Isaac MatthewII Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Captain Nathan Brittles' timestamp='1343193718' post='3014847'] Oh please. It had gone well past the mere mentioning of the word. [/quote] You are the mod and I am the player, I respect that. I just didnt find any offense in it, some may have I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Yes let's make a poll now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343188564' post='3014736'] This THREAD is stupid. Didn't we have this to two months ago? Why do we have this discussion when there had been no complaints? Just because a GM is against preplanning? [/quote] ???? Do you not read? There are MANY people complaining against pre-planning. The rape comparison isnt cool, not by a long way and I hope you realise how stupid you were by saying that. CNRP is an interactive community, you cant participate in CNRP and then throw your toys out of the pram when your actions get you warred. Are we going to return to topic now, or are we going to carry on getting the attention of the mods by retarded comments? Pre-planning, yay or nay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Who are the "many" people? Was it like the majority in past votes? For that matter, any simple list of the complainers? That being said, it'll always be yay for me (as in long live preplanning). Edited July 25, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1343205791' post='3014971'] ???? Do you not read? There are MANY people complaining against pre-planning. The rape comparison isnt cool, not by a long way and I hope you realise how stupid you were by saying that. CNRP is an interactive community, you cant participate in CNRP and then throw your toys out of the pram when your actions get you warred. Are we going to return to topic now, or are we going to carry on getting the attention of the mods by retarded comments? Pre-planning, yay or nay? [/quote] I count 6 people in this thread who're against Preplanning. 7 if we add TBM. That is not 'MANY people'. That's a minority in CNRP, with 30-50 players at various times. Pre-planning needs to be kept. Modified somewhat perhaps to give the defender more leverage other than "I don't want your draconic suggestions", "Too bad, do that or I'll get a waiver" and then get rolled, anyways. Perhaps we could incorporate SoI again into RP, that you cannot control land larger than 4-10 pixels (military base, island) outside of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1343215742' post='3015009'] -snip- [/quote] Well when the other 43 or 33 people start putting in an opinion Lynneth, then your point might mean something other than a simple gripe. Five people that i counted gave definate "keep pre-planning" anyone else who commented either didnt have anything good to say relevent to the topic or are on the fence actually coming up with suggestions. [b]So how would you modify pre-planning to avoid "draconic suggestions", and simply getting waivers and attacking anyway?[/b] Pre-planning with you caused massive rages between us both, Jed/Ty v TBM ended up with rages, PD was down right TOLD what was going to happen and didnt have a say in the matter. Me and Isaac, rages followed, anyway with kankou, RAGES, although that was the same before pre-planning and those are just examples i can think of from the top of my head. Nothing changed with pre-planning being implemented apart from an additional conversation beforehand telling your target what your going to do and asking if they want to plan it out. It still causes arguments on an epic level. There is NOTHING to say that if pre-planning was abolished, you cannot plan a war, I think most people probably still would plan them out, but others would wait until after they had attacked before starting to plan the rest of it. [quote] All I am seeing is people coming out with the same argument with no valid point to back it up. Here is a summary: *It makes it civil - BS *It gets out most of the problems before war starts - BS 50% of the time. [b]*It forces people to RP with people they dont want to[/b] -[i][u] This is the ONLY valid argument point and I say that, because I have complained of this, but CNRP is an interactive community and you CANNOT throw your toys out of the pram when one of your actions has consequences that you dont like.[/u][/i] * "I prefer to have a planned war or be told OOCly beforehand" - Thats fine, thats how alot of people worked BEFORE Pre-planning was implemented. *Perhaps we should bring back SoI into CNRP - Useless. [b]It still IS part of CNRP[/b], your first claim cannot be larger than your IG SoI, any other territory gained done through RP is legal and fine.[/quote] Edited July 25, 2012 by Zoot Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote]*[b]It forces people to RP with people they dont want to[/b] - [i][u]This is the ONLY valid argument point and I say that, because I have complained of this, but CNRP is an interactive community and you CANNOT throw your toys out of the pram [color="#DDA0DD"]when one of your actions has consequences that you dont like.[/color][/u][/i][/quote] 1. To me this looks like an anti-PM argument. Pre-planning is different from PM though. Pre-planning does not save you from any war and till today, there has been not one nation that has been saved by the pre-plan rule, as they either got a war, or the aggressor got fed up and left (which the aggressor should just blame on themselves or forget it). 