jerdge
-
Posts
5,860 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jerdge
-
-
Congratulations, awesome treaty. I hope that other stuff will follow.
-
I already do all those things (and I was even faster in proposing a similar agreement...
)Consider me signed.
-
I don't think you'll get a lot of signatures to this, since it might go directly against alliance loyalties.
That said, since Grämlins doesn't practice EZI, and since I would be out of range anyway, I'll sign
We two are "lucky", as our Alliances don't practice EZI. Anyway, if one would like to sign this agreement but can't because of "alliance loyalty", it might be the case to think of working to change the alliance (or just of changing alliance).
-
I have been asked to add a signature, and I gladly accomplish: Emperor Fu also signed this.
-
I Object.
-
[ooc] (I address possible Moderation issues at the bottom of this post.) [/ooc]
____________________
This is proposed to Nation Rulers only. Alliances are welcome to recommend this Objection to their members, but - given the nature of the objection - they can not Object themselves.
Noting the recent controversies regarding the prosecution of new Cyber Nations;Dissenting that erratic means like clairvoyance, mediumship, telepathy, astrology and other paranormal methods of investigation[1] can provide justification to the waging of war against a new Cyber Nation;
Believing that religious beliefs and superstitions about reincarnation shouldn't be allowed to dictate foreign policies;
Mantaining that other Nation Rulers they have been enemies with can anyway be fought again with full legitimacy, should they rise to power in a new Nation.
The undersigned Nations, henceforth referred to as "the undersigned", do hereby pledge to this Objection:
The EZI Conscientious Objection
I. The undersigned agree to not participate in the practice of Eternal ZI, defined as the act of maintaining a ZI sentence beyond the disappearance of a Nation Ruler at the expenses of a new Cyber Nation (led by a fresh leader).
II. The undersigned recognize all the recently founded Cyber Nations as "New" - meaning that they're led by a fresh leader - unless their Ruler displays the same identity of a known one, or that Nation is an evident reissue of a previous one, or their Ruler qualifies him or herself as having led other Nations in the past. No documentation of paranormal origin[1] will be held valid to link new Nations to defunct characters.
III. The undersigned can't in good conscience surrender their personal freedom and become a tool for oppression. The undersigned therefore take the commitment to object to Alliance orders that may put them in conflict with the present Objection, to the point of disobeying direct Alliance orders if and as necessary.
Notes:
[1] IP matches, writing styles and any other RL-only reference - including the OOC use of RL personal names and OOC "confessions" - are considered "paranormal evidence" by the undersigned of this document; as such they won't be accepted as valid evidence against any Nation.
If you agree with this Objection, please post it in this thread. Thanks for reading.
[ooc] This Objection isn't designed to cover all the possible situations that may arise. The spirit is of not participating in the persecution of players, allowing everybody to come back with a new character, if so they wish. The undersigned will be expected to not look for loopholes to avoid doing what they are signing into...[/ooc]
____________________
[ooc]
This is addressed to Nations, and is therefore not a "duplicate" of the ZIPP, that is a Pact reserved to Alliances (anyway, even if I wanted to propose a new ZIPP-like pact - because I don't like the ZIPP or for whatever reason - I don't see what Moderation could have to do with that... But I digress.)
This is not a "repeat topic" of The E-ZI Petition, that was an OOC petition to Admin.
In fact, this is (more or less, IMO) the "player base" side of what Admin may have had in mind when he wrote that «The best way to go about getting this done is to petition the player base and alliances themselves to charter and uphold policies against E-ZI.»
[/ooc]
-
This situation is akin to IRON eating a banana, except they call it an apple.
No, the situation is akin to me asking "are you eating one of these?"
They say "yes", and then you claim they're eating bananas.
Anyway, I'm off this madness...
-
That's hardly a world class clarification though, is it? If he said IRON doesn't pursue accross re-rolls, that is clearer. All we can gather from his statement is that IRON doesn't have EZI... which we knew already. What we don't know is whether their definition of PZI includes chasing accross re-rolls (and is therefore EZI in all but name).
If I ask you "Is your ZI of thenextguy Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)", and you answer "We don't have E-ZI", what do you think you're meaning?
