Yawoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1338893112' post='2977417'] 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. [/quote] Why yes Lynneth, I am aware of one of the more significant events in CNRP's recent past. I hardly see how it is relevant. Just because we have new GMs does not mean that a broke rule will suddenly begin to work as it is intended to. Edit: Seriously, just look at Coal Wars to see how much OOC bickering is happening even with a pre-plan rule in place. Edited June 5, 2012 by Yawoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) Counter-example, I do not want to know how France would look like without preplanning. In this regard, it stops radicality a bit, when people don't go around shooting nukes and rounding up civilians and characters as gambits. And this, it is totally worth the existence of the rule, in my humble opinion. Not just because it saves me problems, but also, it can do so for others. And war with Isaac is not going to get better without preplan. Edited June 5, 2012 by Evangeline Anovilis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Evang does have a point, I rage quit two attacks on Isaac because of his asshatery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1338898012' post='2977437'] Evang does have a point, I rage quit two attacks on Isaac because of his asshatery. [/quote] And that is why there are such things as 'waivers' in place in case things get too crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 Lynneth, waivers are used extremely sparingly and in very little connection with the purpose of the rule I, and it seems many others, would like to abolish, so I don't think your point is too valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) The pre-planning rule has had more than enough time to display its own efficacy and it has failed spectacularly to achieve its goal. The presence of different GM's will not change how an ineffective, dead-weight rule works or operates. It's not going to change or all of a sudden be better, it's broken and always has been. The only solution now is removal. Edited June 5, 2012 by Domingo the Honored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 5, 2012 Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 [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. Your argument fails to understand that [b]not everyone wants to pre-plan wars[/b]. 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] OK, if they don't want to pre-plan, they can just agree to have no set agreement on the outcome or anything else. Just saying. [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1338843036' post='2977038'] 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. [/quote] Just because a rule does not have the intended consequences does not mean it should be automatically abolished. If it has unintended but still benificial consequences, why get rid of it? [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] I was actually mulling over a possibility like this for a while...after all, conquerers in RL can, after a time, begin to draw on the resources of the regions they take. Why can't something similar be enacted in CNRP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted June 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2012 [quote]OK, if they don't want to pre-plan, they can just agree to have no set agreement on the outcome or anything else. Just saying.[/quote] If we're arguging semantics then that in and of itself is pre-planning. [quote]Just because a rule does not have the intended consequences does not mean it should be automatically abolished. If it has unintended but still benificial consequences, why get rid of it?[/quote] As I have continually said, if people enjoy unintended consequences of this rule then those consequences should be put towards a community vote and not just reside under the umbrella of a poor rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 6, 2012 Report Share Posted June 6, 2012 And who is to say it is a poor rule? So far I have not seen any concrete evidence that it is [i]overall[/i] detrimental to the working of CNRP. In fact, opinion seems fairly divided on that issue. But you are right that it should be put to a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I agree with Yawoo. It's a silly rule. All it does is baby people. If you don't want to participate in all of CNRP, don't participate in any of it. The unplanned wars are a part of it. Hell it's not like you're going to magically revive CNRP one way or the other, that's the sad truth. New GMs aren't going to change anything. Most war arguing doesn't come from whether it's planned or not, it comes from two people who want nothing more than to fight with each other OOC. It's like if Kankou and Triyun or Vektor tried to plan a war. There would be incessant !@#$%*ing, it's just the GMs would never hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='Bacharth' timestamp='1339044553' post='2978620'] There would be incessant !@#$%*ing, it's just the GMs would never hear it. [/quote] I think that in itself is worth the rule. If the two RPers don't annoy GMs and community as much as with unplanned wars, it's already a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='Evangeline Anovilis' timestamp='1339058284' post='2978683'] I think that in itself is worth the rule. If the two RPers don't annoy GMs and community as much as with unplanned wars, it's already a good thing. [/quote] You missed the whole point of his post, Eva. GMs, I think now is a good time for the poll to go up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I would like to see how the rule works under the new GM staff. Perhaps with their recent passive voting crap they'll figure out how to grow stones and make people speak to each other in a civil manner. I doubt it, they'll probably just vote on what swear words are allowed in a preplanning session. I still think it should be given a chance though, let it play out. It's no more abused than the tech rules and I notice no one is calling for them to be revised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 This is CNRP. While i'll spend hours trying to convince people to work together or broker deals two parties agree with - I won't force anyone to play nice. As for growing stones - if the proles decide to vote on a bad vote and choose it, by all means. If someone decides to ruin a game they bought, they should have the right to do so... the same way people can choose to be griefers in MMOs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 EVADE EVADE EVADE, good one there sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1339077477' post='2978739'] EVADE EVADE EVADE, good one there sir. [/quote] [quote]...shirk all responsibility WHILE maintaining a sense of authority by appearing to be democratic. [/quote] I call it 'doing a barrel roll'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1338922255' post='2977706'] I was actually mulling over a possibility like this for a while...after all, conquerers in RL can, after a time, begin to draw on the resources of the regions they take. Why can't something similar be enacted in CNRP? [/quote] I'm thinking the opposite: In modern day with the concept of nationalism, it's harder to get things fully mobilized under occupation. Therefore, conquest should cause inefficiencies rather than inefficiencies. Basically, conquest should be penaltized when going beyond a certain range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 I hadn't considered that angle. Hmm... 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.