Jump to content
jerdge

Superimposed IC

OOC Terms  

119 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=102471"]R&R-UINE first term of peace[/url] reads:
[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1307504147' post='2726582']1. The immediate expulsion of keve69 from government, a declaration on the OWF with the new government and a statement he is no longer in charge of UINE. Keve may return to government after the remaining terms are completed, Keve69 (or his altenative name should he ever decide to reroll) is no longer allowed to be the sole leader of UINE.[/quote]

I just now noticed that the extension of the anti-Keve69 term to his possible re-rolls constitutes an IC measure aimed at influencing OOC matters, namely at limiting the player's (not just the character's) degrees of freedom.

I think that most of us would accept the notion that, in [i]some[/i] cases, anti-player IC terms may make sense; for example, it would IMHO be defensible to OOC sanction a known donation scammer with some IC measure (for lack of better penalties, I suppose).

(As far as I understand the issue) in Keve69's case, instead, the OOC term derives from purely IC events - delay in paying reparations and whatnot. I would imagine that these kind of terms are in these cases widely frown upon - [i]in principle[/i] - but I'd be interested to actually read different opinions from across the community.

Just for the sake of lame statistics I created a simple poll on the subject, without any pretension of exhausting the entire discussion with it. It is public to make it easier to go look for posts by people that choose «Other (please explain)», and as I don't expect people to be scared to share their opinion on this subject, anyway.

Posts more articulated than just a vote are of course welcome; please remember to keep them nice as this thread is OOC too, after all.

Edited by jerdge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least least Keve can still hold a government spot in the alliance. Caffine was banned permanently from gov after the Karma war due to terms.

And no it limits his freedom to enjoy the game so I see it as a OOC term.

Edited by kevin32891

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally a fan of games where you're allowed to play a villain IC and then reroll and play a nice guy (or vice versa, as many choose to do). Someone who is incompetent IC may be competent OOC, and may actually be a lot better on a reroll. Often not the case with CN, though.

Basically, I don't like OOC terms, and would rather see them done away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am usually against any type of OOC terms but in this case I can see the justification. Not putting that term in would allow UINE an OOC loophole to get Keve69 back in power which in my opinon is an underhanded tactic that should be prevented.

If Keve69 were to reroll without telling anyone and earn his way back into a sole leadership position without leveraging his old identity then I do not believe he or his alliance should be persecuted for a term violation but if he were to leverage his Keve69 identity to get a new character into leadership then I do believe it would be ok to view it a s a term violation.

(voted other)

Edited by King Srqt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not limiting. Keve can be gov if he wants, he's just gonna get rolled and admin doesnt stop people from going to war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307634413' post='2727905']Might makes right...[/quote]
In-game might doesn't make right [i]here in this forum[/i].


[quote name='King Srqt' timestamp='1307634995' post='2727914']I am usually against any type of OOC terms but in this case I can see the justification. Not putting that term in would allow UINE an OOC loophole to get Keve69 back in power which in my opinon is an underhanded tactic that should be prevented.

If Keve69 were to reroll without telling anyone and earn his way back into a sole leadership position without leveraging his old identity then I do not believe he or his alliance should be persecuted for a term violation but if he were to leverage his Keve69 identity to get a new character into leadership then I do believe it would be ok to view it a s a term violation.

(voted other)[/quote]
What you described is the case in which Keve69 re-rolls as the same character "in disguise", which would be an IC event.


[quote name='Sarmatian Empire' timestamp='1307635673' post='2727922']Its not limiting. Keve can be gov if he wants, he's just gonna get rolled and admin doesnt stop people from going to war[/quote]
If that was true extorting real money via IC threats, as the victim can always refuse to pay, would be OK; since obviously it isn't that theory is wrong.

Edited by jerdge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a strict IC/OOC line, but in this case it's hard to say that keve was simply IC a problematic ruler. I doubt he could just reroll and decide to play as a better leader. So the OOC aspect isn't that offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a question addressed in our Charter. Any person declaring PZI/EZI of another player creates, in our view, an OOC penalty which doesn't affect the game, but the player. When an alliance does it, the problem is only magnified by an order of magnitude. Our severest possible punishment of an IC nation ruler (the basic game definition of a player) is a one-time ZI of that ruler's nation. At the moment that occurs, the penalty has been paid, and no further penalty can be levied. The nation is dead. This is, in our view, the carrying out of a death sentence. At the point ZI has been accomplished, judgment ends and mercy begins. We consider the matter forever closed.

If the re-rolled nation chooses to attach anger, animus or violent action against us in the name of the previous nation, that is their choice, and ours to deal with as we see fit. We accept a "clean screen" and a clear record. If the re-roll does, no problem with us. The actions of the new nation are taken as we see them. If the player chooses to incorporate their player history into the new nation, especially in the game play of the new nation, they attach the consequences that go with it.