2. There are enough wars that are declared for an obvious "I don't like you" or just for the lulz of the aggressor. "Throwing your toys out of the pram", because someone attacks you as a consequence of some RP faux-pas, or doing so, because the very reason you get attacked is your mere existence, I see a good difference there. The first is IC politics, the second is bordering if not already in the realm of OOC cyber-bullying. Also, while most people don't voice their opinion, they still voted in favour of pre-planning last time. Sorry if said people do not see any reason to discuss this topic again every two months, just because some minority of 7 of 60 thinks it is necessary to abolish the rule. I acknowledge that most likely, a lot of RPers have more valuable things to do with their time than to discuss. Additionally, I personally support pre-planning and really, I don't think the implementation of SoI concepts should be called useless, if people didn't even mention any clear definition of what they may have in mind. Overall, I hope this stupid topic dies down, gets dug in and never is mentioned again (I know it's not going to happen), because all I see is a very vocal minority that throws a tandrum, because their wishes (or those of their masters) to curbstomp minors is delayed by a few days due to a rule, and now we undermine said rule by demonising our opponents, putting up strawmen and blowing the problem of the few days delay out pf proportion by interpreting people that may not have bothered to participate in this dirty mud-slinging of a debate as something along the lines of permissive consensus. If people complain about the rage, pre-planning may create rage, not to pre-plan does surely not create less rage, starting stupid discussions like these however start rage too, which could be prevented if certain people would not start this every two months again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 *It makes it civil - It forces the attacking side to at least put a lot of thought into actually getting a valid CB wihotu resorting to the kind of BS as the Po Ta To Incident. *It gets out most of the problems before war starts - If preplanning means we get to see less megawars based on flimsier premises than WW1, then it does get most of the problems out. Given that CNRP in general acts like some immature brats rather than actual nations, preplanning adds the element of getting players to think like a nation before hopping into any goddamn conflict they deem they want to for the sole purpose of pounding someone for fun. *It forces people to RP with people they dont want to - Waivers. The Anti-preplanning crowd acts as if waivers don't exist. This kind of selective arguing renders the entire damn anti-preplanning argument invalid because it fails to take into consideration a major linchpin to the preplanning system. Unless I see some kind of valid argument saying waivers don't work, all I'm seeing is a bunch of egoistws who just want to war for the sake of war ignoring that they're not acting like any realistic nations despite all the hining about "realpolitik" or "realism". If the players can't stop being hypocritical, then standards must be forced along with the alternative (waiver). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Ok well here is your numbers on just how many people are actually active in this community in different degree's of activity. All those in italics are inactive in some degree of severity, those without italics are considered active. [quote] Aiden Ford - United Confederacy of North America (Merged) [i]Axolotlia - People's Republic of Africa - Pretty inactive Californian - Greenland (Merged) - pretty inactive[/i] [i]Centurius - Athenian Federation - moderate[/i] Chancellor Patrick - Regnum [i]Coloradia - Westeros - Wiped[/i] Curristan - Iran [i]Domingo - Chancellery of Cyrantia - pretty inactive dotCom - República do Pará - very inactive[/i] Evangeline Anovilis - France [i]Executive Minister - Aeon - pretty inactive [i]Femshep - Boston - does not exist[/i] iamthey - Avalon - VERY inactive iKrolm - Selenarctos - VERY inactive Imperator Azenquor - Serenessima Republika Vauleya - moderate[/i] Isaac MatthewII - United Confederacy of North America (Merged) [i]JEDCJT - Greenland (Merged) - very inactive[/i] [i]jeff744 - Republic of Neo Roma - pretty inactive (re-rolled) Joel James - Republic of India - pretty inactive Justinian the Mighty - Empire of Vostokslavia - pretty inactive KaiserMelech Mikhail - Marscurian Siberia - pretty inactive[/i] Kankou - Greater Quebec Republic [i]Kevin Kingswell - Hellghan Ascendancy - moderate (re-rolled) King Timmy - New Panama - inactive (wiped) King of Cochin - Bharat - left CNRP (wiped Kitex - Unknown - VERY INACTIVE (no nation) Knowz - United States of Oceanesia - very inactive - (wiped) Lavo_2 - Republic of Papua - VERY INACTIVE LBT88 - Dixie Confederacy - VERY INACTIVE (bordering being wiped/rolled) Lord Zephyr - Haven - VERY INACTIVE Lynneth - Lunar Republic - moderate Maelstrom Vortex - Forbidden Ice - pretty inactive (re-rolled) Malatose - Grossdeutsches Reich - very inactive[/i] Mara Lithaen - Northern Imperium [i]Margrave - Othel - VERY INACTIVE[/i] Markus Wilding - Socialist Republic of Georgia [i]mergerberger II - Naharayim - VERY INACTIVE[/i] MostGloriousLeader - American Commonwealth Owned-You - Vinsalia PresidentDavid - Ireland [i]Rauchen - Republic of Ontario - moderate Sarah Tintagyl - Iron Coast - pretty inactive (re-rolled) Shadow hawk - United Republics of Newfoundland and Labrador - very inactive [/i] [i]supercheese - República de Cuba - moderate[/i] Tidy Bowl Man - Southern USA Triyun - Tianxia [i]Vedran - Arctica - VERY INACTIVE[/i] [i]Voodoo Nova - Mexico - pretty inactive[/i] Yawoo - Vietnam [i]Zarfef - Free Kingdom of Edean - very inactive[/i] Zoot Zoot - Umbrella Commonwealth[/quote] This makes the "active" community to around 15 people, up to around 22-25 if you take into account moderately active people. So please dont play the "minority" card because it wont fly, because the actual active people in CNRP is around 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1343215742' post='3015009'] I count 6 people in this thread who're against Preplanning. 