Generalissimo Posted April 30, 2012 Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Isn’t non-nuclear orbital bombardment still banned by popular mandate? Edited April 30, 2012 by Generalissimo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted April 30, 2012 Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1335818268' post='2961235'] I have questions to ask about this. 1. Given that launch loops are designed to fire 5 ton loads from the equator, the location of the Mongolian loop would mean that at most a 3 ton package could have been launched. 2. Even if we suppose that somehow a 5 ton package is launched, the the fuel for the two stage boosters would take up a significant amount of the weight, something like 2/3 at the least. This leaves 1.67 tons for the weapons, meaning 0.56 tons per rod (including booster). 3. Supposing the rods manage to accelerate to 1,500 m/s (anything faster would require even more fuel), this is only equal to something like 4 tungsten rods of the Conventional Trident Prompt Strike program. Each rod can destroy a small building when solid or over a 1,000 square meter area at ideal spread (a .5 caliber bullet per square meter). 4. Taken all of the above together, the widest area of damages would be three circles of 4,000 square meters each (circles of 35.7 meter radius). If you use solid rods, the most you'll destroy would be a large house. Conclusion: Massive area effect triple blast? Impossible. [/quote] Having done calculations, I can confirm that the rods wouldn't do much damage - Even a single rod with a mass of 5 tons moving at 1,250 m/s (1.25 km/s) wouldn't do more damage than approximately one metric ton of TNT. Assuming no friction through air, perfect mass/energy conversion, etcetera. In short, those rods aren't weapons of mass destruction, and even the largest ones couldn't easily come close to the power that a MOAB or FOAB has. These things are precision weapons, not WMDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted April 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 To formalize, a few hours ago we have been given evidence that Kankou has written a warpost for graniteknight. A violation of an existing rule which states you can not write the posts for another player. While normally this would have resulted in more severe measures Kankou has been able to provide evidence to show there was no malicious intent. As such there will be no disciplinary measures beyond a formal warning that Kankou can not write posts for another player. [quote][00:13:34] <~Centurius> Ok I'll copy what I said before [00:13:36] <~Centurius> [00:05:36] <~Centurius> Ok good [00:13:36] <~Centurius> [00:05:54] <~Centurius> Basically I'll get to the point, we have been given direct evidence that you have been roleplaying Australia's actions [00:13:36] <~Centurius> [00:06:26] <~Centurius> to be exact, a screenshot of a pm containing the war post 2 days prior to it being posted in the thread [00:13:36] <~Centurius> [00:06:38] <~Centurius> http://oi49.tinypic.com/11v474g.jpg [00:13:36] <~Centurius> [00:07:16] <~Centurius> Is there anything you have to say in your defense? [00:15:20] <Joker> in a discussion between iKrolm, MO, and myself, MO specifically asked that he help me with what kind of movements to do [00:15:34] <~Centurius> one thing is helping, another is writing an entire post [00:16:05] <Joker> he asked me to set up a template, and that he'll base his post on the template [00:16:23] <Joker> after he posted the entire thing, I specifically told him to write his own posts [00:17:32] <~Centurius> Can you prove this with screenshot evidence? [00:18:16] <Joker> let me check the PM thread [00:22:04] <Joker> http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/801/oudiscussions.png [00:25:22] <Kankou> it was discussed on IRC, which I don't have the records of. [00:25:41] <~Centurius> Ok give us five minutes to discuss [00:25:59] <Kankou> and at most it was only three sentences, since MO wants to talk of other stuff [00:26:03] <Kankou> so, as in leave the thread? [00:26:14] <~Centurius> nah [00:26:15] <Kankou> I mean, channel? [00:26:18] <~Centurius> we're talking in query [00:26:24] <Kankou> all right [00:26:28] <Kankou> well, just to add [00:26:59] <Kankou> you might have noticed MO flipflopping, with Generalissimo supposed to do the elections for Australia, Yawoo trying to buy Tasmania, etc [00:27:29] <~Centurius> well it wasn't so much mo's word as it was the screeshots that came with it [00:27:50] <Kankou> just explaining the situation [00:27:55] <~Centurius> Okay, we have decided this puts in reasonable doubt on whether it was malicious [00:28:14] <~Centurius> As such we won't take the stricter measures [00:28:30] <~Centurius> However we would like to make this a formal warning, you're not allowed to write the posts for another player [00:28:35] <~Centurius> advice at most [00:28:54] <Kankou> understood. I'll keep things to point form so the person would have to write the actual post, should they ask for advice [00:29:20] <~Centurius> Ok, I'll make this formal on the forums.[/quote] That is all, carry on people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted April 30, 2012 Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 Ruling confirmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted April 30, 2012 Report Share Posted April 30, 2012 Acknowledged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1335825293' post='2961272'] To formalize, a few hours ago we have been given evidence that Kankou has written a warpost for graniteknight. A violation of an existing rule which states you can not write the posts for another player. While normally this would have resulted in more severe measures Kankou has been able to provide evidence to show there was no malicious intent. As such there will be no disciplinary measures beyond a formal warning that Kankou can not write posts for another player. [/quote] Does this ruling affect all posts, or only war posts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Like you can CP a F-16s stats, but all posts. I can't imagine what other context you would be posting for other people. Any specifics in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 I would think internal RP's, like the passage of laws, discontent among the populace, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Maybe it's because it's late and my brain is pouring out my ears from German homework and combat class, but... what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 I'm making an educated guess there, but still a guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKrolm Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335836700' post='2961366'] Like you can CP a F-16s stats, but all posts. I can't imagine what other context you would be posting for other people. Any specifics in mind? [/quote] Like this: [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1335149114' post='2957553'] OOC: Due to endless delays from