To Conflict or Not Conflict

[Yawoo]

I was wondering what everyone's opinion on trying to conflict land are. Personally, I think the precedent the current GMs use - that is, you have to have boots on the ground in order to conflict a land, should be abolished. I think this precedent leaves out the side of diplomacy which as we all know, happens a lot more than war in the real world. I think we should promote more diplomatic actions in CNRP to develop a more intricate story line other than war, war and more war. So, what's your thoughts on it? I'd like to see.

Edit: And yes, I see the irony in me promoting diplomacy over war.

[Markus Wilding]

In my opinion, land that's conflicted can be done in several ways:

- Boots on the ground (current GM interpretation)
- Diplomatic ties (a la a treaty forcing the land to nation A)
- Diplomatic protest (Nation B claims the land, nation A protests)

[Michael McBride]

The current standard of boots on the ground is obviously a valid way of contesting land. Your boots vs. their boots = conflict. However, I don't feel that simply saying "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" is a valid way of "contesting" ownership. What's to stop, say, England from saying that if a Canadian nation falls? They might have made no moves towards the land, but simply by saying, through diplomacy, "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" it's now contested? !@#$%^&*.

If we want to do this, there needs to be clear, concrete evidence as to a claim to the land by the other nation, plus a concerted effort through diplomacy to contest ownership of the land (e.g. something with the backing of a few other nations, most likely). That being said, boots on the ground is the most effective way of contesting ownership.

[Kankou]

It's my opinion that it's not the problem of what is a contested territory, but rather how do we define boots on the ground. Most of the time we RP that we're going to do something, and never really get around to RPing the actual arrival/occupation of land. It's my opinion that no land transfers would lead to automatic sovereignty until actual troops have been sent through non-conflicting methods and actually have started occupation. Then, we can go about conflicted lands.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1307826081' post='2729389']
The current standard of boots on the ground is obviously a valid way of contesting land. Your boots vs. their boots = conflict. However, I don't feel that simply saying "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" is a valid way of "contesting" ownership. What's to stop, say, England from saying that if a Canadian nation falls? They might have made no moves towards the land, but simply by saying, through diplomacy, "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" it's now contested? !@#$%^&*.

If we want to do this, there needs to be clear, concrete evidence as to a claim to the land by the other nation, plus a concerted effort through diplomacy to contest ownership of the land (e.g. something with the backing of a few other nations, most likely). That being said, boots on the ground is the most effective way of contesting ownership.
[/quote]

I agree with this post.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1307826081' post='2729389']
The current standard of boots on the ground is obviously a valid way of contesting land. Your boots vs. their boots = conflict. However, I don't feel that simply saying "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" is a valid way of "contesting" ownership. What's to stop, say, England from saying that if a Canadian nation falls? They might have made no moves towards the land, but simply by saying, through diplomacy, "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" it's now contested? !@#$%^&*.

If we want to do this, there needs to be clear, concrete evidence as to a claim to the land by the other nation, plus a concerted effort through diplomacy to contest ownership of the land (e.g. something with the backing of a few other nations, most likely). That being said, boots on the ground is the most effective way of contesting ownership.
[/quote]

I agree with SMH on this as well.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1307826081' post='2729389']
The current standard of boots on the ground is obviously a valid way of contesting land. Your boots vs. their boots = conflict. However, I don't feel that simply saying "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" is a valid way of "contesting" ownership. What's to stop, say, England from saying that if a Canadian nation falls? They might have made no moves towards the land, but simply by saying, through diplomacy, "we disagree with that, we don't think you should have the land" it's now contested? !@#$%^&*.

If we want to do this, there needs to be clear, concrete evidence as to a claim to the land by the other nation, plus a concerted effort through diplomacy to contest ownership of the land (e.g. something with the backing of a few other nations, most likely). That being said, boots on the ground is the most effective way of contesting ownership.
[/quote]

Fully agree.

[Kankou]

And what exactly would constitute boots on the ground? That's not quite a simple question.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Kankou

[AironthFlamewing]

WE need to actively RP troop creation, at least saying that "X Army Corp has been created with 40,000 men it is stationed in Y zone" That way people can't just magic up troops to contest using the boots on the ground method, but otherwise, in my opinion, Boots on the ground is a good system but people should defer if a treaty comes into play... By this I mean say Voodoo had troops on the ground BUT Amy had a treaty giving him back the land, Amy should in the end get the land back.