7 if we add TBM. That is not 'MANY people'. That's a minority in CNRP, with 30-50 players at various times. Pre-planning needs to be kept. Modified somewhat perhaps to give the defender more leverage other than "I don't want your draconic suggestions", "Too bad, do that or I'll get a waiver" and then get rolled, anyways. Perhaps we could incorporate SoI again into RP, that you cannot control land larger than 4-10 pixels (military base, island) outside of it. [/quote] Does that include space? Anyway, preplanning in its current system works well enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 As long as I stay active enough to not be considered inactive, I am affected by the pre-plan rule and have a right to be taken into consideration. Or what undemocratic reasoning do you want to bring in to say that only a standard of activity you just arbitrarily defined makes a persons opinion valuable enough to be counted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Jesus, this conversation is still going on? Its like the occupiers. "We are the 99% (says 0.5% of the community)" get over it, your plan (or as Eva put it your masters) plan for getting all of the ants out of their sand box will have to wait a few days longer. I know its horrible, why not troll on IRC to pass the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Look Isaac, im asking nicely now, either post something relevant to the thread and stop being a !@#$%, or stop posting in here. All I have seen you do is whine and rant. That goes to anyone else aswell. Stop ranting and start talking. If people just !@#$%* at eachother and whine about a discussion thread, nothing will change and we as GM's are still none the wiser to the wishes of the community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1343231923' post='3015100'] Does that include space? Anyway, preplanning in its current system works well enough. [/quote] Space doesn't have a map, does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Zoot Zoot' timestamp='1343234824' post='3015123'] Look Isaac, im asking nicely now, either post something relevant to the thread and stop being a !@#$%, or stop posting in here. All I have seen you do is whine and rant. That goes to anyone else aswell. Stop ranting and start talking. If people just !@#$%* at eachother and whine about a discussion thread, nothing will change and we as GM's are still none the wiser to the wishes of the community. [/quote] I like how you are turnig the whining on me when the whole topic and its creator have been guilty of it. This is a discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Right so pre-planning obviously has some benefits and drawbacks and personally I would say keep pre-planning in however, I would say that pre-planning does not need to be about working out each and every little detail for a war. I would say that at most it would consist of one player, usually the attacker, messaging the defender that they intend to initiate hostilities and that you would like to know their current border defenses and other information deemed relevant. After all that is all that is required to start a war. Thoughts people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1343235684' post='3015138'] Right so pre-planning obviously has some benefits and drawbacks and personally I would say keep pre-planning in however, I would say that pre-planning does not need to be about working out each and every little detail for a war. I would say that at most it would consist of one player, usually the attacker, messaging the defender that they intend to initiate hostilities and that you would like to know their current border defenses and other information deemed relevant. After all that is all that is required to start a war. Thoughts people? [/quote] I agree with the letting the defender know, I would suggest something to the effect of an end goal of either victory. I would say that the border defenses are something that the enemy will have to "stumble" upon and TBH they should have read up on an enemy before attacking them anyways, this will consume 10 minutes of their time but it would keep from pages of queries. The enemy would have a chance to metagame against defenses should they get OOC help. For example if I told Kankou that I had mines laced all across South Carolina and not North Carolina, nothing is stopping her form just attacking North Carolina. Edited July 25, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 One [b]big[/b] thing about wars and people not wanting them is that usually, the end result is the loser being annexed entirely instead of, say, a puppet government being installed that could feasibly allow the loser to eventually regain independence through military or diplomatic means. People just love to !@#$@#$ annex everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1343235994' post='3015143'] I agree with the letting the defender know, I would suggest something to the effect of an end goal of either victory. I would say that the border defenses are something that the enemy will have to "stumble" upon and TBH they should have read up on an enemy before attacking them anyways, this will consume 10 minutes of their time but it would keep from pages of queries. The enemy would have a chance to metagame against defenses should they get OOC help. For example if I told Kankou that I had mines laced all across South Carolina and not North Carolina, nothing is stopping her form just attacking North Carolina. [/quote] Well the thing is that not everyone posts either a factbook or details their defenses, for example in Georgia my air defenses would be around military sites and the borders would have been open apart from the odd toll booth. But you wouldn't know that without asking and if someone asked about your defenses OOC and changed their plans IC then you could go to the GMs with a valid complaint of meta gaming. For giving the information though I would say that first they would have to send something which would allow them to scout the border defenses before you let them know. Also end goals may change. An example if someone was invading to remove say a terrorist group in another person's nation and then said nation used a nuke to strike the aggressor that person may decide to now conquer the defender for revenge. Though I agree a basic goal couldn't hurt. [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1343236332' post='3015146'] One [b]big[/b] thing about wars and people not wanting them is that usually, the end result is the loser being annexed entirely instead of, say, a puppet government being installed that could feasibly allow the loser to eventually regain independence through military or diplomatic means. People just love to !