Death to Preplanning

[Isaac MatthewII]

[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]

Then explain to me why in my first month of RP I had an entire continent parked off of my shore for a treaty that Triyun "didnt like" that is enough to push a person from playing a game. When there is an obvious hegmony, the game becomes unplayable for most. Why cant Ishabad be given a chance every time he rolls in, this game does not belong to you to dictate who is given a chance and who isnt. This game is a public game for anybody with a nation. You have no right to push out a player like Ishabad.

[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]
So what you are saying is you were warned not to do something and you didnt do it, but you were invaded anyways? This constitutes a warning?


[quote]Since you clearly know me better than I do myself, please tell me whose lackey I am. I'm curious to know.[/quote]
I don't believe anybody in this conversation (so far) is a lackey directly, just a part of the mass.

[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]
The fact that you have fought the hegmony does not mean you are innocent of it, you support it now and. You are not a part of the hegmony by brute force, but by being a part of Triyuns "sandbox".

[iKrolm]

[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]

^

[Triyun]

$%&@ preplanning, people need to grow a pair. I won't recognize it.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1346202806' post='3026163']
$%&@ preplanning, people need to grow a pair. I won't recognize it.
[/quote]

Exactly what about planning out a war to stop more complaints about how a war goes down not having a "pair". Also as long as you want non cannon wars you don't have to recognize it, may as well declare war on the moon while you're at it. If you want to break the rules and ignore the GMs to the point that an actual mod gets involved for spam, than thats not suggested.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346202359' post='3026158']
Then explain to me why in my first month of RP I had an entire continent parked off of my shore for a treaty that Triyun "didnt like" that is enough to push a person from playing a game. When there is an obvious hegmony, the game becomes unplayable for most. Why cant Ishabad be given a chance every time he rolls in, this game does not belong to you to dictate who is given a chance and who isnt. This game is a public game for anybody with a nation. You have no right to push out a player like Ishabad.[/quote]
I don't know. How about instead of whining about the hegemony, you try fighting it for a change? And honestly, look back on Ishabad's record. I don't even want to discuss that.

[quote]
So what you are saying is you were warned not to do something and you didnt do it, but you were invaded anyways? This constitutes a warning?
[/quote]
I wasn't invaded. Do you see "Dagestan" listed in my signature? Actually read what I'm saying.

[quote]
I don't believe anybody in this conversation (so far) is a lackey directly, just a part of the mass.
[/quote]
Then you're contradicting yourself. You directly told me I'm a lackey of something larger.

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346200521' post='3026136']
You are lackies of something more than Triyun, he is just one of the many.
[/quote]
Now you try to tell me you don't think I'm a lackey? That doesn't make sense.

[quote]
The fact that you have fought the hegmony does not mean you are innocent of it, you support it now and. You are not a part of the hegmony by brute force, but by being a part of Triyuns "sandbox".
[/quote]
I don't remember bowing down to Triyun at every moment. I don't remember asking to be a part of his "sandbox". Stop throwing attacks on Triyun around. It's bad form, mate.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Pointless thread is pointless, since the poll is not public.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote]I don't know. How about instead of whining about the hegemony, you try fighting it for a change? And honestly, look back on Ishabad's record. I don't even want to discuss that.[/quote]

I have done my part actually. But I am not trying to overthrow anyone, I am just trying to get the hegmony and its cronies to quit complaining.


[quote]I wasn't invaded. Do you see "Dagestan" listed in my signature? Actually read what I'm saying.[/quote]
Instead of reading into a mistake in wording, how about you reply to the actual statement, which anybody with reading comprehension could understand. I will help, insert "Degastan"

[quote]Then you're contradicting yourself. You directly told me I'm a lackey of something larger.[/quote]
You are, not by military force. Which is what I have said in fact.


[quote]Now you try to tell me you don't think I'm a lackey? That doesn't make sense.[/quote]
.....


