Mara Lithaen Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) EDIT. Edited July 30, 2012 by Mara Lithaen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Auto advance granted PD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 [quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1343627758' post='3016961'] Hopefully I've waited long enough. I'd like to request an auto-advance on Reichtenberg? [/quote] I already said you could after 24 hours from my post a week ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1343655884' post='3017008'] I already said you could after 24 hours from my post a week ago. [/quote] Wat... Either way thanks for the auto - I'll be getting it done shortly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Suggestion: Land disputes require preplanning. If we have preplanning in place, it should be applied to land disputes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 Last I checked preplanning lost the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343680480' post='3017069'] Suggestion: Land disputes require preplanning. If we have preplanning in place, it should be applied to land disputes. [/quote] No. A senseless rule which lost the poll anyway, just apparently outside of time constraints (still in place on a technicality) does not deserve to be spread further. The current pre-planning is so ridiculously controversial and contested anyway there's no way an expansion would be logical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 After people argued for long enough that those that are not active enough shouldn't be counted against the minority in favor of preplanning, we are now hanging it up on that votes should also be counted of people that did not bother to vote in the 3 days they were given time to vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted July 30, 2012 Report Share Posted July 30, 2012 [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1343683137' post='3017082'] Last I checked preplanning lost the vote. [/quote] It was upheld... Go relook the comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 The reason I advocate preplanning for disputed territories has a different reason from the regular preplanning. Basically, given that a lot tends to be on the plate with disputed territories (some want protectorates as buffers, some want to annex, some want to form a new nation), I say time be given for people to at least have a discussion to occur instead of the more chaotic "I want it this way, go roll over" mess, a more structured approach should be done before the "might makes right" aspect comes into play. To summarize, in order to lessen the risk of players trying to form a nation and to create a bit more order, I believe that a looser version of the preplanning rule should be installed, where any player who has an interest in the disputed territory has the right to be heard instead of being brushed aside in the power plays for perhaps seven days after the start of the dispute before becoming a free-for-all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) That being said, what's the ruling on the former Lunar Republic uranium? (Damn you double posts!) Edited July 31, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 I still fail to see a reason to extend preplanning to contested lands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) The opposite question: Why hasn't preplanning been extended to disputed lands? Edited July 31, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Why should it be? Lets take a hypothetical thats highly unlikely to avoid political bickering. Justits and I aren't ever going to war, but lets assume for a moment that Fizzy collapsed, we both want the land. Justits and I go in we both make our claims. Lets assume Vektor and Cent honor their MADPs with him over the TSI. We go to a preplan, naturally I'm going to insist that this remain a closed conventional dispute between the two of us. In all likelyhood Justinian is going to say because on the nuclear front he's more evenly matched than pure conventionally and because he is smaller and has allied backing that it should be open. We'll both stick to our self interest line, there will likely be a waiver, we have unplanned war anyway but 4 days of OOC arguing leading up. All preplan does is stall the inevitable triumph of self interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Yes, and what's so bad about stalling things? It's better to give people time to think than just mindlessly going to war which is a tendency when there was no preplanning. For that matter, it also gives the defense time to think, something which should be granted. That issue aside, my question was basically why was it that disputed territories were kept out of preplanning in the first place? Regardless of whether preplanning is good or bad, it's the strange differentiating of the two situations that I was wondering about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) As far as pre-planning for disputed territory goes, it isn't needed. There's a grace period of a week to put forth a claim over disputed territory, so there is no need to pre-plan over disputed territory. Edited July 31, 2012 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Wars are also IC. But meh, I'm still not seeing the reasoning why we split the two situations in the first place. No satisfactory explanation has ever been given about that. Edited July 31, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112129&st=20"]Calling Shens on PD[/url] One auto advance does not give PD the ability nor the leeway to conquer three of Great Britain's largest cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1343710382' post='3017197'] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112129&st=20"]Calling Shens on PD[/url] One auto advance does not give PD the ability nor the leeway to conquer three of Great Britain's largest cities. [/quote] One of them didn't even have enemy soldiers in it if that makes you feel better. [b]ALSO[/b] I'm applying for another auto-advance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 [quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1343710790' post='3017202'] One of them didn't even have enemy soldiers in it if that makes you feel better. [b]ALSO[/b] I'm applying for another auto-advance [/quote] It doesn't, because what you did was ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Given that there are no troops between Plymouth and London (with all possible reinforcements too far), and the London defenders were outnumbered by more than 1-to-3, taking the city shouldn't be that hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Retracted Edited July 31, 2012 by PresidentDavid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Whilst in a normal case, I would say PD has to re-write that RP to change the godmodding, but as Scnider or however you spell his damn name, has ignored every effort at pre-planning, ignored the entire war, I will allow PD's post to be continued as canon and legal, because his target is for all intents and purposes ignoring the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted July 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343697679' post='3017133'] Yes, and what's so bad about stalling things? It's better to give people time to think than just mindlessly going to war which is a tendency when there was no preplanning. For that matter, it also gives the defense time to think, something which should be granted. That issue aside, my question was basically why was it that disputed territories were kept out of preplanning in the first place? Regardless of whether preplanning is good or bad, it's the strange differentiating of the two situations that I was wondering about. [/quote] At the time the rule was implemented the difference was made due to the fundamental difference between normal war and disputing. In a normal war the defender has full control over his lands and the people within it. OOCly he owns the land. This is not the case where there is a dispute, in this scenario there simply is no ooc control of the land. Preplanning would cause unneeded delays, two people dispute and a pre-plan is made that might well take days. Someone else decides to join in after that, more time is wasted, at the same time the original preplan has to be reopened because the situation had changed and the rules for the war might well be different. Added to that an existing player could bully out a new rp'er in a preplan session with excessive suggestions where the new rp'er doesn't known how cnrp works. So in essence it is a combination of having more time and it being easier for new players to simply look up basic cnrp guidelines for a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 ^ What I was looking for. Thank you. I object to the following post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=112507&view=findpost&p=3017327 There are three reasons for this: 1. SS is still technically around, since it has not been 26 days since he last posted. Thus, while his capital and such are occupied, he still can RP if he comes back. 2. Given that SS still exists as a player, a preplanning session would be required. 3. It was Zoot who gave the go for the London occupation, and thus his actions are basically a conflict of interests. I have to say what happened is something which is very unbecoming of a GM. 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.