Amendments
This declaration is once and for all time. It cannot be amended; its wording will not change. Signatories are free to draft and sign further declarations with higher standards, but this will always be our minimum standard.
Drafted on the 17th of October 2007
Revised on the 22nd of October 2007
Signed,
Zebulon of Cimbria
I strongly suspect that alliances are actually the problem with CN. Actually playing CN is not much like the way it's described when you sign up. Most players never get the opportunity to engage in real diplomacy with other nations because the alliance is really the basic political unit. You can choose to go it alone, and be at the mercy of tech-raiding alliances, or you can join up and be a foot-soldier for some alliance for months before anyone notices you. I can understand that most people would find these options underwhelming in terms of net fun. If everyone were in the same boat -- no protection or threat from alliances, I strongly suspect that the game would entail much greater interaction between players, and possibly be more fun.
I'd actually propose eliminating alliances from CN, and making the search functions more sophisticated so that any individual player could perform the analyses that large alliances can perform by making their own database mirror by using their minions to copy the information off of tens of thousands of nation pages. I'd also propose that a reputation statistic be added (like feedback on E-Bay) in order to rate nations that you have direct contact with -- your trades, aid, and wars -- in order to help lone nations avoid flakes/thieves/griefers.
I'll stop now before I derail the thread with not one but two outlandish notions.
-Z
-
Chalk up one more name to the "Do not trust list."
Welcome aboard, James Wilson
Why would you trust a Cylon?
Frakking toasters.
Go Get 'im VE!
-Z
-
Good luck to SPQR in their new home, I promise I'll come visit Alpha Orionis!
May your Hunt be Bountiful AOri.
-Z
-
I seem to recall that the Trojans weren't *actually* Greek, and they only had one King, but (*puts away "Classics Police" badge*) best of luck to you, and do send us a diplomat when you get the chance.
-Z
-
Congratulations! Why don't you all come have an exclusive after-party over in your Embassy on the GGA Boards?
B)
-Z
-
Oh congratulations! I'll have to conjure up some extra-special anniversary cookies to bring to the GGA embassy.
Happy 1 Year!
-Z
-
Congratulations to MXCA! They have been stalwart allies for a long time, its good to recognize that we've been seeing eye to eye all this time. Besides, I was having trouble seeing with only 3/4 Vision.
-Z
-
o/ JC!
Welcome to the Jungle!
You may not have heard, but on green we have fun AND games.
-Z
-
o/ GGA!
o/ PC! (did I just do that?)
-Z
-
o/ GGA!
Green, the once and future sphere of win!
-Z
-
o/ Viridia!
o/ GGA!
Welcome back to a united green!
-Z
-
o/ The Grand Global Alliance!
o/ The Viridian Entente!
o/ The Democratic Republic of Argonaut!
o/ The Grämlins!
o/ The United Jungle Accords!
o/ Green Unity!
Welcome to the Jungle Baby!
Congratulations to all of those who worked so hard to make this a reality!
-Z
This Week in Pacifica
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
This only serves to cement my long-standing suspicion that Vox Populi is simply an NPO front designed to smoke out opposition to their supremely enlightened rule.
o/ Pacifica!
-Z