Getting the Party Started

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[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]
Not on a rational basis. It implies Triyun having a greater insight on the workings and problems, but to just blindly assume so without reasonable argument is a fallacy.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1338837248' post='2976988']
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.
[/quote]

Let's stick to CNRP, shall we? I would hate to have to call you out on muddying the waters again. So, in other words, you're admitting that there are still OOC disputes, and since the rule's purpose was to eliminate these from CNRP (or at the very least, greatly reduce them) then we must destroy the pre-plan rule. You were not around before, but if you do a little research you will see that the OOC problems have not changed as they should have - should this current rule be working.

[Domingo the Honored]

Good lord, Kankou, if you're just going to make this thread and your arguments one big cluster of your anger towards the old GM team and their tendency to not agree with you, and do all you can to discredit and slander them, at least try to make it a little less transparent. All you've done with your replies has been talk about how useless you think their team was and why the individual members should be completely disregarded. Thanks for putting your frustrations about not getting your way on display for the general public.

[quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1338837415' post='2976990']
Not on a rational basis. It implies Triyun having a greater insight on the workings and problems, but to just blindly assume so without reasonable argument is a fallacy.
[/quote]

I'll thank you to not try and put arguments of logic and reasoning on me. Believe me, that's a battle you won't win. But clearly you're just also doing all you can to make Triyun's opinion matter less and yours gain more weight, so I'm not going to argue his clear advantage any longer.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Domingo the Honored

[Yawoo]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1338837120' post='2976985']
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.
[/quote]

David, you're either intentionally being ignorant or not doing your research. If you had, you will have noticed I am a very small nation. Furthermore, last I checked, if something is not doing the purpose it is intended for then it is usually in everyone's best interest to abolish said rule.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1338837435' post='2976992']-Snip-[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that the change to the GM system happened not because I was raging about it, but because quite a few people believed the GM team weren't up to the task.

Furthermore, saying that we should allow a rule to live a bit longer under a new GM team to see if it works out is more of a "let's wait and see" rather than a support for the rule. As I said, I'm neutral on the existence of the rule. If it fails do its purpose under the new GM team then I would support its demise, but until then, I say give it a chance.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Kankou

[Domingo the Honored]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338837753' post='2976996']
I'm pretty sure that the change to the GM system happened not because I was raging about it, but because quite a few people believed the GM team weren't up to the task.
[/quote]

Once again evading the point. Never did I say anything relating to why the GM system was changed, I just wish you wouldn't be so horrendously obvious about your scorn for the former GM team. Also, yet another reply spent trying to bring down that same team. I suppose you're proving my point, which is odd because you evaded it. Oh well.

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338837521' post='2976994']
David, you're either intentionally being ignorant or not doing your research. If you had, you will have noticed I am a very small nation. Furthermore, last I checked, if something is not doing the purpose it is intended for then it is usually in everyone's best interest to abolish said rule.
[/quote]

So even though a rule was intended to stop OOC arguing, but INSTEAD it has stopped IC ragequitting and not getting people angry or upset as much, then it still should be abolished? It's called "unpredicted effects".

-Your only argument is that since it isn't doing it's intent, it should be rid of.

-My argument is that it is doing a lot of positive things for Nation RP and Character RP since people need to plan things out, which has stopped a lot of bickering since both sides don't want to just win, but they know what will pretty much happen. And it in fact lets people plan plan what is going to happen. Also, it has stopped ragequitting since people have to agree on what happens. This also results in people usually being able to at least keep part of their nation so they can't just roll over everyone and take over large tracks of land. And finally, this rule isn't hurting anyone except for those who just play the game to roll people and not actually RP.

Edited

Edited June 4, 2012 by PresidentDavid

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1338837120' post='2976985']
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.
[/quote]
Look around me, David. My neighbors are Justin, Malatose, Cent and Triyun's protectorates. Who the hell am I gonna roll?

