Domingo the Honored Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 I've never been much a player for walls of text when it comes to OOC argumentation, so I'll try and keep that up if I can. Short, sweet, to the point, all that. I offer only two choices; abolish or keep the rule. I feel any "I don't care" or "Change the rule/compromise" would be counterproductive, at least for now. It's been a while since the last preplanning vote and I (as well as its other detractors) have been living with it, but I don't feel I can sit by any longer. A while back, when we were complaining about the rule, we didn't have tremendous examples to back up our arguments, at least that I can recall. Now there are. For example, in a startlingly short amount of time the rule has been abused, which is something so easy to do and obvious; we've been pointing it out forever. Mara used the preplanning rule, as I understand, to buy herself all sorts of time before her on-going rolling. She would delay, stall, refuse to plan, do anything to abuse the rule so the other participants couldn't legally begin war. This is an egregious abuse, to say the least. We've also seen several recent wiped posts resulting directly from preplanning. Kankou was privy to a session and used it unfairly, and several users have begun unfair, non-coincidental militarization during preplanning to prepare for wars they only know about in an OOC nature. This is even more egregious, astounding, unfair, and abusive of the rule. This rule has been one of the most controversial of recent times in CNRP. It's narrowly stayed through several prior votes. That really ought not happen again. It's so painfully obvious how the rule is being abused, how people can't restrain themselves from getting unfair advantages from it, all that. The rule is so poor it just hands people OOC advantage on a silver platter, it's ridiculous. It ties up GM's and makes their already busy and difficult jobs even worse, because the preplanning rule just by what it is spawns arguments. There's no reason for it. Allow me to quote a current GM: [quote]17:06 <Zoot> arbitrating preplanning sessions is the worst, especially if the people involved are pig headed !@#$* and wont compromise on !@#$[/quote] Worst of all, the rule is delaying and possibly in some cases stopping war in CNRP. This alone should constitute its entire removal easily. Wars can't go on because people have to discuss their wars OOC first? That is [i][b]absurd.[/b][/i] First of all, it's unbelievably unrealistic. I know we have a lot of realism-based arguments in this community, but one of the most basic things that should be unchanged is the realistic expectation of truly surprising wars. No real nations ever have to go to nations they want to attack and plan it first. Second, some people's favorite part of RP is wars. The rule gets in the way for obvious reasons. It just needs to be removed. Let's review. Preplanning: [list] [*]allows delays/stoppages of war [*]is a miserably unrealistic expectation [*]restricts something naturally surprising and often spontaneous [*]fosters arguments over a simple point [*]hurts war-lovers and restricts their freedom to fight [*]is a pain in the ass for GM's [*]is a pain in the ass for everyone else [*]has a high potential for rewarding and easy abuse [*]is abused unbelievably consistently, without many exceptions [*]is one of the single worst rules to exist in CNRP recently [/list] So let's abolish it. Go vote. I leave you with this quote, I liked it: [quote]17:07 <ImperatorAzenquor[CoJ]> Death to Pre-planning! May it be consigned to the dustbin of history along with John McCain, Parachute Pants and Albania.[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Seriously? Can you not just get over it? [b]allows delays/stoppages of war[/b] - It only takes a bit longer OOCly, patience is a virtue. [b]is a miserably unrealistic expectation[/b] - Unrealistic? How ICly is it unrealistic, as it is not related at all. If you mean the OOCness is unrealistic, then my nation shouldnt bound to my in game stats. [b]restricts something naturally surprising and often spontaneous[/b] - it is surprising actually, and usually forced [b]fosters arguments over a simple point [/b]- Arguments that would happen regardless. [b]hurts war-lovers and restricts their freedom to fight[/b] - Fight each other, grow a pair. [b]is a pain in the ass for GM's [/b]- not really if you do it right. [b]is a pain in the ass for everyone else[/b]- I dont find it a pain. [b]has a high potential for rewarding and easy abuse[/b] - As does no pre planning. [b]is abused unbelievably consistently, without many exceptions[/b] - Oh please thats a baseless opinion. [b]is one of the single worst rules to exist in CNRP recently[/b]- again baseless, opinion Edited August 28, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted August 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346189472' post='3026054'] Seriously? Can you not just get over it? [/quote] Absolutely not, not until I (and others) see it abolished. I'd take the time to outline your ridiculous hypocrisy for doing the things you do, but then being on here, seeing the thread title, voting no, and posting that idiotic post without ever [i]reading the damned thing[/i], but