My way or you can buzz off...

[Isaac MatthewII]

Again you are bogging down the debate with personal attacks. Preplanning is in no way similar to welfare, you just want to distract the conversation. I refuse to acknowledge this reach for a distraction.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348191500' post='3032535']
Again you are bogging down the debate with personal attacks. Preplanning is in no way similar to welfare, you just want to distract the conversation. I refuse to acknowledge this reach for a distraction.
[/quote]

But you were the one who brings up Obama and other personal attacks on people's political beliefs...though they may have started these attacks long before, you continue to bring up the argument.

This is not a personal attack, in my opinion, but more of a philosophical realization. You are receiving a benefit from CNRP's "Government" you are allowed to pre-plan wars, something that was not always around and what most CNRP's Old Guard...those with a Conservative mindset on how CNRP should be run, in the true definition of Conservatism, which Pre-planning gone. It is the same way for the Nuke rule, it is designed to protect and help smaller players, much in the same manner you see welfare in modern society.

You are a Liberal.

[Isaac MatthewII]

The fact that you are attempting to bind my personal political beliefs with rules of a game based on thin air is certainly entertaining, I will give you that.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348191805' post='3032538']
The fact that you are attempting to bind my personal political beliefs with rules of a game based on thin air is certainly entertaining, I will give you that.
[/quote]

Do you support Pre-planning in addition to the No-Nuke Under 20k Rule?

[PresidentDavid]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1348190967' post='3032528']
As a question more to PD and Isaac...wouldn't pre-planning be considered a form of welfare? It's essentially a safety net to protect you that CNRP's GM "Government" instituted a while back. Honestly, I don't get why you guys are for pre-planning, given that it essentially the socialism that you constantly rail against.

Don't you want players to have freedom?

Even at the expense of the poor and downtrodden...like yourselves?

I just find it funny that the "Proud Conservatives" aren't really Conservative at all.
[/quote]

-Looks up from his American History book momentarily to see his name actually mentioned-

Then that makes y'all the Capitalist loving, flag waving, conservatives of CNRP!
It is unfortunate that I am poor in CNRP and RL. I would oblige to being rich in one of these worlds

Edited September 21, 2012 by PresidentDavid

[Isaac MatthewII]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1348191888' post='3032539']
Do you support Pre-planning in addition to the No-Nuke Under 20k Rule?
[/quote]
I support pre-planning, as far as the 20k rule, I have no care on the matter.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='PresidentDavid' timestamp='1348192056' post='3032541']
-Looks up from his American History book momentarily to see his name actually mentioned-

Then that makes y'all the Capitalist loving, flag waving, conservatives of CNRP!
It is unfortunate that I am poor in CNRP and RL. I would oblige to being rich in one of these worlds
[/quote]

We most definitely are...come join Triyun and I in the glories of Tianxia, PD...Embrace Imperialism!

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348192115' post='3032542']
I support pre-planning, as far as the 20k rule, I have no care on the matter.
[/quote]

[img]http://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/u13/President_Obama.jpg[/img]

This man supports you.

But honestly, I'm not like trying to call you out here or anything, just to get you to recognize that you have a Liberal viewpoint in here and I find it rather ironic. Through pre-planning you are supported from presumably unfair wars, though that really isn't what pre-planning is about and that is why it needs to be reformed to encourage dialogue but at the same time to be realistic when it comes to war.

Neither of these things are happening as of right now.

[Isaac MatthewII]

lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Adjective:
Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.


How am I at all liberal in the fact that I believe in one of the older rules in CNRP. Not only that, how does my belief that in a silly deminishing game people should act civil. While you could say "lol he beleive in da guvment help so he liberal" there is no government involved in the situation, it is enforcing of a fair election and rules set by the community. I do not support abortion, I do not support socialism, I do not support or apologize to violent people for expressing my freedoms. You are just distracting from the actual point that this was a fair election and the rule is still enforced.

[Markus Wilding]

Preplanning and the 20k rule are not old rules.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348192780' post='3032546']
lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
Adjective:
Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.