[quote]I don't remember bowing down to Triyun at every moment. I don't remember asking to be a part of his "sandbox". Stop throwing attacks on Triyun around. It's bad form, mate.[/quote]
You are still in his sandbox, you dont have to ask. Triyuns sanbox is the entire hegmony.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1346203183' post='3026168']
Pointless thread is pointless, since the poll is not public.
[/quote]

Its not a GM poll, its turned into a discussion. There should be a rule about how often one can open up a poll about any one topic in a span of time.

[Centurius]

$%&@ preplanning.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346203371' post='3026171']
I have done my part actually. But I am not trying to overthrow anyone, I am just trying to get the hegmony and its cronies to quit complaining.
[/quote]
So by wanting to abolish a rule we think is unnecessary, we are "complaining"? And because I am somehow part of the hegemony, I'm now one of it's cronies? Where do I sign up for the "Hegemony crony" position?

[quote]
Instead of reading into a mistake in wording, how about you reply to the actual statement, which anybody with reading comprehension could understand. I will help, insert "Degastan"
[/quote]
Alright. You say that Dagestan was warned not to do something and was invaded anyway, without doing said action which was warned. You're confusing something here, because the invasion did not come before the warning. The invasion came after. I don't know what Triyun's motivations were for intervening in Dagestan, nor do I particularly care at this time. The fact of the matter is, [i]your statement still makes no sense.[/i]

[quote]
You are, not by military force. Which is what I have said in fact.
[/quote]
Then I am afraid your point makes zero sense to me.

[quote]
You are still in his sandbox, you dont have to ask. Triyuns sanbox is the entire hegmony.
[/quote]
So by wanting to interact with people and believing the preplan rule is stupid, I'm in the hegemony now? Interesting.

[Owned-You]

Issac your arguments are made entirely invalid by the fact that you're entirely biased. This is supported by the fact that anyone opposing pre-planning is part of the "hegemony." You're literally discrediting peoples reasonable arguments on the basis that they're a part of a group that you quantify as anyone against pre-planning. I hope you realize how absurd you sound.

I'm sorry to inform you but that isn't how you make a point...that's how you discredit it.

-----
Pre-planning should be optional for both the aggressor and defending party...not this mandatory crap. As it stands currently people have begun abusing this legality to either delay conflicts or influence IC actions based on information derived from these sessions. In theory, pre-planning would be used to hash out any potential conflicts of war and set up some sort of story arc but as Zoot and most of the GM's can attest this simply isn't happening. Instead it's creating OOC arguments between people and being used as a technical excuse to delay wars. What is the overall effect of this? Stagnated conflicts and OOC buttrage.

Abolish mandatory pre-planning and make it optional!

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote]So by wanting to abolish a rule we think is unnecessary, we are "complaining"? And because I am somehow part of the hegemony, I'm now one of it's cronies? Where do I sign up for the "Hegemony crony" position?
[/quote]
You constantly nag about it every time these things come up. Seriously, the people dont agree with it, come up with a role to where you can be a peaceful nation or a war nation and that dictates whether or not you have pre planning. That I would agree with.

[quote]Alright. You say that Dagestan was warned not to do something and was invaded anyway, without doing said action which was warned. You're confusing something here, because the invasion did not come before the warning. The invasion came after. I don't know what Triyun's motivations were for intervening in Dagestan, nor do I particularly care at this time. The fact of the matter is, [i]your statement still makes no sense.[/i][/quote]
The point is new players should be given a chance. How does this not make sense?


[quote]So by wanting to interact with people and believing the preplan rule is stupid, I'm in the hegemony now? Interesting.[/quote]

No, by being a part of the annual end pre-planning poll in favor of it you are a cog.

[JEDCJT]

Until this is made public, I will not be voting.