@#$@#$ annex everything. [/quote] Whilst this does indeed happen often as soon as someone is annexed they give up. I can understand why as I doubt they want to try and rp a long term insurgency in this case it is what would need to be required. At the moment it is an unavoidable part of the CNRP universe. Edited July 25, 2012 by Kevin Kingswell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1343235684' post='3015138'] Right so pre-planning obviously has some benefits and drawbacks and personally I would say keep pre-planning in however, I would say that pre-planning does not need to be about working out each and every little detail for a war. I would say that at most it would consist of one player, usually the attacker, messaging the defender that they intend to initiate hostilities and that you would like to know their current border defenses and other information deemed relevant. After all that is all that is required to start a war. Thoughts people? [/quote] That is what preplanning would normally be, if there was a good casus belli beforehand. Frankly, the way I see it, most of the anti-preplanning people don't want to have a preplanning session because their wars are on pretty flimsy grounds which would be a laughingstock if people weren't so bent on excusing themselves as "this is CNRP". As I continuously say, preplanning forces the attacker to come up with a better quality of reasoning to a war instead of all the lulzwars and "I simply don't like you" wars that occur quite frequently in CNRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343236928' post='3015158'] That is what preplanning would normally be, if there was a good casus belli beforehand. Frankly, the way I see it, most of the anti-preplanning people don't want to have a preplanning session because their wars are on pretty flimsy grounds which would be a laughingstock if people weren't so bent on excusing themselves as "this is CNRP". As I continuously say, preplanning forces the attacker to come up with a better quality of reasoning to a war instead of all the lulzwars and "I simply don't like you" wars that occur quite frequently in CNRP. [/quote] Kankou the casus belli can be either good or bad but that doesn't effect whether the war will or won't happen or if someone pre-plans or not. If I attacked my neighbour because I am angry at him OOC then yes thats bad roleplaying but it is still roleplaying and happens but either way it doesn't effect the pre-planning. So pre-planning doesn't effect the reasons for war in the slightest I am afraid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 I believe to be the opposite. The rules we have in place ideally serves to keep the quality of RPing up. Getting rid of a rule that does keep quality is really a sham at making a parody of RPing. But hey, that's me. I'm sure some people are going to pull out the "This is cnRP, and it's for fun! We should have our fun (even if it means destroying the fun of others while I'm at it)" card. That's a fundamental problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343237475' post='3015165'] I believe to be the opposite. The rules we have in place ideally serves to keep the quality of RPing up. Getting rid of a rule that does keep quality is really a sham at making a parody of RPing. But hey, that's me. I'm sure some people are going to pull out the "This is cnRP, and it's for fun! We should have our fun (even if it means destroying the fun of others while I'm at it)" card. That's a fundamental problem. [/quote] Kankou I think you may have misread my point I am not advocating getting rid of pre-planning I was just saying that a valid casus belli that makes sense is not an actual part of the pre-planning process. As pre-planning can still occur when a poor CB is brought up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Ah, sorry. In the case of bad casus belli, I would say that the defender can simply refuse to do the war, and the GMs (supposing they also try to uphold quality) would not give out a waiver. It's a self-regulating rule. Of course, if the GMs don't to it, then the rule might be neutralized for that particular conflict, but still, having a safeguard is better than having none at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1343238198' post='3015174'] Ah, sorry. In the case of bad casus belli, I would say that the defender can simply refuse to do the war, and the GMs (supposing they also try to uphold quality) would not give out a waiver. It's a self-regulating rule. Of course, if the GMs don't to it, then the rule might be neutralized for that particular conflict, but still, having a safeguard is better than having none at all. [/quote] Ah whilst I agree bad CB are unfortunate and should be avoided you can't really allow players to refuse to do wars as deciding on what is a good or bad CB is subjective to each person. If someone does declare war on you then you have to roll with it as it is an accepted part of joining in CNRP. You hope that you won't be involved in any wars you don't want but you know it is a risk of choosing to be a part of CNRP. 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.