How am I at all liberal in the fact that I believe in one of the older rules in CNRP. Not only that, how does my belief that in a silly deminishing game people should act civil. While you could say "lol he beleive in da guvment help so he liberal" there is no government involved in the situation, it is enforcing of a fair election and rules set by the community. I do not support abortion, I do not support socialism, I do not support or apologize to violent people for expressing my freedoms. You are just distracting from the actual point that this was a fair election and the rule is still enforced.
[/quote]

It is actually one of the newest rules in CNRP if you look at the entire history of the game. The parallels of your liberal attitudes are also clear. The GM/Modship is a parallel to actual government as they, at least used to be, and to the mods still are, a governing body in the idea of keeping order within the game. Of course you bringing up abortion is not part of the debate, though in terms of socialism, you could be socialist because the philosophy around the pre-planning rule is there to see all people equal in the idea of discussion before a war. Of course we know that is not the case as certain nations are obviously stronger in the game, but it is something to shoot for and pre-planning allows for weaker, smaller...poorer in the RL sense...nations to have a voice.

The support for pre-planning is the desire to keep a new rule, a change in the status quo, from how CNRP used to be run. I believe created by the Liberal-GMship of Triyun, Cent, and Shammy, but it could have been a bit further back.

You see the parallels?

Edited September 21, 2012 by Sarah Tintagyl

[Triyun]

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1348192179' post='3032543']
We most definitely are...come join Triyun and I in the glories of Tianxia, PD...Embrace Imperialism!
[/quote]
Empires are people too my friend!

[PresidentDavid]

D:

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='dotCom' timestamp='1348178523' post='3032440']
You don't say You Know Who because everyone knows who Voldemort is. You say You Know Who 'cause if you say Voldemort he'll find you and go avada kedavra on yo ass.

Anyway, generally speaking, I'm more than a little fed up with the people who toss about accusations that the anti pre planning folks are also somehow anti 'decent roleplay' or something. They're not. Most people, including the anti preplanners, just want a good RP environment. I disagree that removing all semblance of pre-planning will provide that environment myself and I feel that to take it out entirely and refuse entirely to reform it instead will be detrimental to a cooperative roleplay experience, but Isaac, to say that Centurius, or Domingo, opposes pre planning just so they can go lolwar is false, detrimental to the pro pre-planning argument and, indeed, blind.
[/quote]
Disregarding the first paragraph, more about the second:

I have to say, if most people in CNRP want a good RP environment, somewhere, something must have gone wrong. I already said so in the past, I say it now, the RP environment has become quite harsh, if not outright frustrating. Maybe one cannot say that the current preplanning is doing much good for "quality RP", but to just abolish the system, throwing out one liners in the form of "Kill it with fire", "Get rid of it", etc. (which, by the way, can in no way be seen as of any quality either, given that in a poll, your vote is counted already by voting, in a debate topic it adds nothing to the discussion), without trying to find a solution to the bigger picture is a horrible approach too.

Preplanning is being abused. That is a fact. But, without naming any names here, it is abused by people, for stalling, for exploiting loopholes, for generally morally doubtworthy conduct, then I wonder if it is not, because we miss something else. Most crimes in real life, are not committed because the criminals are inherently predestined to disobey the law and have a genetic error that makes them criminal. It is not because they are just evil people, born as such. Most crimes are failures of the system. In CNRP, too, we should look at it like this for once. Will the RP gain any more quality by abolishing the rule like this? I say, no.

Someone who abuses the preplan rule does normally not have the intention to conduct a constructive effort to RP a war. Those who have the intention, either would just proceed with preplanning or just waive it for theattacker to work it out as it goes. If they had no preplanning rule to throw out, they'd just do whatever is in their might to otherwise make it all a pain. Do not get me wrong. This does not mean we should give them the preplan rule as another means of creating headache to others, but we should question how any sane person could think that any war would be able to create quality RP, if the other person lacks the fundamental basic interest to RP a war. Too, do I doubt that any wars that are brought about this way are "because the aggressor wants to RP in that land". Most of the time, this is not the case. It may have been the case in the Irish-Scottish war or the Umbrella invasion of the UK (which both cannot qualify as quality either), but in most cases, the interest to afterwards RP in the land that is attacked is somewhere near zero, at best a protectorate is established, if not the land handed to some local ally, who establishes the protectorate. Thus, the two main motives of quality RP and limited land area are not applicable to these cases.

In most cases, people now point out national security risks. Fine, though I personally partially doubt that it all is about national security, I still remember this one post of Triyun, acknowledging the fact that CNRP wars are wars of conquest simply because people would retaliate at full force if left alive.