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1346205692' post='3026194']
Issac your arguments are made entirely invalid by the fact that you're entirely biased. This is supported by the fact that anyone opposing pre-planning is part of the "hegemony." You're literally discrediting peoples reasonable arguments on the basis that they're a part of a group that you quantify as anyone against pre-planning. I hope you realize how absurd you sound.

I'm sorry to inform you but that isn't how you make a point...that's how you discredit it.

-----
Pre-planning should be optional for both the aggressor and defending party...not this mandatory crap. As it stands currently people have begun abusing this legality to either delay conflicts or influence IC actions based on information derived from these sessions. In theory, pre-planning would be used to hash out any potential conflicts of war and set up some sort of story arc but as Zoot and most of the GM's can attest this simply isn't happening. Instead it's creating OOC arguments between people and being used as a technical excuse to delay wars. What is the overall effect of this? Stagnated conflicts and OOC buttrage.

Abolish mandatory pre-planning and make it optional!
[/quote]
I am as biased as you are as we disagree on this, everyone is biased to their own opinions and don't attempt to act like you are above this stat. Pre-planning actually prevents a lot of arguing between two people that will stretch through the entire war. At most two attempts have to be made to pre-plan then you get a waiver. So during that time, you have to wait. I apologize for this deep deep inconvenience. I understand that most people cant keep their shirts on for two days of waiting. Instant gratification is a common flaw in humanity.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

I say we lose it because PD says we keep it and I hate him.

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1346200026' post='3026131']
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]

I'm not sure if you read what I wrote Markus - I don't think that we should have to ICly preplan. You are right, that would not make any since and no nation does that. However we are talking about OOC preplanning which is not IC RP so it would not be like America asking Iraq to preplan a war. Also I never said that we shouldn't use our IG stats (where did that come from?) and finally there is an example of a new person he left in the past three weeks - go look him up.

And finally, you must easily get disturbed.

[J Andres]

This thread seems to be going nowhere, and I have no experience with CNRP in the most recent months since this rules has been enacted.
War has typically been declared for numerous reasons and there always seems to be some sort of argument over whether or not the actions that occur are legal. In a perfect world, these items could be resolved by preplanning. Whether or not preplanning has become a help or a hindrance to the war process is something that I haven't witness first hand, and will not pass judgement on.

Preplanning works when both sides can and will agree.
Preplanning fails when both sides do not agree.
Considering that war is declared due to an escalation of conflict, I can understand the arguments that have been listed saying that preplanning doesn't serve its intended purpose.

I am also not much of a warring nation, so I would much rather prefer a preplanned war which could allow for the development of some sort of story arc and accompanying character RP with it, as compared to waking up one morning to find out that I've been nuked multiple times. It is a very real threat that we could awake to find our defenses destroyed and our entire nation under siege.

Anyway, my personal experience with this rule is non-existent, so I can't pass judgement. I see numerous benefits to preplanning, but understand it's inherent failures.

[PresidentDavid]

Also, I do not recognize this thread or any results it may have because [b]A: It is not a public poll[/b] and [b]B: No date was given to say when the polling would end.[/b] I also suggest you get a GM to make the poll, though that isn't required but a good idea of course.

[Yawoo]

The poll needs to be made public in order for the voting to count.

[Owned-You]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1346206432' post='3026206']
I am as biased as you are as we disagree on this, everyone is biased to their own opinions and don't attempt to act like you are above this stat. Pre-planning actually prevents a lot of arguing between two people that will stretch through the entire war. At most two attempts have to be made to pre-plan then you get a waiver. So during that time, you have to wait. I apologize for this deep deep inconvenience. I understand that most people cant keep their shirts on for two days of waiting. Instant gratification is a common flaw in humanity.
[/quote]

The difference being is that your side refuses to acknowledge the validity of counter arguments. Also where is your evidence that pre-planning is preventing argument? Because this topic is riddled with evidence suggesting otherwise; including the posts of GM's (who are directly involved with moderation of these sessions.) All evidence seems to suggest that pre-planning has the opposite effect.