Kankou, I've had a <3'd friend write the conclusion from the plaintiff. IC: ... [/quote] The piece was written for Lynneth to post. How would that be affected by the ruling? Edited May 1, 2012 by iKrolm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Yeah that would be invalidated thanks for bringing that to my attention. INVALIDATED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 And so the circus continues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 I'm finding this a bit absurd. I have no problem with people writing posts for someone else. Posting posts for someone else is an entirely different story and that comes under rping another person's characters or citizens. If this is going to be a problem I suppose I could make an itemized list of all the posts I've written for other people and we could go back and redo entire wars over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1335844877' post='2961436'] I'm finding this a bit absurd. I have no problem with people writing posts for someone else. Posting posts for someone else is an entirely different story and that comes under rping another person's characters or citizens. If this is going to be a problem I suppose I could make an itemized list of all the posts I've written for other people and we could go back and redo entire wars over it. [/quote] IF its recent enough. Though I would love a itemized list, if you could color code it and give easy to read formating too that'd be great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Seriously, I understand the reasoning behind invalidating WAR posts written by someone else, but a trial, in which no combat was involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335840592' post='2961400'] Yeah that would be invalidated thanks for bringing that to my attention. INVALIDATED! [/quote] What. $%&@ that. War posts I can understand, but RP like that? $%&@ that. Seriously. I'm not going to redo the trial based on your ridiculous whims. And maybe me being drunk right now affects my judgment, but I'm not going to recognise this ruling ('Cannot write for other people') other than concerning war posts. Not to mention that the post mentioned by iKrolm wasn't even written by anyone participating in CNRP. Jesus flying christ. I'm so close to just saying "$%&@ all this noise" and ignoring all your goddamn GM shenanigans [b]whatsoever[/b]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Last post is on April 26th, could I get an auto on this. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=110347&view=findpost&p=2959843 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malatose Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1335847363' post='2961458'] Last post is on April 26th, could I get an auto on this. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=110347&view=findpost&p=2959843 [/quote] Granted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 Objection to the autoadvance. It's been only four days (autoadvances are usually given after a week), and since my prior post had been wiped (meaning I had attempted to write a response), I believe that this autoadvance is out of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 I remember four days, though I'll wait for Cent. You flat out refused to recognize the wipe, has that changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) I still believe that the wipe is unjustified. Regardless of the fact, I had asked TSS (before he resigned) for an autoadvance against Lavo since it was five days, and he refused on the grounds that at least seven days is necessary and/or it must be shown that attempts to get the player to respond had been done. I see neither conditions being fulfilled in this autoadvance. Logs from April 27th [quote]13:47 Kankou anyway, just wanted to ask you about an autoadvance against Lavo 13:47 Kankou it'll be exactly five days in 4 hours 13:48 Kankou and since he is occasionally active in IRC, I thought it only fair for an autoadvance against him 13:48 TheShammySocialist Send him a PM and ask for him to speed up his posting. 13:49 Kankou yeah, okay 13:49 TheShammySocialist If he does not come up with a valid reason for delaying, and I see a transcript of the conversation, I will grant an autoadvance. 13:51 Kankou oh, he can't receive PMs :v 13:51 Kankou it's full or something, I think 13:51 TheShammySocialist Then we're going to wait forty eight hours. 13:51 TheShammySocialist And you need to talk to him. 13:51 TheShammySocialist On IRC. 13:51 Kankou yeah, I'll do so[/quote] Edited May 1, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted May 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 [quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1335840422' post='2961394'] Like this: The piece was written for Lynneth to post. How would that be affected by the ruling? [/quote] To clarify what Triyun said, in itself that piece is against the rules too. However it is judged on a case-by-case basis where war posts are obviously punished harder than other posts and in some cases other posts will be completely left alone. This last situation counts for that post. That said, in principle you shouldn't use content written by other players nor should you write content for other players. [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1335848346' post='2961470'] I still believe that the wipe is unjustified. Regardless of the fact, I had asked TSS (before he resigned) for an autoadvance against Lavo since it was five days, and he refused on the grounds that at least seven days is necessary and/or it must be shown that attempts to get the player to respond had been done. I see neither conditions being fulfilled in this autoadvance. Logs from April 27th [/quote] Shammy was wrong there, traditionally we have maintained 4 days as an absolute minimum for autoadvances, longer is better but at 4 days they will be considered. The 8 days might have been a personal preference of Shammy as he was free to maintain his own guidelines in this regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1335865870' post='2961540'] To clarify what Triyun said, in itself that piece is against the rules too. However it is judged on a case-by-case basis where war posts are obviously punished harder than other posts and in some cases other posts will be completely left alone. This last situation counts for that post. That said, in principle you shouldn't use content written by other players nor should you write content for other players. [/quote] Just wondering, for clarification...you say players. If this is the case, would not something like getting a RL friend (who does not participate in the RP) to help you with the post be exempt? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted May 1, 2012 Report Share Posted May 1, 2012 There’s a rule against having other players write your posts? Time for Generalissimo to write out one formal amendment to fix that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.