Besides, this discussion has become inappropriate enough as - of all people - I am certainly not qualified to explain IRON's policies. I mentioned what FinsterBaby told me just to explain that (IMHO) IRON isn't preventing JB from playing the game as it's meant to - and thus IRON is innocent of that charge placed against it.
That said, if you want a fully authored explanation of IRON's policies, please ask them.
-
Indeed, even the NPO's enforced term really just adds a simple extra wrinkle. The fact is, someone always slips up, and when that time comes we'll be watching very closely.
I'd be quiet about your nuclear legislation, if I were in you guys of the Kingdom.
This is all.
(Excuse me if I post this in public: it's in the hope of helping your alliance mates also.)
-
Did you question his definition of PZI?
I already said that:
I was asking to FB whether the lists including JB were «Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)», and FB said that IRON doesn't have E-ZI. -
just wanted you to note when JB talked to iamthey. Apparently to IRON PZI=EZI. so yes, they do in fact have an EZI list, they just don't have the balls to call it that.
This is not what FinsterBaby told me less than a week ago (and mind you: we were talking of Jonathan Brookbank). I'd consider rude to post here our conversation without his consent, but - considering that this forum is OOC and we're talking of the very serious issue of possible OOC offences - I will go so far as to say that I was asking to FB whether the lists including JB were «Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)», and FB said that IRON doesn't have E-ZI. I don't think we could be mistaken about what those words mean.
On the other hand, I can't comment on JB's log with Iamthey's words, as I didn't personally witness that conversation. Many explanations are possible, from FB using the wrong choice of words while talking with me, to Iamthey doing the same or just being incorrect, to IRON having changed its policy in the meanwhile, or even IRON not having a clear policy about their lists, etc.
I would dismiss as impossible the "I was drunk" explanation (my IRC logs aren't influenced by my alcoholemic level) and I also find the "IRON's doublespeak" explanation even less credible.
-
Good policy as long as you have a good Emperor (that you currently have).
Removing the ban you had on nuclear first strikes was sad but necessary.
[Edit:Freudian slip!]
-
JB if he had a nation is certainly free to join an alliance. It's just given his status alliances are equally free to not accept him. And as I understand it, JB would be free to join the New Sith Order even with his EZI status.
No:
We're actually not accepting applications from nations on ZI anymore. It turned out to be more trouble than it was worth, unfortunately. Not with the nations on ZI, but with the people who were hunting them.About the OP, I agree with his sentiments about IRON. I was recently told by FinsterBaby that IRON has no EZI list, thus I don't see how IRON can be held responsible for keeping Jonathan from playing CN.
I can understand that Jonathan wants to keep his name and play CN (I would feel the same in his shoes), but he could also play CN with another name and a new identity (and a new behaviour, of course), without being hunted by those that don't have and don't support EZI lists.
Almost everybody here is not playing with his/her real name[1]: JB can certainly do the same[2] (or at least, it's not IRON that is blocking him from doing that).
Anyway, not using one's real name on the Internet - especially the name+surname combo - is always a good rule of thumb.
I am against PZI also, by the way, but anyway I think that the claim that Jonathan should be able to keep his character and play "without restrictions" is very naive. It equals to claiming that everybody should be free to play without any in-game consequence for his IC actions... A silly concept that I couldn't seriously support.
Notes:
[1] You don't think that my real name is "jerdge", do you?...
[2] I understand that he was banned on CN:SE, but as it was just for not having a Nation I'd imagine that he can come back.
-
Nice graphics.
Chaos is when you don't have treaties (= forms of legality), thus the basic concept is completely flawed. Nice graphics, anyway!
-
Are we going to take bets on whether or not Ironchef or any GGA members will post in this thread again after having such double standards exposed.
How do they still have treaties? How do they still have members? Or will this bring the change where 1V and others now condone spying as legitimate.
I'd guess that honest allies of the GGA are talking to them trying to help them out with this PR debacle. At least, this is what I'd be doing if I was allied with them.
-
Interesting, and congratulations.
(lol @ Orfn, I like his last title.)
-
MHA and Grämlins, which are one alliance in all but name
Off topic, but ... what? We are close but we are not even as close as GGA and NPO claimed to be before this thread exposed their puppet state.