[xoindotnler]

Would see flat sized egos as a bigger problem, but meh got better things to do like finding unclaimed land by said egos.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1338837889' post='2976998']
Once again evading the point. Never did I say anything relating to why the GM system was changed, I just wish you wouldn't be so horrendously obvious about your scorn for the former GM team. Also, yet another reply spent trying to bring down that same team. I suppose you're proving my point, which is odd because you evaded it. Oh well.
[/quote]

1. Please read the edited addition.
2. I did give a reason unrelated to the GM team:
[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338836615' post='2976978']
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.
[/quote]

[Yawoo]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1338837942' post='2976999']
So even though a rule was intended to stop OOC arguing, but INSTEAD it has stopped IC ragequitting and not getting people angry or upset as much, then it still should be abolished? It's called "unpredicted effects".

-Your only argument is that since it isn't doing it's intent, it should be rid of.

-My argument is that it is doing a lot of positive things for Nation RP and Character RP since people need to plan things out, which has stopped a lot of bickering since both sides don't want to just win, but they know what will pretty much happen. And it in fact lets people plan plan what is going to happen. Also, it has stopped ragequitting since people have to agree on what happens. This also results in people usually being able to at least keep part of their nation so they can't just roll over everyone and take over large tracks of land. And finally, this rule isn't hurting anyone except for those who just play the game to roll people and not actually RP.

Edited
[/quote]

First off, it depends on your definition of ragequitting. For me, a ragequitter is someone who gives up their nation in the midst of war - if we go by this, we once again can turn towards the recent past and see this happening in New Guinea.

Your argument fails to understand that not everyone wants to pre-plan wars. Furthermore, if we want to stop people from eating all land (btw, dude, are you really trying that argument? Did you not read what I wrote in the OP?) then create a rule specifically to focus on that and don't try to umbrella it in under another rule. Just because you may enjoy pre-planning doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to do so especially when the original purpose of the rule has failed. So, in this case, it is hurting people through it's lack of action on its original purpose.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338838432' post='2977005']
First off, it depends on your definition of ragequitting. For me, a ragequitter is someone who gives up their nation in the midst of war - if we go by this, we once again can turn towards the recent past and see this happening in New Guinea.[/quote]
Which war? If you mean the civil war, that was already over and reunification had been already discussed. If you mean the Germanic War, it wouldn't apply at all.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338838733' post='2977007']
Which war? If you mean the civil war, that was already over and reunification had been already discussed. If you mean the Germanic War, it wouldn't apply at all.
[/quote]

My apologies, it didn't quite seem over to me when you re-rolled, but I've never claimed to be right 100% all of the time.

[Zoot Zoot]

You cant ask to plan a war and ask the target to allow themselves to be rolled if they lose without screaming and whining.

Get rid.

[Executive Minister]

I'd agree that this rule is unneeded. If a rule is the only thing keeping you civil during the course of a war, then that war is pretty much doomed to OOC mudslinging and arguments right off the bat. People should strive to cooperate with each other and be better sports out of their own initiative. Both parties must be willing to be reasonable - if someone wishes to show good faith by reaching out to the person he or she is attacking/defending against, then that sets an OOC mood that doesn't necessarily show weakness, but is a setting that can be called upon to make sure things go along smoothly.

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338838432' post='2977005']

[i]First off, it depends on your definition of ragequitting. For me, a ragequitter is someone who gives up their nation in the midst of war - if we go by this, we once again can turn towards the recent past and see this happening in New Guinea. [/i]

Your argument fails to understand that not everyone wants to pre-plan wars. Furthermore, if we want to stop people from eating all land (btw, dude, are you really trying that argument? Did you not read what I wrote in the OP?) then create a rule specifically to focus on that and don't try to umbrella it in under another rule. Just because you may enjoy pre-planning doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to do so especially when the original purpose of the rule has failed. So, in this case, it is hurting people through it's lack of action on its original purpose.
[/quote]

You didn't address points one and two I'll assume you agree with me.

