Kankou Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 (edited) The "status quo" was done never defined explicitly. Link me to the post where there was ever a firm ruling, and I don't mean the "no there was a ruling so they are covered!" sort of rulings. Furthermore, this is a new area: The words of the players are theoretically more powerful, so we would need either a second round of discussions or extension of the voting for that specific question. Edited July 26, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 90% of CNRP's rules and guidelines are not defined explicitly. If you wish to contest this, then get support from the community and the next GM team can re-address the issue of SDI protection of expeditionary forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Unmolested SDI coverage of invasion forces in a victims own land is stupid. Like if you agr- whoops. A tie should not default to one or the other. We need an expansion of that sub rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1343345712' post='3015919'] 90% of CNRP's rules and guidelines are not defined explicitly. If you wish to contest this, then get support from the community and the next GM team can re-address the issue of SDI protection of expeditionary forces. [/quote] Then why not make an explicit guideline instead of this on-the-fly system which constantly causes all these arguments int the first place over uncertain guidelines? To give "flexibility" to make rules to swing things back and forth? Possible sources of abuse must be cleared up as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 Mael, read what my ruling was. You need to actually RP putting in place the SDI coverage over expeditionary forces instead of it just being a presume entity. If you dont RP covering your forces, then they can get nuked without any chance of an SDI roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted July 26, 2012 Report Share Posted July 26, 2012 It's EM... Mael only complained that you excluded Subtle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 I have no problem with expedionary forces and protectorates being covered, but not at the same rate as your nation. Ought to be an automatic penalty or something like that in all rolls for expeditionary forces and protectorates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 27, 2012 Report Share Posted July 27, 2012 [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1343345183' post='3015909'] This GM does not serve the people any longer. Not fairly. Everyone knows Subtle intends to play and is creating a nation. Using technicalities to skew the vote is just plain pathetic. [/quote] Mael, he's merely following the precedent set. I'm not offended. Shush now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 If it was even, then it should not have been set either way expand the poll or discussion until one side cleanly wins. As it stands, even landing a contested expeditionary force in enemy territory will entitle you to full SDI coverage 'so long as it's RPed'. How easy is it to wikipedia a few TEL or TELAR mounted ABM systems and copy paste a few in your deployments? Pretty easy. There should, at the very least, be a penalty to the standard SDI success rate in the case of expeditionary forces. Still going to say there should not be coverage at all in enemy territory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1343355613' post='3016010'] Mael, he's merely following the precedent set. I'm not offended. Shush now. [/quote] Precedents that are not liberated from technicalities need to be. [quote]"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote"[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Maelstrom Vortex, stop making an issue that only you can see. We deliberately established that precedents to prevent former CNRP players who do not have a nation from interfering with the current players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Which kills the community because we hardly get any new entrants.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 Get enough people to agree with you and ask for a vote, stop crying about it all over CNRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) [quote] "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote" [/quote] Isn't that despotism/tribalism/feudalism? Edited July 28, 2012 by Sarah Tintagyl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1343504878' post='3016477'] Isn't that despotism/tribalism/feudalism? [/quote]Maybe so...but it's still [i]technically[/i] a democracy too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1343513063' post='3016518'] Maybe so...but it's still [i]technically[/i] a democracy too. [/quote] I think you're technically wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted July 28, 2012 Report Share Posted July 28, 2012 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1343519618' post='3016542'] I think you're technically wrong [/quote]No...pure democracy..oppression of the minority by the Majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 Whats the final ruling on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted August 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1343345414' post='3015912'] Because the status quo remains unchanged. They covered exped forces before this vote, as the vote is a tie, the status quo remains. Mael, that rule about players with no nation have never had their votes counted since the new system was implimented. [/quote] Here EM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 This is unfair, obviously CNRP is not a true democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 [quote name='Drai' timestamp='1343907642' post='3017814'] This is unfair, obviously CNRP is not a true democracy. [/quote]Is it? do democratic nations let non-citizens vote in their elections? Silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted August 18, 2012 Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 Why would someone nuke a protectorate in the first place? What's that supposed to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1345323185' post='3023233'] Why would someone nuke a protectorate in the first place? What's that supposed to do? [/quote] Because I lack a better example... Consider Mexico wanted to attack the UCNA. UCNA gets help from, don't know, Prairie Union, Quebec or Greenland, Mexico uses its protectorate to drive a large invasion army into UCNA, the defending coalition throws a nuke at it. Is the army protected by SDI or not? As stated above, highly unlikely, but I needed someone with such a border constellation and someone with nukes to help out UCNA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted August 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 The logical, and not silly reason, would be that when a nuke is moving between launch and landing spot, it may fly over protectorates, giving more chances to be intercepted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1345378961' post='3023452'] The logical, and not silly reason, would be that when a nuke is moving between launch and landing spot, it may fly over protectorates, giving more chances to be intercepted. [/quote] I don't see how my point was silly. It is a valid case, just like yours. 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.