you aren't worth my time. EDIT: I see you edited in some arguments, a little better, I suppose. [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346189472' post='3026054'][b]allows delays/stoppages of war[/b] - It only takes a bit longer OOCly, patience is a virtue. [b]is a miserably unrealistic expectation[/b] - Unrealistic? How ICly is it unrealistic, as it is not related at all. If you mean the OOCness is unrealistic, then my nation shouldnt bound to my in game stats. [b]restricts something naturally surprising and often spontaneous[/b] - it is surprising actually, and usually forced [b]fosters arguments over a simple point [/b]- Arguments that would happen regardless. [b]hurts war-lovers and restricts their freedom to fight[/b] - Fight each other, grow a pair. [b]is a pain in the ass for GM's [/b]- not really if you do it right. [b]is a pain in the ass for everyone else[/b]- I dont find it a pain. [b]has a high potential for rewarding and easy abuse[/b] - As does no pre planning. [b]is abused unbelievably consistently, without many exceptions[/b] - Oh please thats a baseless opinion. [b]is one of the single worst rules to exist in CNRP recently[/b]- again baseless, opinion [/quote] 1. "Only takes a little bit longer" assuming people don't abuse it to make it take ages. Which they [i]do[/i]. 2. It is miserably unrealistic for exactly why I said it is - no wars realistically ever have to be discussed or planned out. It is unrealistic in every way imaginable to be forced to go talk to a person you want to attack and plan a war with them. 3. No, it's not surprising, because now if you want to attack, you're forced to tell them that. And thanks to abuse causing delays or stoppages, they may have weeks or months to ready themselves. Ironic you should use the term forced, which is what they called it when you could wake up one morning and have your CNRP nation in the middle of a rolling, the way it should be. 4. We still don't want to have a rule that voluntarily and obviously starts them every time it's applied, which is often. 5. Fight each other, grow a pair? What? I can only think you're calling people cowards, which they're aided in with pre-planning. They're also irrational as hell. 6. Tying in to point 5, those who are irrational as hell will cause arbitration in these affairs to never, EVER be "done right". Hell, rational people do it wrong often enough. 7. Bully for you. 8. What? Do you know what abuse is? Being able to start a war without planning is not abuse, it's realistic and should be a right. It's rewarding, too, as war should be. But it isn't abusive and this rule causing [b][i]rule abuse[/i][/b] is. 9. I can give you all sorts of stories, quotes, and posts related to preplanning rule abuse of some type. You'll find the ratio isn't favorable. 10. Opinion, baseless to you. But anyway, thanks for actually doing something with that post. Edited August 28, 2012 by Domingo the Honored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 I read the post thank you very much. Zoot has no place to speak on pig headed, no compromise pre-planning. There is a set group of people that "love war" and all of them wont bother to fight each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 Fizzy and I's war was just fine even without preplanning. I literally didn't bother with preplanning as I had made clear to him much earlier that I intended to annex him and told him when he first got Dagestan if he screwed up I'd declare war. That was when preplanning was in place, and you know what? [i]We survived without preplanning.[/i] I say yes, a thousand times yes, let's get rid of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 Death to preplanning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted August 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346189866' post='3026060'] I read the post thank you very much. Zoot has no place to speak on pig headed, no compromise pre-planning. There is a set group of people that "love war" and all of them wont bother to fight each other. [/quote] Damn, man, I wish I could read a short essay and reply on it in fifteen seconds. I'd be setting some records! And Zoot has all the right in the world considering he's a GM and is forced to arbitrate the most uncompromising and pigheaded people in CNRP arguing over a topic that spawns more controversy than almost any other. Before it can actually even begin, which of course always spawns [i]more.[/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 You call that a short essay? You go to DeVry don't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted August 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346191577' post='3026080'] You call that a short essay? You go to DeVry don't you? [/quote] Okay, it's time for you to go now. Take your sixth-grade idiocies with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 [quote name='Domingo the Honored' timestamp='1346191726' post='3026084'] Okay, it's time for you to go now. Take your sixth-grade idiocies with you. [/quote] I didnt know second year college was sixth grade. My math must be off. But I will still be here to debate the actual topic if you wish to reply to my statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted August 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346191844' post='3026087'] I didnt know second year college was sixth grade. My math must be off. But I will still be here to debate the actual topic if you wish to reply to my statement. [/quote] Which one? The ones I've refuted or the one where you decided to stop making stupid points and instead turn to an even more idiotic and immature insult? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Apologies, I didnt see your edit, I am reading it now. Edited August 28, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domingo the Honored Posted August 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) Already argued those, go back over the thread. Edit: Fine. Edited August 28, 2012 by Domingo the Honored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 1. "Only takes a little bit longer" assuming people don't abuse it to make it take ages. Which they do. -[b] Which again is patience and hurts your war fighting ability to no point. It only hurts the short attention spans.[/b] 2. It is miserably unrealistic for exactly why I said it is - no wars realistically ever have to be discussed or planned out. It is unrealistic in every way imaginable to be forced to go talk to a person you want to attack and plan a war with them. - [b]Again, no real nations depend on an online game and their growth in playing it to build their nations. Also all nations have economies.[/b] 3. No, it's not surprising, because now if you want to attack, you're forced to tell them that. And thanks to abuse causing delays or stoppages, they may have weeks or months to ready themselves. Ironic you should use the term forced, which is what they called it when you could wake up one morning and have your CNRP nation in the middle of a rolling, the way it should be. -[b] No, you can not take months, a few attempts at pre planning and you get a waiver.[/b] 4. We still don't want to have a rule that voluntarily and obviously starts them every time it's applied, which is often. -[b] ???[/b] 5. Fight each other, grow a pair? What? I can only think you're calling people cowards, which they're aided in with pre-planning. They're also irrational as hell. -[b] The war loving nations tend to be in one group, and all of them hate pre planning, so fight each other and don't pre plan it.[/b] 6. Tying in to point 5, those who are irrational as hell will cause arbitration in these affairs to never, EVER be "done right". Hell, rational people do it wrong often enough. - [b]Nothing is perfect.[/b] 7. Bully for you. - [b]???[/b] 8. What? Do you know what abuse is? Being able to start a war without planning is not abuse, it's realistic and should be a right. It's rewarding, too, as war should be. But it isn't abusive and this rule causing rule abuse is. -[b] Most nations dont RP for war, this isnt a war game or even a strategy game, it is an RP game. Preplanning gives people time to mentally prepare for war.[/b] 9. I can give you all sorts of stories, quotes, and posts related to preplanning rule abuse of some type. You'll find the ratio isn't favorable. - [b]???[/b] 10. Opinion, baseless to you. - [b]Opinion all the same.[/b] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperator Azenquor Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 I once again add my vote to end the pre-planning rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 I'm not going to bother to respond to everything, but I'll add my 2 cents to some of your points Isaac. [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346193270' post='3026097'] 2. It is miserably unrealistic for exactly why I said it is - no wars realistically ever have to be discussed or planned out. It is unrealistic in every way imaginable to be forced to go talk to a person you want to attack and plan a war with them. - [b]Again, no real nations depend on an online game and their growth in playing it to build their nations. Also all nations have economies.[/b][/quote] Don't even bring up economies. That's a complete red herring and has no bearing on what we're talking about here. [quote]3. No, it's not surprising, because now if you want to attack, you're forced to tell them that. And thanks to abuse causing delays or stoppages, they may have weeks or months to ready themselves. Ironic you should use the term forced, which is what they called it when you could wake up one morning and have your CNRP nation in the middle of a rolling, the way it should be. -[b] No, you can not take months, a few attempts at pre planning and you get a waiver.[/b] [/quote] Yes, it's very possible to take months. Look at how long it took for Impy and Cent to begin going to war against Mara. That's a perfect example of how the system can be abused. [quote]5. Fight each other, grow a pair? What? I can only think you're calling people cowards, which they're aided in with pre-planning. They're also irrational as hell. -[b] The war loving nations tend to be in one group, and all of them hate pre planning, so fight each other and don't pre plan it.