[Kankou]

[quote name='graniteknight' timestamp='1307834092' post='2729442']
By this I mean say Voodoo had troops on the ground BUT Amy had a treaty giving him back the land, Amy should in the end get the land back.
[/quote]
That defeats the main purpose of contested land. Not sure what you're going about with it.

Anyway, it's my opinion that no land transfers would lead to automatic sovereignty until actual troops have been sent through non-conflicting methods and actually have started occupation. Only when we have a concrete set of RPs for troops can we even go on about contesting land claims. This was what had caused the original problem in the first place.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307833926' post='2729441']
And what exactly would constitute boots on the ground? That's not quite a simple question.
[/quote]

Actually, that's quite simple. Boots on the ground constitute boots on the ground. Next "not quite a simple question" please.

[Sargun II]

I think that as long as someone out of two uses concerted diplomatic efforts or more, then the land should stay contested in the sense that citizens of the area are not under control by either party. If both England and Ireland claim Scotland (hypothetically) and England puts boots on the ground but Ireland makes its claim and prepares to do diplomacy and possibly more, then for the purposes of controlled citizens and land (i.e., auto-troops or in-game defences and rolls subsequently thereof) the land should belong to neither. Of course, from an IC standpoint England would have the advantage, but simply leaving out another nation because of posting timing is a poor choice.

Another factor is that some people aren't as active as others - and while we encourage activity, I don't think any of us should advocate the decision-making that activity automatically grants preference. As evidenced by the Nation Lock thread, there are plenty of people who go away for extended periods of time. Looking at some people's posting records, there are plenty of people who go away for short periods of time (like a single day) that could mean they miss out on something important. We should at least have some sort of grace period for people to respond in the same appropriate IC time period because of real life. Whenever we go to war, we wait upwards of a week or more at a minimum in order to ask for a GM autoadvance. Why can we not have something similar to land claiming? After all, the other solution is simply "I posted first gtfo" which is not the kind of RP we should be encouraging or embracing.

In short, my proposal is as follows:

A) As long as more than one nation makes a [b]concerted effort with proper RP [/b]to contest land, it should be contested
B) For 24 hours after a nation falls in real life time, all posts concerning troop movements or similar actions happen around the same time period

It would be up to the GMs to determine proper RP, and in general they do a bang-up job of determining what that means. My proposal makes it so that you actually have to make an RP effort to contest the land and that nobody is excluded from sending "boots on the ground" for a short period after the land falls. It's simple and is fair to everyone except for those who make it their life's duty to hoard pixels on a screen.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Sargun

[Kankou]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1307836964' post='2729456']
Actually, that's quite simple. Boots on the ground constitute boots on the ground. Next "not quite a simple question" please.
[/quote]
Then please explain how the $%&@ Voodoo managed to send troops all the way from Vietnam to Northern Manchuria when he never RPed the actual movement, never asked for permission from neighboring countries to pass, never bothered doing anything within the protectorate (such as raising militas), and never bothered reporting the land change in the map thread for almost a month.

It's not that simple, is it?

[Centurius]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307838576' post='2729468']
Then please explain how the $%&@ Voodoo managed to send troops all the way from Vietnam to Northern Manchuria when he never RPed the actual movement, never asked for permission from neighboring countries to pass, never bothered doing anything within the protectorate (such as raising militas), and never bothered reporting the land change in the map thread for almost a month.

It's not that simple, is it?
[/quote]

Is it so hard to read that this discussion is intended for a general rule and not a specific ruling? Serious.

[Triyun]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307838727' post='2729471']
Is it so hard to read that this discussion is intended for a general rule and not a specific ruling? Serious.
[/quote]

What about when super intelligent sharks eat intercontinental fiber optic data pipelines?

[Kankou]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307838727' post='2729471']
Is it so hard to read that this discussion is intended for a general rule and not a specific ruling? Serious.
[/quote]
I'm using a specific example to explain that "boots on the ground" is not a simple standard. Almost no one would argue against the general rule; it's the application of the general rule to specific situations that causes disagreements to erupt. Therefore, I believe we need to have corollaries to the general rule.