[i]Also, I'll define ragequitting, or ragenukequitting as I said earlier, as someone who will go on an all out destructive phase in which they'll hurt and destroy everything they can since they can't get their way. I didn't mean ragequitting in the context of someone who just quits. Kind of like a temper tantrum or when Fizzydog tried reforming the United States and nuked everyone (which he later took back). [/i]

Also, reducing how much land someone can obtain fairly, for the exception of the ingame land rule, isn't necessary. If someone slowly takes land overtime then that can be acceptable however people who will amass large nations quickly and easily and then be dormant except for a military post every now and again, is not acceptable.
[b]This rule not only allows more people to work together and still have a nation after war (which promotes people RPing out wars) but also helps RP because people typically keep at least part of their nation or can reform a government and continue to RP there. [/b]

Now to question what you just said. You said not everyone wants to pre-plan wars.

-You've failed to say why pre-planning wars is bad except for "not everyone wants to pre-plan wars" or "it's lack of action on it's original purpose"
-You have not showed why the former system was better (I have showed the positive effects of this system)
-And you never said how getting rid of this rule would help RP (while I gave the example that the current rule helps people keep their nations even if they are reduced size)

In fact, getting rid of this rule will make those positive side effects, which I mentioned, go away which would hurt the community a whole lot more then the symbolism of a rule's "lack of action on it's original purpose".


[quote][b](1)[/b]My argument is that it is doing a lot of positive things for Nation RP and Character RP since people need to plan things out, [b](2)[/b]which has stopped a lot of bickering since both sides don't want to just win, but they know what will pretty much happen. And it in fact lets people plan [s]plan[/s] what is going to happen. [b](3)[/b]Also, it has stopped ragequitting since people have to agree on what happens. [b](4)[/b]This also results in people usually being able to at least keep part of their nation so they can't just roll over everyone and take over large tracks of land. [b](5)[/b]And finally, this rule isn't hurting anyone except for those who just play the game to roll people and not actually RP.[/quote]

[Yawoo]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1338841720' post='2977029']
SnapCracklePop
[/quote]

Never assume anything about me. As the saying goes, when you assume you make an ass out of yo[b]u[/b] and me. Now, fact of the matter is I did answer your points - just because I don't choose to bullet every point does not mean it goes unanswered.

You're complaining of landhogging, so first off, lol. Your thoughts on the matter of, shall we say, landwhoring, is well known and not something you've kept quite about. This rule hardly prevents people from gaining land and any idea to the contrary are laughable at best. If you wish to go down this line of argument it can be considered that you, yourself, are a landhog/whore/etc. because you RP mostly with characters and inner RPs. Then again, this is a silly argument much like all other landwhoring arguments and has no place in this rule conversation.

You have continually stated that pre-planning prevents nations from being taken over. This is incorrect, if two people agreed to the matter it would happen.

I'm sorry that you feel my already presented opinions on why pre-planning is bad is not good enough, but based on the responses in this thread most of CNRP tends to agree with me. Beyond this, your paraphrasing is completely and utterly lacking and just plain missing the point. Again, I ask that you do your research better as I will not sit here and go over everything twice because you lack proper skills. I feel that my points are valid and your continued asking for more and more of them will be ignored as nothing more than attempt to clutter this thread from proper debate.

You have not shown the positive affects of the current rule, merely your own opinion on the matter whereas I have presented Eva (and everyone else) with the opportunity to go back through our lovely archives of information and view past wars and current wars and see how the OOC drivel remains the same. If people are too lazy to do a little work to see that I am correct then that is their fault, not mine. I will not hand feed you information that is readily available with a simple search of these forums.

Again, your example is opinion only and not based in facts. I have already presented multiple thoughts on how RP will be helped, number one is the fact that a rule such as this one is not being used as its intended purpose and therefore must be rescinded. Again, if you want a rule out of an idea that has been brought about as a consequence of this current rule then lobby for it to be a separate thing. Either get the community to agree to it or allow it to perish along with this ill-conceived rule.


Now, seeing as the last part of your post was a summary I will ignore that as I have answered it above. I will, however, write here that I did notice it to avoid you assuming anything else.

[Triyun]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1338837120' post='2976985']
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.
[/quote]

1) Yawoo, Old Greg, and Domingo are all much smaller nations than most.
2) If you rage over purely IC actions by others, you shouldn't play CN RP.

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1338838006' post='2977002']
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.
[/quote]

I think you only have to look at the USSR, US, Germany, and Japan's changing relationships with changes in regimes in the defeated powers to see your complaint about alliances as not being worth much.