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348111649' post='3032081']
Because nations aren't permanently handicapped by military terms and often the effect you have by conquest especially if you have a leader whose still bitter towards you is that you'd just give yourself a second front to defend if you ever get into a war with someone else. If this was Hearts of Iron and I could knock out a bunch of your manpower and knock down your industrial capacity by half taking only half your country I wouldn't care if you were embittered. If you can rebuild your army, have the same [i]intentions[/i] as you did prewar, then I'm just basically guarenteeing the next war (at least one where the old adversaries strength) I get into becomes a two front war. Its basic strategy really subtle, it says go big or go home when your fighting serious opponents.
[/quote]

I don't want to throw all the blame on Triyun, but reading this, it just makes it clear, that the logical conclusion of such a line of thought, that every enemy, as soon as labelled enemy, has to be fought till they cannot pose a threat anymore, not just as a nation, but as it stands here, as a person. We see here the acknowledgement that seemingly it is impossible to find a compromise that after the war, the (somewhat logical) revanchism has to be avoided by taking out the RPer. Not only is it a bit poor in a story sense to just replace the revanchists with loyal protectorate citizens, just freed from their tyrannical overlords (nevermind what form of government was there before), but also, if the RPer is the person to be attacked, then I see no real intention to create a good RP environment.

[quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1348191380' post='3032534']
No, like I'm actually curious. That's kind of what this is, like I'm not against pre-planning, I think it needs to be reformed. But it is a safety net, same with the non-nuke rule under 20k, these are safety nets. Essentially, you and PD make up the large Liberal base of CNRP, ones who want things to be changed for the benefit of the players with "Government" regulation.

You guys like GM/Mod handouts.

In truth, both yourself and PD are kind of like CNRP socialists.
[/quote]

Given that I favor the democratic processes (when following proper procedure) as well, I would say I'd classify myself as Social Democrat. I do agree with a good few of Sarahs points here. Things like being nukeproof when below 20k NS and without nukes and the idea of preplanning are necessary to even out the ground a bit for good RP. Just that I do not think that we have to rub it into others. Just like some people should just shut up about Obama and the US elections, as I see NO point in debating that here. It's just annoying, retarded at best, a veiled ad hominem attack at worst. And I really couldn't care less whom you all are going to vote for (or not).

Overall, I am tired, but still, I found it necessary to write down my thoughts, even if they may be a bit loosely connected at best. I trust in my basic reasoning there.

[Triyun]

People don't get annihilated if they no longer pose a threat. Quit backing threatening regimes you won't get kills. The rules should not be a death pact for players simply because other players suck.

[Lestari]

You pretty much just said everything I'm too much of a lazy ass to type out myself.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348199585' post='3032567']
People don't get annihilated if they no longer pose a threat. Quit backing threatening regimes you won't get kills. The rules should not be a death pact for players simply because other players suck.
[/quote]
You know that's not true. After all, you did not invade China/Japan because it was a threat, but because you wanted the land. You did not intervene in Papua New Guinea not because it was a threat, but to back up Lavo. You did not initially intervene in Alaska because it was a threat, but because you wanted the Pacific. Malatose did not do Po Ta To because Korea was a threat, but because he wanted to hit at the player. And as you admitted, the intial hostilities against Korea was based on OOC feelings, which you said you tried to stem back.

The thing is, in the end at least half of the time "posing threat" is just a hypocritical sophism to justify actions for other purposes. You're basically ignoring the other side of the problem and putting the blame solely on other players.

[Triyun]

You're wrong on all but Keshav's China. Which was a reunification action. Japan's fate was sealed when Haruhi acted like a dick about the Ryukyus. Once that happened it became a vulnerable flank and needed to be knocked out. PNG was a threat because it was a regime that was hostile from day one, adopting your Korean nation's attitude about China and the cost to remove it was very low. Alaska has always been my buffer zone against North American Power, when it aligned itself with other North American states against Tianxia's allies in Eurasia it needed to be taken out. Don't tell me my own thought process, you're bound to be ill informed.

[Isaac MatthewII]

I was definitely a threat with my defense force and non aggressive policy. As I am now I am literally less of a threat than Isha with my military.