Wait, aren't we your puppets?...
Seriously, I think that the main difference is that our government wouldn't kick out a Triumvir that proposed to move away from The Grämlins: we can appreciate ridiculous jokes, especially after the second Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster...
-
I put together the slideshow, dude.
You guys didn't deny any of the evidence we presented (again, Jerdge logs excluded, but that wasn't in the original CB) - you denied our reasoning and interpretation, but not the SSs presented.
IIRC you're right. Anyway, the key points you were wrong on were the reasoning and interpretation...
The LoFN wasn't a "secret" organization, at least in the sense that it didn't use any covert identity; it was only very quiet about its existence, and it was jealously keeping its secrets. The LoFN didn't intend to hunt raiders, but only to provide assistance to those that were attacked: it was defensive only (often not even military involved).
And of course, AHEAD wasn't a signatory, as we now all agree ("now"...
) -
Yes, it's off-topic, WC.
However, I believe that an anticipatory defence against a manifest, proved, inevitable and imminent threat is ammissible as a reason to enact a "simple" MDP. (In general, one doesn't need to be already bleeding to defend against an attack: the threat is an acceptable reason to act.)
I wouldn't further hijack the discussion, anyway: if you're interested in this please send me a PM (or start another thread, and link it to me).
-
This TOP's decision is extremely fitting. Good luck in minimizing your losses in this war.
-
Not everyone demanded outrageous reps last summer.
I'm sure MHA could send theirs back without much trouble, for example. Heh. (Probably so could we.)
We couldn't send back what was not given in the first place!
As for the MHA partecipation and stance on that war, I'd like to unofficially point out that the MHA simply enacted a pre-emptive defence of a MDP treaty partner of us, the NPO.
We certainly didn't like some comments on some of our best friends, comments that had been coming from what later was "the other side" in that war ("dancing on Grämlins' graves", anyone?). Anyway, we had no special disliking for our targets (Genesis and Nueva Vida), and with our attack we weren't implicitly supporting the validity of the CB against Hyperion/Polaris/BLEU/etc.
Nor we ever criticized it, on the other hand, as it certainly didn't involve us and it isn't our business to police Planet Avril (even if we had that foolish ambition, which we don't).
Why am I talking in an unofficial manner, anyway? I wasn't in the MHA government at the time and I am certainly not entitled to explain the MHA foreign policy of the past (or of the present, but that's only because I'm drunk all the time). Take this as my clue on that whole affair.
My personal, irrelevant, poorly informed (I was on vacancy at the outbreak of the war) and not interesting opinion is that that CB was horribly weak, but also that the main target of the whole operation - Polaris - was eventually greatly improved by the war and is now a much more awesome alliance than it was.
I quite disliked some Polar moves of the past, I had started liking them much more before the war, and I truly love them now. I wouldn't continue to look at the past just to hold grudges (learning something from it would obviously be great, anyway) and I suggest everybody to work to build new relationships, instead of grumbling on old facts.
Also,
Haflinger. -
This is clearly a conspiracy to overshadow «This Week in Everwhere»: the GGA was in horror for all the attention the STA's Trade Rings problems were attracting, and thus...
-
First, it was interesting that Moo was reading this just before you made this post above.
Second, I identified #2, #3 and #4 and probably #1. Your friend NS is probably between 1503.632 and 1564.383, am I right?
Third, would you say that #1 focus is on balance of freedom and development?
Fourth, hello again.
-
I would need a bit more info on #1, if you please, Gerald Meane.
)
Haflinger.
My Resignation
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
The original topic isn't about what Degen made: this discussion is about ALdbeign having left the GGA.
The only correct explanation of this thread has been posted by Tygaland three days ago and I'm quite surprised that everybody completely missed it:
Of course, talking here of Degen's actions isn't completely off-topic, nor it is definitely inappropriate (the building shouldn't be infested by other GGA-threads, that's for sure). I anyway really think that we shouldn't bring other confusion to the present discussion, that is quite pointless and bizarre by itself...
The GGA-ers seem to have deserted these halls for the time being, and they probably wouldn't anyway publicly handle such a potentially embarassing point. Why bother about that issue?