IMO Preplan serves no real purpose unless both people want it. The GM team or anyone isn't going to dictate the threat calculus of any player. If a player determines a threat is existential or not peace can be achieved, the most rational thing to do is wipe out your adversary rather than let them regroup and knife you in the back. If the fight is more of a good natured sparring match, your going to likely not have much OOC complaints. Either way the success for failure of the pre-plan in my judgement is unrelated to the pre-plan itself but rather perceptions of a threat.

I would also say that one of the big things that could help this as far as people's calculus is if conquest was rewarded and land losses were penalized, making limited conquest versus total conquest more defensible (yes I realize I have massive conquests ).

Now I realize that is probably an unrealistic thing, but as far as strategic logic goes, I think its a pretty obvious points. Big players tend to not take more because its indefensible. Those that do take more than they are ready to defend are often vulnerable and attacked for such conquests, especially by those previously 'screwed' in the past.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Triyun

[TheShammySocialist]

As I stated on IRC and I'll state on here, one of the things I do like about preplanning is that it opens an OOC dialogue before a war begins, hopefully in the form of a forum PM. This creates a conduit for players to solve their issues OOCly without having to rely on GMs (hopefully) or having to endure the OOC peanut gallery. But beyond that, lets face it, I can't really say that the preplan rule that was enforced, mainly by the Mods after the memorable and downright exhaustive OOC battle that took place during the TSI-Cochin War, has been effective since.

How many OOC battles/wars have started since then? Too many to count, and I don't really think it matters whether the preplan rule is enforced or not. There will still be a war, regardless of any objections by either party. There are so many alternate egos in this community, and a number of them clash and will continue to clash, rules or no.

This is [b]NOT[/b] to say that I, now speaking in the capacity of a GM, don't encourage players to try to work out their warfare differences amongst one another and try to respectfully and courteously. I did this when I was fighting Cochin, I try to do this with anyone that I do engage with in warfare, and to be honest, it has worked out fairly well and the wars that I have had, have not turned into OOC slugfests.

This is [i]your[/i] community, CNRP, the GMs will enforce a preplan rule if it is kept, and if not, we will encourage players to try to work out their differences before bringing their problems to us.

Edited June 4, 2012 by TheShammySocialist

[Lynneth]

I think all of you are silly and the rule should stay. That is my opinion.

[Lestari]

[quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1338847277' post='2977064']
I think all of you are silly and the rule should stay. That is my opinion.
[/quote]
This statement reflects my view on the matter adequately.

[Zoot Zoot]

In a planned war, you will never get somebody to agree to plan a war that will result in them being rolled. Before anyone says that they might not be rolled, it's true, but it does happen.

Get rid of this war planning crap. The risk behind the CNRP dynamic is near to 0 now. Yes I'm aware this is ME saying this, but I don't care.

Get rid of it.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1338845469' post='2977058']
I think you only have to look at the USSR, US, Germany, and Japan's changing relationships with changes in regimes in the defeated powers to see your complaint about alliances as not being worth much.[/quote]
I was not talking about defeated powers. My focus is how just because the player changed we suddenly have wedding bells ringing, massive military aid sent, and MDPs given out like kisses, based on WHO the player is. People can deny it all they want, but we all know the player is as big a factor as what the nation is when we interact.


[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1338845469' post='2977058']I would also say that one of the big things that could help this as far as people's calculus is if conquest was rewarded and land losses were penalized, making limited conquest versus total conquest more defensible (yes I realize I have massive conquests ). [/quote]
Make IG bought land relevant by making it a factor in the amount of stable territory/protectorate one can have?



Back to the original topic: Let's give preplanning a bit more time. If it still doesn't work out, then we can all vote on whether to kill it. Why so impatient?

[Yawoo]

We're hardly being impatient, Kankou - this rule has been in place since the Cochin war.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338891887' post='2977414']
We're hardly being impatient, Kankou - this rule has been in place since the Cochin war.
[/quote]
Have you heard there's a new GM team under which things might just be slightly different? That's what she means with impatience. Let it work for a while under them.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Lynneth