Getting the Party Started

[Yawoo]

Alright, I decided to kick off this opportunity for the community to start making rule changes by expressing my displeasure at the rule in which everyone must pre-plan wars with each other. Quite frankly, I have seen no lowering of OOC disputes which the rule was meant to help prevent. If the purpose of the rule has not been accomplished with its implementation then we need to get rid of it.

Less pre-planning wars and more kicking butt and taking names.

Comments about how this will only lead to pixel-whoremongering will be laughed at relentlessly, you're warned.

[AironthFlamewing]

I agree- I find it silly that if I wanted to war Isaac for imperialism and no other reason that I should be able to come and rush at him without penalty.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='graniteknight' timestamp='1338833331' post='2976947']
I agree- I find it silly that if I wanted to war Isaac for imperialism and no other reason that I should be able to come and rush at him without penalty.
[/quote]
You can, you just need to plan it prior to it...

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1338833628' post='2976950']
You can, you just need to plan it prior to it...
[/quote]

You missed the "rush at him without penalty" half of the sentence. The penalty being pre-planning.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

That is not really a penalty. It's a measure to get wars to be 'civilised' OOCly, which I think worked out to some degree. If you feel penalised through pre-planning, you did something wrong.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1338833903' post='2976953']
That is not really a penalty. It's a measure to get wars to be 'civilised' OOCly, which I think worked out to some degree. If you feel penalised through pre-planning, you did something wrong.
[/quote]

Obviously we failed to achieve the civilized OOC element - you only need to see the New Guinea war for that to be proven without a shadow of doubt.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338834163' post='2976954']
Obviously we failed to achieve the civilized OOC element - you only need to see the New Guinea war for that to be proven without a shadow of doubt.
[/quote]
The New Guinea war for one was hardly preplanned, was it?

[Markus Wilding]

I thought it was silly when it was first implemented and it's silly now. I'm all for getting rid of this "rule" that's supposed to be "convenient".

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1338834344' post='2976956']
The New Guinea war for one was hardly preplanned, was it?
[/quote]

Actually, it was, so your argument fails. Even if there were elements of it which weren't then that only strengthens the purpose to get rid of a rule we aren't going to use.

[Domingo the Honored]

Get rid of it. It's a useless, dead-weight rule that's failed in what it set out to do. Now all it does is hinder the fun, effects, and spontaneous nature of wars in CNRP.

And just in case the common opinion and evidence isn't enough, Triyun, one of the GM's who got it instituted, called it the worst decision he ever made. So yeah, death to pre-planning of wars.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338834545' post='2976962']
Actually, it was, so your argument fails. Even if there were elements of it which weren't then that only strengthens the purpose to get rid of a rule we aren't going to use.
[/quote]
Actually, it was the convenient loophole where disputed territories needed no preplanning.

[quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1338835443' post='2976966']
And just in case the common opinion and evidence isn't enough, Triyun, one of the GM's who got it instituted, called it the worst decision he ever made. So yeah, death to pre-planning of wars.
[/quote]
Given that it was him that pretty much destroyed preplanning as an institution, I can't really listen to his line of thoughts. Basically forcing a player to follow unreasonable pre-engagement rules through the threat of a war wavier, saying that "non-physical" war actions does not need preplanning. After all the actions he did to get around the initial rule, he calls it the worst decision?

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338835729' post='2976967']
Actually, it was the convenient loophole where disputed territories needed no preplanning.
[/quote]

In other words exactly what I said, if we aren't going to use a rule 100% then we need to be rid of it.

[PresidentDavid]

As I said before when this rule was implemented, I think it is a good thing for those who just want to RP a nation and just do what this games original intent was - which was to Role Play.
Also, I think it does somewhat stop people from taking over an entire continent because people need to be civilized and talk together before just taking over a bunch of land.

Now, I have seen less people fall and be mad or people rage quitting or nukeragequitting the game because they knew they'd loose. They had a chance because it was preplanned - frankly it's a good rule in my opinion. IC disputes have not gone down, but I think they have gotten more transparent and less people have gotten stressed.

[i]I don Not think this rule should be rid of CNRP simply because it is helping smaller nations who don't want to get rolled just because they can speak out and it's not hurting larger nations because if they want to have war with other large nations, or even some small nations, you CAN pre-plan a war by both of you agreeing not to pre-plan it. So it's a rather flexible rule that isn't hurting anyone and I think it's a pretty good system to stop a few people from controlling entire continents just because of who their friends are, what kind of governments they have, or because they might RP differently.[/i]

So I think it is a good rule and should stay because it is helping people and it's not hurting anyone.

Edited June 4, 2012 by PresidentDavid

[Kankou]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338835850' post='2976968']
In other words exactly what I said, if we aren't going to use a rule 100% then we need to be rid of it.
[/quote]
I'm going to place the fault on the GM team rather than the rule itself. The prior GM team had been deficient in various occasions, including a wipe of a war which was against the sentiments of an overwhelming percentage of active players of CNRP. I say give the rule a try under the current GM team before calling for its repealing.