Theoretically, if someone where to PM you to pre-plan a war this very moment. Would you be open to it? Given you're actively responding to this topic and as a result can be considered active enough to pre-plan. Or would you find a way to avoid the session? I think you'd probably say you're busy or would rather hash it out on IRC at a later date...and in that span of time you would begin thinking of various ways to plan out a defense and OOC contact allies over the span of days. Then finally you would begin a pre-planning session and bicker with the aggressor over various parts of the endgame. Just like most pre-planning sessions prior...and thus the flaw becomes apparent; that is that pre-planning isn't used to solve arguments between warring nations...but instead is used to actively skirt and avoid war for as long as possible. Probably dropping out of the war after a couple of posts...thus creating a month worth of inaction that should have taken days of feverish posting.

Pre-planning is good in theory between consenting players; but most don't consent and far worse use the system to abuse it in their favor.

Also I agree with that this poll should be made public.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Owned-You

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Owned-You' timestamp='1346208048' post='3026230']
The difference being is that your side refuses to acknowledge the validity of counter arguments. Also where is your evidence that pre-planning is preventing argument? Because this topic is riddled with evidence suggesting otherwise; including the posts of GM's (who are directly involved with moderation of these sessions.) All evidence seems to suggest that pre-planning has the opposite effect.

Theoretically, if someone where to PM you to pre-plan a war this very moment. Would you be open to it? Given you're actively responding to this topic and as a result can be considered active enough to pre-plan. Or would you find a way to avoid the session? I think you'd probably say you're busy or would rather hash it out on IRC at a later date...and in that span of time you would begin thinking of various ways to plan out a defense and OOC contact allies over the span of days. Then finally you would begin a pre-planning session and bicker with the aggressor over various parts of the endgame. Just like most pre-planning sessions prior...and thus the flaw becomes apparent; that is that pre-planning isn't used to solve arguments between warring nations...but instead is used to actively skirt and avoid war for as long as possible. Probably dropping out of the war after a couple of posts...thus creating a month worth of inaction that should have taken days.

Pre-planning is good in theory between consenting players; but most don't consent and far worse use the system to abuse it in their favor.

Also I agree with that this poll should be made public.
[/quote]

If you avoid the session you can simply get a waiver from the GMs.

[Owned-You]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1346208120' post='3026232']
If you avoid the session you can simply get a waiver from the GMs.
[/quote]

The devil is in proving that someone is avoiding the session. You can't... not for the first week unless of a glaring example...which nobody is dumb enough to provide that. Hell your war in Britain is one of the examples of pre-planning gone wrong.

[Voodoo Nova]

The pre-plan for Operation Reclamation was horrendous. At least a month delay, on top of a couple of godmod's.

[Triyun]

Name one new player whose gotten $%&@ed by a lack of preplanning. I can name a lot of old players who've gotten their asses handed to them, I cannot honestly think of one new one who did.

[Markus Wilding]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1346206996' post='3026213']
I'm not sure if you read what I wrote Markus - I don't think that we should have to ICly preplan. You are right, that would not make any since and no nation does that. However we are talking about OOC preplanning which is not IC RP so it would not be like America asking Iraq to preplan a war. Also I never said that we shouldn't use our IG stats (where did that come from?) and finally there is an example of a new person he left in the past three weeks - go look him up.

And finally, you must easily get disturbed.
[/quote]
I didn't get that feeling [i]at all[/i] from your post. I got the impression you were against abolishing preplanning, given your extreme rhetoric on it. No, I didn't see the new player leave. Mind giving me a link?

When you tell me I'm campaigning for something solely because of someone else, yes, I find that disturbing since it tells me you have such little faith in me you believe that I can't make my own decisions without someone else telling me to.

EDIT: I mentioned IG stats because I knew somebody was going to bring up that god-awful "But why do we use IG stats for IC nations?!?" argument.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Markus Wilding