[/b][/quote] This is like saying "The economy loving nations should all interact with only each other and only have their economies affected by each other". It makes zero sense, as most of us "war loving nations" have no reason to go to war with one another or even common borders to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 Voting for keeping it. The arguments have been made time and time before, just look at previous threads. Though I must say, this poll is automatically invalid, due to not being public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 Domingo, when Triyun preplanned me he said he was going to roll me and do certain things and that if I didn't agree to the terms he'd just get a waver.... How is that taking up so much time? Patrick and I just preplanned and we worked out all of the details so now we wont have any bickering unless it's about stats and we know the consequences of who wins or loses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 And stopping those who love war from fighting? You mean those who love running off new players because they made a stain on their "Sol" or wiping smaller players and forcing them to think the game isn't worth it? If you like war, then why not find someone else who likes war, and RP a war together? Why [u][i][b]FORCE[/b][/i][/u] someone, 100% against their will, to RP an aggravating, stupid, unwanted, and inflaming war in the first place? Let alone not even working out the OOC details with them before hand? And saying it isn't unrealistic... Give me a break - you are not preplanning ICly but OOCly. I know Triyun has it etched into his eyelids that y'all want preplanning over so you can roll away new players and smaller players or people y'all don't like but this is seriously aggravating how y'all propose this every couple of weeks on behalf of him. Seriously? >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 [quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1346195985' post='3026112'] And stopping those who love war from fighting? You mean those who love running off new players because they made a stain on their "Sol" or wiping smaller players and forcing them to think the game isn't worth it? If you like war, then why not find someone else who likes war, and RP a war together? Why [u][i][b]FORCE[/b][/i][/u] someone, 100% against their will, to RP an aggravating, stupid, unwanted, and inflaming war in the first place? Let alone not even working out the OOC details with them before hand? And saying it isn't unrealistic... Give me a break - you are not preplanning ICly but OOCly. I know Triyun has it etched into his eyelids that y'all want preplanning over so you can roll away new players and smaller players or people y'all don't like but this is seriously aggravating how y'all propose this every couple of weeks on behalf of him. Seriously? >_> [/quote] Quite so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted August 28, 2012 Report Share Posted August 28, 2012 Keep it, for all the arguments outlined above and in every other goddamn 'death to preplanning' thread that has sprung up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 [quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1346195985' post='3026112'] And stopping those who love war from fighting? You mean those who love running off new players because they made a stain on their "Sol" or wiping smaller players and forcing them to think the game isn't worth it? If you like war, then why not find someone else who likes war, and RP a war together? Why [u][i][b]FORCE[/b][/i][/u] someone, 100% against their will, to RP an aggravating, stupid, unwanted, and inflaming war in the first place? Let alone not even working out the OOC details with them before hand? And saying it isn't unrealistic... Give me a break - you are not preplanning ICly but OOCly. I know Triyun has it etched into his eyelids that y'all want preplanning over so you can roll away new players and smaller players or people y'all don't like but this is seriously aggravating how y'all propose this every couple of weeks on behalf of him. Seriously? >_> [/quote] Give me one example, past or present, where someone (and I don't mean just Triyun - ANYONE) has "run off" a new player because of "a stain on their SoI". I guarantee you, half the time, it was because said new player did something irrevocably stupid. Do you think Iraq, Afghanistan, North Vietnam, Germany, Grenada and North Korea received diplomatic messages asking them to discuss the outcomes of their wars with the US? No, because operations and wars happen then and there, in that moment, usually without any advance notice. Why should CNRP be any different? And don't you dare tell me that nations shouldn't be tied to IG stats - without those, we run the risk of abuse of people making their nations stupidly powerful. And for the record, I don't support unplanned wars because of Triyun. I support it because I think the preplan rule is, quite frankly, stupid and unnecessary. I don't care about rolling new/weak players. I just want the freedom to go to war and say "Damn the consequences". I find it disturbing you think myself and Domingo, among others, support this only because we're apparently "Triyun's lackies". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) [quote]Give me one example, past or present, where someone (and I don't mean just Triyun - ANYONE) has "run off" a new player because of "a stain on their SoI". I guarantee you, half the time, it was because said new player did something irrevocably stupid.