But, they do have the option of creating a new nation with no attendant prejudice from us as an alliance. The purpose of punishment is not only retribution, but rehabilitation. Restoration comes with the player's decision to re-roll. How they handle that is entirely up to them, not us. This is true for any player in the game. Most would reasonably choose a complete restart, choosing (in our view) wisely. Some would choose retribution, choosing poorly. But, it is the player's choice. They are still in the game, with the opportunity to take those steps and actions necessary to build a better, stronger nation worthy of the respect and admiration of the other players in the game.

We do also fully recognize this to be OUR law, not THE law of CN. We simply feel that having ours codified represents and offers to others a different, and better standard of gamesmanship.

Edited by Merlinus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only barely an OOC term, only if a certain probably unlikely case happens. I personally think OOC terms requiring reasonable amounts of effort are fine. I draw the line at terms where somebody has to buy something expensive like a camera in order to fulfill them or terms which are unreasonably embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether this is an IC or OOC matter is a function of how he chooses to handle it. If he chooses to retain his IC history by rerolling either under the same name or making it publicly available that he was Keve, then it is IC as it is his choice to incorporate that history into his new character. Should he reroll and choose to hide his identity in the effort to distance himself from the old persona then it is OOC to connect them. It's all up to Keve how that term is applied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more OOC terms. They make the game fresh and exciting. There's only a certain number of times "x will pay y, z amount of money and will remain out of the war" can be repeated, and cn's ran out 2 wars ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since it's not just an OOC term, I'm going to go ahead and say that the poll (already) is rendered nullified since "Other" doesn't adequately represent the "IC terms can be OOC terms and should be judged with great reason and scrutiny about their application" or something less wordy. Keve, as a leader IC, was ineffective, incompetent, and caused a great deal of problems. ICly, it only makes sense to remove such a person from the picture. With the justification being removing Keve as a leader and applying it to OOC circumstance, that is the exact same thing as someone couping their own government.

In fact, pretty much every decision outside of the game mechanics is a hybrid of both OOC and IC reasoning and logic. There [i]cannot[/i] be a separate and distinction between the two because a universal "line" simply does not exist outside of what the Terms of Service deems to be "disallowed" (forcing OOC ownership of something, etc etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basicallyif he rerolls starts a whole new character and tells no one fair play to him he should be allowed continue on playing. If he rerolls and straight away joins UINE and aims for a gov spot then I wouldn't call it a new character
The question is. Should he reroll and start a whole new character and dose not go for a gov spot in UINE then he should be left alone ( encase someone finds him using his IP ). If he dosent go for the gov spot he isent breaking terms anyway is its a non-issue.
So I voted "">OOC terms are acceptable for OOC offences ONLY" but dont think the term in the OP is OOC

Edited by steodonn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC terms are OOC terms. Some of the responses try to be so clever as to argue otherwise, and some posters arent nearly as clever as they think they are.

This term is clearly OOC. A couple of posters have posted ways to interpret it to be mostly/essentially IC, but there is no need to use OOC terms to achieve the results described - so it strikes me as an attempt to justify after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OCC should stay OCC, and IC should stay IC. A better difference between these two would result in a more enjoyable world for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Prodigal Moon' timestamp='1307636993' post='2727938']I'd like a strict IC/OOC line, but in this case it's hard to say that keve was simply IC a problematic ruler. I doubt he could just reroll and decide to play as a better leader. So the OOC aspect isn't that offensive.[/quote]
I disagree that the term's mechanics has anything to do with Keve69's ability in doing anything. Even if it had I'd still disagree that anything questionable can be considered OK just because it's probably superfluous.



[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1307637341' post='2727942']This is only barely an OOC term, only if a certain probably unlikely case happens. I personally think OOC terms requiring reasonable amounts of effort are fine. I draw the line at terms where somebody has to buy something expensive like a camera in order to fulfill them or terms which are unreasonably embarrassing.[/quote]
I still disagree that anything questionable can be considered OK just because it's probably superfluous. I also think that with "terms requiring reasonable amounts of effort" you mean something like the GOONS-esque Mercy Board terms, which IMHO aren't really OOC as long as they really don't require "unreasonable amounts of effort" and they're not designed to humiliate the player. We [i]must[/i] spend some RL time to play the game and spending some (a [i]little[/i]) of it writing a short humorous essay, for example, isn't "significantly" different from spending some of it to raise cash/tech to be sent as part of in-game reparations.
Good points, anyway.



[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1307647162' post='2728031']Whether this is an IC or OOC matter is a function of how he chooses to handle it. If he chooses to retain his IC history by rerolling either under the same name or making it publicly available that he was Keve, then it is IC as it is his choice to incorporate that history into his new character. Should he reroll and choose to hide his identity in the effort to distance himself from the old persona then it is OOC to connect them. It's all up to Keve how that term is applied.[/quote]
Well, to be exact he could make it known that he was Keve69 and still play an entirely different character - and I mean [i]really[/i] doing that - and that wouldn't be IC at all; I don't see why the new character should be held responsible for anything the old character did.
Your version of "it's all up to him" also resembles a bit too much to a "provided he isn't caught" scenario, which is a condition that has to do with the term be practically inapplicable but has very little to do with the term being right or wrong.