General rule: Having troops in the territory of question is equal to having a solid claim to the territory

Corollaries:
A) As long as more than one nation makes a concerted effort with proper RP to contest land, it should be contested
B) For 24 hours after a nation falls in real life time, all posts concerning troop movements or similar actions happen around the same time period
c) Nations must have the means to get the troops into the territory in question, and must have RPed the arrival of the troops to the full extent. Automatic arrival is not allowed.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1307839209' post='2729473']
What about when super intelligent sharks eat intercontinental fiber optic data pipelines?
[/quote]
Then we all go check in with Sri Lanka and see what went wrong.

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307839360' post='2729476']
c) Nations must have the means to get the troops into the territory in question, and must have RPed the arrival of the troops to the full extent. Automatic arrival is not allowed.
[/quote]

Well that's a given. Your statement regarding this is like checking to see if you need lungs to breath... its obvious. You need a way to get the troops there in order to get the 'boots on the ground.'

Edit: damn that's harsher sounding than I meant it to be... sorry!

Edited June 12, 2011 by Axolotlia

[Kankou]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1307843329' post='2729500']
Well that's a given. Your statement regarding this is like checking to see if you need lungs to breath... its obvious. You need a way to get the troops there in order to get the 'boots on the ground.'

Edit: damn that's harsher sounding than I meant it to be... sorry!
[/quote]
Not a problem. However, this is the exact situation that had happened recently, leading to the formation of this thread.

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307843814' post='2729512']
Not a problem. However, this is the exact situation that had happened recently, leading to the formation of this thread.
[/quote]

Well what I am getting at is that if you have no way to get the troops there, then plain and simple you can't get troops there. If you can't get troops there, then you have no boots on the ground.

[king of cochin]

As in the recent Xinyan issue and in all protectorate issues my line of thinking is that declaration of protectorate, like almost all actions in CNRP is a game of bluff. A really powerful nation , diplomatically and militarily, could claim protectorates in places halfway around the world and no one would dare challenge them. Their protectorate, thus being unchallenged would in fact thus serve the purpose of protecting the land. Force projection can thus be in many ways. For some players they may actually feel the need to put boots on the ground to ensure that their claim goes unchallenged. Even if you have soldiers on the ground in support of your claim, you could still be ousted diplomatically.

Having said that, I agree with giving a grace period for any protectorate to be challenged. I also am game for protectorate claim to challenged by a player with solid RP behind the challenge. Then again the solid RP required for challenge to be considered valid cannot be quantified generally and would be on a case by case basis, to be adjudicated by the sitting GMs.

Anyway however the challenge comes, it should come within two weeks of the first claim. Two weeks during which any person declaring protectorate is not permitted to assume total control over the people of the land, two weeks during which any protectorate claim is open to counter claim. After two weeks full protectorate powers can be assumed.

That being said putting soldiers on the ground trumps any other claim of protectorate any time.

[Michael McBride]

Two weeks? I think that's a tad generous. That's six months by the current generally accepted time scale. I'd say one week, tops. If people haven't found the time to post their disapproval and take action against it in one week, they don't deserve the land anyways.

[New Frontier]

I realize that I'm newer here and may not have the depth of background for the discussion as some of you obviously do, but I agree with Yawoo. Honestly, if Quebec decides to contest Sargun's claim to Ireland, then it's contested, whether there are boots on the ground or not. Outside parties need not necessarily respect my contention, or even pay attention to it, but it's there.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1307902963' post='2729954']
I realize that I'm newer here and may not have the depth of background for the discussion as some of you obviously do, but I agree with Yawoo. Honestly, if Quebec decides to contest Sargun's claim to Ireland, then it's contested, whether there are boots on the ground or not. Outside parties need not necessarily respect my contention, or even pay attention to it, but it's there.
[/quote]

I don't think people necessarily disagree with you on principle, but simply saying "I contest that" and then doing nothing about it doesn't equal a contested claim in my book. There needs to be more to it than that.

[AironthFlamewing]

So SMH, to understand fully you are happy with what New Frontier says about "Hey I contest this" but you want us to follow up by let's say putting boots on the ground. ie, a two step process to lay claim to a land.