[Kankou]

I do talk about it because that is what you've always told me whenever the topic is brought up. It's always after-the-fact explanations where you justify it by saying the other side was a dick when you were the one pushing things under the notion of establishing hegemony. Basically, you're just engaging in sophism with those particular incidents.

And let's face it, just how much of all the actions against Isaac had any real threat-based reasons? How about all the dick actions aimed at Evangeline aside from her time in Croatia? As I said, at least half of the time we have situations where OOC motivations leads to IC justification which is just another form of sophism.

[Captain Enema]

I love where this thread is going.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348199585' post='3032567']
People don't get annihilated if they no longer pose a threat. Quit backing threatening regimes you won't get kills. The rules should not be a death pact for players simply because other players suck.
[/quote]
Given the current foreign affairs system in place, I'd say, people that get rolled, will most likely have already a FA approach of distrust, if not dislike for you, just like people that werre allies before will have a great likelihood to be allies again. Given these new states will have the exact same stats as before, I do not see how rolling them prevents a good deal of OOC revanchism, which is caused by an approach to conflict that aims not at breaking the nation, but breaking the person in the end. Most people that get curbstomped get killed for being threats to the national security, but I kindly ask here that people stop kidding themselves. For some, Isaac, PD, Mara and me may be an annoyance, but I'd not think that there is a great threat to national security from someone like PD, who, in terms of strength, is surely in the last 5% of the community. In my humble opinion, national security and national interest are no more than empty phrases to justify all conflict for which no better reason was found, most often that a member of this community was found guilty of some OOC annoyance, be it RL conservativism, being @!§$% on #cnrp, disagreeing with something on the OOC boards or whatever. In such cases we use national interest to punish these fools for their mortal sins, for they have to be purged of their redneck/fascist/eurocentric/anti-<insert-RPer-here> views with nuclear fire or napalm B. That this approach will cause nothing but division in the community, frustration and horrible RP of course slips our mind, as we merrily go on trolling those idiots that ought to be thrown out of CNRP.

And I bet people will now come complaining how I denounce their perfect political theories and their university degrees knowledge of international relationships, but I think everyone with even just two functionating brain cells and some activity on #cnrp can figure out by themselves to what degree people get rolled because we contest their land for our own RP, they RPed some rogue state or other more justified grievances, and how often it is just OOC bias, most often formed on #cnrp, because we think that person is an idiot.

[Triyun]

If people choose to be OOC revanchist thats their prerogative, nobody can prevent that Eva. But you overlook the obvious. Geography. You knock someone off your immediate border and force them to attack you from a much further position. Thats a major advantage for you. Further you knock them into different alliance configurations when they reroll at least as far as regional organizations go. That generally affords you more flexibility the further back they are. It still adds up to a political and military advantage. I could go on about how your logic is wrong, but something tells me you'd continue to disagree for your own reasons.

However, I will point out two more things which are important. The first is that you're asking us to respect you, you're asking us to change our behavior, but you're pretty much calling us liars when we tell you our reasoning. You're saying that we should completely change the way we play the game because you say so. But you don't even take us at our word about our reasoning? Yeah right. I'm sorry but you are going to have to understand Eva that your moral indignation about us, is not actually shared by us. Thats stupid. If everyones divisive that may be partially my fault, but a lot of it is actually yours, PDs, Isaac's for being incredibly rude the second someone from #nordic pokes their head in the room. But here is the thing, between the two of us, if both of us are rude and stand offish and don't cooperate while its really really annoying how you behave we've got the armies and the guns so we still get our way. You on the other hand it may also be really really annoying for, but you don't have the armies and the guns so you do not get your way. So rather than try and get others to say they are lying, and that they spend all their time in a secret bunker trying to victimize you for whatever reason, why don't you actually make an effort to make friendly. And by the way, we're a pretty well unified group of people so the divide and conquer thing a couple people try... protip not the best strategy ever.

My second point is that as far as land conquest, theres been no expansionist war by Athens, Germany, or Tianxia in months. 0. The last major expansion of Tianxia occured almost a year ago. The idea that we're all out to take land is just stupidity.

Quit assuming you understand thought processes of others. If you want peace with them stop accusing them of being liars and try to make nice. Otherwise embrace antagonism and don't complain if you lose that struggle of it.