[quote name='Pollard' timestamp='1307650093' post='2728078']We need more OOC terms. They make the game fresh and exciting. There's only a certain number of times "x will pay y, z amount of money and will remain out of the war" can be repeated, and cn's ran out 2 wars ago.[/quote]
IC terms are not limited to in-game mechanics only. Alliance politics is completely off-game and still well within IC boundaries.
OOC terms negatively affect the player across her/his re-rolls and as such I doubt they make the game "exciting", save for those that are excited at the idea of persecuting other players.



[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307650515' post='2728082']Well, since it's not just an OOC term, I'm going to go ahead and say that the poll (already) is rendered nullified since "Other" doesn't adequately represent the "IC terms can be OOC terms and should be judged with great reason and scrutiny about their application" or something less wordy. Keve, as a leader IC, was ineffective, incompetent, and caused a great deal of problems. ICly, it only makes sense to remove such a person from the picture. With the justification being removing Keve as a leader and applying it to OOC circumstance, that is the exact same thing as someone couping their own government.

In fact, pretty much every decision outside of the game mechanics is a hybrid of both OOC and IC reasoning and logic. There [i]cannot[/i] be a separate and distinction between the two because a universal "line" simply does not exist outside of what the Terms of Service deems to be "disallowed" (forcing OOC ownership of something, etc etc.).[/quote]
Your reasoning amounts to saying that, since a certain player is (allegedly) bad at something, it's OK to limit all his future characters from doing that certain something: I don't see how you can equate it to a coup and it's certainly an OOC term (incidentally, you don't contemplate the possibility that people learn from their mistakes, but this is another issue anyway).
There's also a very clear and exact distinction between IC and OOC: IC is what applies to characters, OOC is what applies to players. The common ground is just that a lot of "content" is transferred into the game "as is" because we can't invent everything - for example, we all communicate in English which is a RL language - but the two realms remain separate.
Think about Star Wars: the characters talk in English but that doesn't mean that Harrison Ford is smuggling stuff around the universe (and even if he is it's not because he was Han Solo!)



[quote name='steodonn' timestamp='1307650683' post='2728085']Basicallyif he rerolls starts a whole new character and tells no one fair play to him he should be allowed continue on playing. If he rerolls and straight away joins UINE and aims for a gov spot then I wouldn't call it a new character
The question is. Should he reroll and start a whole new character and dose not go for a gov spot in UINE then he should be left alone ( encase someone finds him using his IP ). If he dosent go for the gov spot he isent breaking terms anyway is its a non-issue.
So I voted "">OOC terms are acceptable for OOC offences ONLY" but dont think the term in the OP is OOC[/quote]
I agree that a "not really new" character is not what we're talking of here. IP checks, on the other hand, don't qualify as reliable means to determine if a player is reviving a character or playing a new one.



(Also, thanks Merlinus for your interesting comment about your rules.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1307660355' post='2728201']
I disagree that the term's mechanics has anything to do with Keve69's ability in doing anything. Even if it had I'd still disagree that anything questionable can be considered OK just because it's probably superfluous.[/quote]
I guess for me it's just a question of how much the conflict was due to IC persona, and how much if it's due to un-rerollable RL features of the person behind the screen (inactivity/poor communication/disinterest?). Both sides seem to be indicating that it's something about the guy behind the screen

e.g.: [quote]We didn't change our charter because the person who writes the new charter is the emperor and our emperor, keve, was pretty busy in RL. The rest of the government does not have the authority to overrun Keve and write out the charter.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC terms should be for OOC actions and IC terms for IC actions although I see no problem with IC terms for some OOC actions such as harrasing someone OOC because the person shouldn't be able to escape into IC to get away from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307634413' post='2727905']
Might makes right...
[/quote]

Only for those who are doing the rolling. We have ample OOC examples where might has only made wrong.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1307669989' post='2728306']
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[/quote]

True, but that doesn't change the fact in CN that might makes right since those doing the rolling are exactly those who have the might to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no IC/OOC divide. Preventing someone from doing something "IC" prevents them from playing the game in the way they want to. An OOC restriction/punishment will always have some sort of IC effect. Aside from substituting 'planet' for 'game' in two CNF forums there is no "IC."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1307634413' post='2727905']
Might makes right...
[/quote]

There are many, many, many good examples of "might makes right" in CN. This is not one of those examples. So you're saying you are so against this term that if R&R didn't have allies you would go to war with her over it? No, you're just trying to score IC points... in an OOC forum (which is ironic, considering the thing you seem to be against is a perceived violation of the IC/OOC line)

Anyways... In this case you have Keve, who was ousted by the members of UINE and R&R for personally screwing up and causing his alliance to not follow through on its commitments: This was done by Keve the player, not Keve the RP'd ruler of whateverthehellhisnationnameis - and do not try to tell me he was RPing an incompetent alliance leader. That is dumb. There are certain things people RP in CN, even at the alliance leadership level - gross incompetence is rarely one of them. So R&R took action against the player and the ruler - as it was both the player and the ruler who caused the issue - in a non-permanent fashion. Sounds fine to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...