As for myself, I'm neutral on the rule itself.


Summary: Let's give the preplanning rule some time to work out under the current GM team. If it still fails, then let's go kill it.

[Domingo the Honored]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338835729' post='2976967']
Given that it was him that pretty much destroyed preplanning as an institution, I can't really listen to his line of thoughts. Basically forcing a player to follow unreasonable pre-engagement rules through the threat of a war wavier, saying that "non-physical" war actions does not need preplanning. After all the actions he did to get around the initial rule, he calls it the worst decision?
[/quote]

Thank you for taking the time to try and discredit Triyun's word rather than actually putting forth arguments about why the rule has any merit or doesn't.
Edit: Thanks for getting your second reply in shortly before this one.

Anyway, given that we generally desire CNRP to be as real as possible, isn't this rule just a load of worthlessness? I mean, maybe somebody's brought it up and I've missed it, but I haven't seen anyone actually mention the fact that people engaging in wars in real nation diplomacy don't generally plan with each other. Sorry if you don't want to be forcefully invaded with no warning by a larger, more developed nation, or if you don't want war, or you don't like a nation being able to take a whole continent. That's how real life is, nations get powerful, and if you're Belgium next to Germany, you'll probably want to be a bit more prepared next time.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Domingo the Honored

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338836174' post='2976970']
I'm going to place the fault on the GM team rather than the rule itself. The prior GM team had been deficient in various occasions, including a wipe of a war which was against the sentiments of an overwhelming percentage of active players of CNRP. I say give the rule a try under the current GM team before calling for its repealing.

As for myself, I'm neutral on the rule itself.


Summary: Let's give the preplanning rule some time to work out under the current GM team. If it still fails, then let's go kill it.
[/quote]

Fair enough, I shall agree to disagree with you on the matter.

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338836174' post='2976970']
I'm going to place the fault on the GM team rather than the rule itself. The prior GM team had been deficient in various occasions, including a wipe of a war which was against the sentiments of an overwhelming percentage of active players of CNRP. I say give the rule a try under the current GM team before calling for its repealing.

As for myself, I'm neutral on the rule itself.


Summary: Let's give the preplanning rule some time to work out under the current GM team. If it still fails, then let's go kill it.
[/quote]

I pretty much agree. As you can see, most of the people of the former GM team only got one or two nominations and they were by the "Powers that Be". So now that the Mods think it's in our best interest to elect our own GMs and control our own system, which I'm happy about, I think we won't have that problem for a while.

Anyway, I think this rule has done a lot of good and will continue to do so.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1338836230' post='2976973']
Anyway, given that we generally desire CNRP to be as real as possible, isn't this rule just a load of worthlessness? I mean, maybe somebody's brought it up and I've missed it, but I haven't seen anyone actually mention the fact that people engaging in wars in real nation diplomacy don't generally plan with each other. Sorry if you don't want to be forcefully invaded with no warning by a larger, more developed nation, or if you don't want war, or you don't like a nation being able to take a whole continent. That's how real life is, nations get powerful, and if you're Belgium next to Germany, you'll probably want to be a bit more prepared next time.
[/quote]
The main counterargument is that the alliance system in CNRP is highly unrealistic due to its high level of OOC factors, including formerly hostile nations suddenly becoming BFFs based on the change of players. Just as we restrict the use of nuclear weapons on smaller nations (based on the unrealistic high usage of such weapons and for RP balancing), the preplanning rule acts to soften the impact of the alliance web which wouldn't exist in a RL situation.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1338835443' post='2976966']
And just in case the common opinion and evidence isn't enough, Triyun, one of the GM's who got it instituted, called it the worst decision he ever made. So yeah, death to pre-planning of wars.
[/quote]
This sentence could have been shortened to: Triyun doesn't like it either. Neither his former position as GM, nor him being a party who got it instituted actually gives him more authority. Not on a rational basis. He may bring arguments, but his resumé in CNRP alone is not an argument per se.

I wonder really what it is that can be achieved by abolishing preplanning. A preplanning session does not create a wholly new rule set, it creates new rules based on the existing ruleset and only creates new rules if both agree. If nation A wants to attack nation B, they can still do so (provided ICly they are powerful enough), nation B cannot say no. One does not have to agree on an outcome, one can, but it is not a requirement. If nation B does not cooperate in the planning, you can apply for a waiver, and if nation A demands some new rule that is completely out of place, you can just decline, whereupon it just remains normal CNRP standard in this regard.

The only REAL reason I see to argue against the rule, is abuse of it, but here I think it is more reasonable to combat abuse than a rule that actually did soften OOC argument. If one compares the German invasion of Grand Papua, not with your standard war, but with what it would have been without preplanning. In the last days, I bet it would have turned into a nuclear spamfest, like Sweden did just recently. And that is neither good RP, nor good warfare, nor anything good, but just a good reason to keep this rule.