[Kankou]

Aren't you basically admitting of OOC reasons for IC actions with what you say about people being annoying? And let's not kid ourselves of the time you suddenly changed course during a planned RP and tried executing a character and getting that wiped by the GMs.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348244366' post='3032768']
If people choose to be OOC revanchist thats their prerogative, nobody can prevent that Eva. But you overlook the obvious. Geography. You knock someone off your immediate border and force them to attack you from a much further position. Thats a major advantage for you. Further you knock them into different alliance configurations when they reroll at least as far as regional organizations go. That generally affords you more flexibility the further back they are. It still adds up to a political and military advantage. I could go on about how your logic is wrong, but something tells me you'd continue to disagree for your own reasons.
[/quote]
Geography doesn't really account for much. Given how "invincible" your defenses are already as Tianxia in the current war against Mara, the national defense surely could not be more threatened by countries in Texas, the US East Coast and Croatia. Their geostrategic positioning is just ideal to make your life hell, if they for any reason decide to attack you with their numerically far inferior armies. This world is only so big, I think most people attacked are already as far away as we can be, because we, actually, don't really want to interact much with you.

I do not agree with you, that is about all I actually do agree with you. I do not think that at the current rate I would ever agree with you. But when I wrote my posts, it actually was not at all my intention to convince you, but to not let your biased explanations go unchallenged here.
[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348244366' post='3032768']
However, I will point out two more things which are important. The first is that you're asking us to respect you, you're asking us to change our behavior, but you're pretty much calling us liars when we tell you our reasoning. You're saying that we should completely change the way we play the game because you say so. But you don't even take us at our word about our reasoning? Yeah right. I'm sorry but you are going to have to understand Eva that your moral indignation about us, is not actually shared by us. Thats stupid. If everyones divisive that may be partially my fault, but a lot of it is actually yours, PDs, Isaac's for being incredibly rude the second someone from #nordic pokes their head in the room. But here is the thing, between the two of us, if both of us are rude and stand offish and don't cooperate while its really really annoying how you behave we've got the armies and the guns so we still get our way. You on the other hand it may also be really really annoying for, but you don't have the armies and the guns so you do not get your way. So rather than try and get others to say they are lying, and that they spend all their time in a secret bunker trying to victimize you for whatever reason, why don't you actually make an effort to make friendly. And by the way, we're a pretty well unified group of people so the divide and conquer thing a couple people try... protip not the best strategy ever.
[/quote]

So, I cannot speak for all of us, but I do think there are those that may not have attempted to make "friendly", but at least to make neutral. To just RP an ok country with no great agenda. Till someone came along and f***ed it all over, because of some OOC dispute, or because maybe "friendly" could be best defined as being some mere minion of the Horde. I do think to some degree, the fault also lies with us, but if I watch the situation, I do wonder when it really was the last time that for example PD was rude to you, without you starting it.

Not to mention that the idea to punish us ICly for being rude OOCly is in my humble opinion just sickening.

I know, TSI is unified, there is no arguing about it. I see not who would attempt to use a divide and conquer approach to this. As long as TSI stands, the core members of it will profit from it, not from discarding it. As long as their priorities are as they are currently.
[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348244366' post='3032768']
My second point is that as far as land conquest, theres been no expansionist war by Athens, Germany, or Tianxia in months. 0. The last major expansion of Tianxia occured almost a year ago. The idea that we're all out to take land is just stupidity.
[/quote]
In direct land conquest, maybe. In expanding the Sphere of influence, a good deal of wars qualifies, personally I could name the war against France one. Also, it is the basis for the argument that we should not be able to hide in PM, because others could want to RP in our land. Abuse of preplanning to create a makeshift PM (which is retarded anyway) is less to prevent others from RPing in our countries, but more to prevent others from preventing us from RPing in our countries for the simple reason of "no u".
[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1348244366' post='3032768']
Quit assuming you understand thought processes of others. If you want peace with them stop accusing them of being liars and try to make nice. Otherwise embrace antagonism and don't complain if you lose that struggle of it.
[/quote]
As long as you keep denouncing my views as "thought police" to enforce a secret agenda of mine, I have absolutely NO intention to drop my current stance. I have no intentions to become another cog in the puppet machinery of yours and to kow-tow before your enlightened greatness. I have my pride, I don't throw it away for a parcel of imaginary land on a map.

If I wanted to serve, I'd serve someone whom I pick, not someone whom I had to serve, to save whatever RP I had.