[/quote] A new player doing something stupid. Thats definitely a new thing in this world :/ maybe we should just get rid of all noobs that make mistakes without giving them a chance, because as we all know CN is not a shrinking game. [quote]Do you think Iraq, Afghanistan, North Vietnam, Germany, Grenada and North Korea received diplomatic messages asking them to discuss the outcomes of their wars with the US? No, because operations and wars happen then and there, in that moment, usually without any advance notice. Why should CNRP be any different? And don't you dare tell me that nations shouldn't be tied to IG stats - without those, we run the risk of abuse of people making their nations stupidly powerful. [/quote] Those nations were given sanctions, that is a warning for the US. There is no inaccuracy with pre planning, because it is simply OOC. It does not effect IC at all and most of the time is shifted in the favor of the larger nation in the first place because they "can just get a waiver" if you don't listen to their demands on how the war should go. I would say pre-planning should be logged and compromises should be forced as the outcome. I would call for more strict pre-planning. As it is now it doesn't save anybody. [quote]And for the record, I don't support unplanned wars because of Triyun. I support it because I think the preplan rule is, quite frankly, stupid and unnecessary. I don't care about rolling new/weak players. I just want the freedom to go to war and say "Damn the consequences". I find it disturbing you think myself and Domingo, among others, support this only because we're apparently "Triyun's lackies". [/quote] You are lackies of something more than Triyun, he is just one of the many. You guys create these posts every damn few weeks to whine and whine about a rule you find unfair because you lack the attention span to plan out a war. You have an advantage in this game, everyone that is pro killing it has some sort of hegmony over the game. Get over it and stop complaining about the little inconvenient things that slightly effect your utopia. While you're at it take a few hours outside and do something productive. Edited August 29, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346200521' post='3026136'] A new player doing something stupid. Thats definitely a new thing in this world :/ maybe we should just get rid of all noobs that make mistakes without giving them a chance, because as we all know CN is not a shrinking game. [/quote] I'm not talking about a simple mistake. I'm talking about something that's repeated, like ishabad's repeated failure to understand the rules and regulations of CNRP. We've given noobs a chance. I highly doubt people like Triyun sit around waiting for noobs to come so they can pounce on them. [quote] Those nations were given sanctions, that is a warning for the US. There is no inaccuracy with pre planning, because it is simply OOC. It does not effect IC at all and most of the time is shifted in the favor of the larger nation in the first place because they "can just get a waiver" if you don't listen to their demands on how the war should go. I would say pre-planning should be logged and compromises should be forced as the outcome. I would call for more strict pre-planning. As it is now it doesn't save anybody.[/quote] Nations in CNRP have been given warnings too. Look at my recent war with Fizzy. Both he and I were warned by Triyun to not use bio/chem/nuclear weapons, and even though neither of us did so, he invaded Dagestan anyway. He didn't preplan with either of us, he did it on his own accord. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of this. [quote] You are lackies of something more than Triyun, he is just one of the many. [/quote] Since you clearly know me better than I do myself, please tell me whose lackey I am. I'm curious to know. [quote]You guys create these posts every damn few weeks to whine and whine about a rule you find unfair because you lack the attention span to plan out a war. You have an advantage in this game, everyone that is pro killing it has some sort of hegmony over the game. Get over it and stop complaining about the little inconvenient things that slightly effect your utopia. While you're at it take a few hours outside and do something productive.[/quote] I'll have you know I have preplanned wars in the past. I've preplanned many times in the past, even before this rule came about, mainly because I was bored and wanted a war. You know something? I [b]DON'T[/b] have an advantage in this game. I don't have nukes, I don't have a navy, hell, some would argue I can barely do a war right. I'm not a part of the hegemony, hell, for half of my CNRP career I opposed it. Don't you dare tell me what I am and am not a part of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted August 29, 2012 Report Share Posted August 29, 2012 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1346195298' post='3026105'] Voting for keeping it. The arguments have been made time and time before, just look at previous threads. Though I must say, this poll is automatically invalid, due to not being public. [/quote]This, in its entirety. 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.