[Yawoo]

Eva, you're just muddying the waters. The purpose of the rule was to prevent huge OOC disputes - this has failed. When something has failed it needs to be gotten rid of. Let's look at all the wars that have occurred since the pre-plan rule was implemented, there is still OOC problems in each one. Hence, the rule has failed.

[Aiden Ford]

Please lawd get rid of it.

[Domingo the Honored]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1338836647' post='2976979']
This sentence could have been shortened to: Triyun doesn't like it either. Neither his former position as GM, nor him being a party who got it instituted actually gives him more authority. Not on a rational basis. He may bring arguments, but his resumé in CNRP alone is not an argument per se.

I wonder really what it is that can be achieved by abolishing preplanning. A preplanning session does not create a wholly new rule set, it creates new rules based on the existing ruleset and only creates new rules if both agree. If nation A wants to attack nation B, they can still do so (provided ICly they are powerful enough), nation B cannot say no. One does not have to agree on an outcome, one can, but it is not a requirement. If nation B does not cooperate in the planning, you can apply for a waiver, and if nation A demands some new rule that is completely out of place, you can just decline, whereupon it just remains normal CNRP standard in this regard.

The only REAL reason I see to argue against the rule, is abuse of it, but here I think it is more reasonable to combat abuse than a rule that actually did soften OOC argument. If one compares the German invasion of Grand Papua, not with your standard war, but with what it would have been without preplanning. In the last days, I bet it would have turned into a nuclear spamfest, like Sweden did just recently. And that is neither good RP, nor good warfare, nor anything good, but just a good reason to keep this rule.
[/quote]

Actually, that sentence could be shortened to: The guy who [i]made the rule we're debating[/i] doesn't like it. And like it or not, the opinion of the person who got the rule put in about it means a little more than your average person's. I wasn't saying he has more authority because he used to be a GM, but because he happens to be the GM that made the pre-planning rule get installed, his views on this particular case carry some significant weight in the reflection of its efficacy.

Once again, I fail to see how you're arguing anything other than "The rule is pretty much a nonfactor, so let's just keep it, and if it does hinder you, apply for a waiver." Are you really so committed to keeping a load of dead weight just because you don't see how it affects much? I'm not going to go through a process of averting a rule that does nothing but harm, and certainly would be angry if it were kept only because certain players think it's just not noticeable.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Domingo the Honored

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338836833' post='2976981']
Eva, you're just muddying the waters. The purpose of the rule was to prevent huge OOC disputes - this has failed. When something has failed it needs to be gotten rid of. Let's look at all the wars that have occurred since the pre-plan rule was implemented, there is still OOC problems in each one. Hence, the rule has failed.
[/quote]

But don't you think it's stopped ragequitting and people getting stressed or angry about our silly game . I think it's great that it atleast makes people work together. So what if it didn't completely help it's original intent, it had great effects elsewhere. What's so bad about that?

EDIT: So far, it seems the only people who want to get rid of it are the big nations that like to roll people. I don't see anyone giving a good reason to get rid of it besides, "It's not serving it's intended purpose." Like I said, it is doing good for the community though.

Edited June 4, 2012 by PresidentDavid

[Kankou]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338836833' post='2976981']
Eva, you're just muddying the waters. The purpose of the rule was to prevent huge OOC disputes - this has failed. When something has failed it needs to be gotten rid of. Let's look at all the wars that have occurred since the pre-plan rule was implemented, there is still OOC problems in each one. Hence, the rule has failed.
[/quote]
It failed because the GM team allowed abuses and loopholes it should have prevented. Killing the rule when the enforcers weren't doing their jobs is just covering up for the faults of the enforcers.


[quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1338837068' post='2976983']
Actually, that sentence could be shortened to: The guy who [i]made the rule we're debating[/i] doesn't like it. And like it or not, the opinion of the person who got the rule put in about it means a little more than your average person's. I wasn't saying he has more authority because he used to be a GM, but because he happens to be the GM that made the pre-planning rule get installed, his views on this particular case carry some significant weight in the reflection of its efficacy.[/quote]
The opinion of a person who actively and passively ignored the rule after installing matters a little more than the average player? I would think it would count for less, if at all.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Kankou

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338836833' post='2976981']
Eva, you're just muddying the waters. The purpose of the rule was to prevent huge OOC disputes - this has failed. When something has failed it needs to be gotten rid of. Let's look at all the wars that have occurred since the pre-plan rule was implemented, there is still OOC problems in each one. Hence, the rule has failed.
[/quote]
The purpose is to lessen it with an utopian goal to prevent it completely. And it did its job. If there are still OOC disputes, I see them no greater than what they'd be if we had no preplanning. Else, every program to reduce homelessness, unemployment, corruption, hunger and what else failed, regardless if it may have helped, just because those problems still exist.