Captain Enema Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 This poll is limited to people who are on the CNRP map, it is posted with the permission of a CNRP GM. It will last for 72 hours from the time of it's posting. This is not a discussion thread, if you want to argue go elsewhere. Those people doing more than commenting yes or no will have their vote removed from the total. Don't like this? Too bad, deal. GM approval for the bickering rule and poll approval: [quote]12:47 tidybowlman can I add this? 12:47 tidybowlman This is not a discussion thread, if you want to argue go elsewhere. Those people doing more than commenting yes or no will have their vote removed from the total. 12:47 SarahTintagyl yes 12:47 SarahTintagyl please 12:47 tidybowlman can I post this convo? 12:48 tidybowlman and are you ok with me posting the poll? 12:48 SarahTintagyl yes[/quote] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PresidentDavid Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 So we aren't allowed to discuss the topic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Sure, do it in the other thread, this is for voting, not belly aching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Banish it to Hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 What if I am not yet on the map, but already got a nation? (And a request to be on the map) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 Yeah sounds ok to me, go ahead and vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 That really doesn't make sense, these types of things need to be discussed. Anyhow, voted yes for obvious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 [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] I sense a flip-flopper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac MatthewII Posted September 21, 2012 Report Share Posted September 21, 2012 (edited) Its a yes or no question, I literally flipped a coin. Edited September 21, 2012 by Isaac MatthewII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 [quote name='Isaac MatthewII' timestamp='1348269674' post='3032915'] Its a yes or no question, I literally flipped a coin. [/quote] That sir, I applaud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 No need to state my opinion. I'll let my vote do the talking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1348293078' post='3032972'] No need to state my opinion. I'll let my vote do the talking. [/quote] Then why post at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted September 22, 2012 Report Share Posted September 22, 2012 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1348293465' post='3032973'] Then why post at all? [/quote]Not a discussion thread, but I still want to keep track of it. Enough. Let's keep to Tidy's rules, hmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 The ability to drop nuclear bombs on weak players does not add anything to RP other than the ability for people to be asses to one another. As such, I voted to keep it in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted September 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 Or asses to be asses and hide under the 20k limit free from nuclear retribution. It's an artifically imposed limit on the free flowing structure of rp for a problem that wasn't that large to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1348385909' post='3033265'] Or asses to be asses and hide under the 20k limit free from nuclear retribution. It's an artifically imposed limit on the free flowing structure of rp for a problem that wasn't that large to begin with. [/quote]It would be a bigger problem if we could, like, you know...get more people to actually join and stay in CNRP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 [quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1348385909' post='3033265'] Or asses to be asses and hide under the 20k limit free from nuclear retribution. It's an artifically imposed limit on the free flowing structure of rp for a problem that wasn't that large to begin with. [/quote] As if firebombing wasn't enough. Given how we deal with radiation cleanup anyway, the outcome is pretty much the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 [quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1348398991' post='3033291'] It would be a bigger problem if we could, like, you know...get more people to actually join and stay in CNRP [/quote] Before the rule, how many situations where there of sub-20k nations being nuked, resulting in their departure from CNRP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1348418938' post='3033351'] Before the rule, how many situations where there of sub-20k nations being nuked, resulting in their departure from CNRP? [/quote] One is already too many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1348423777' post='3033377'] One is already too many. [/quote] Name that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 I think it means that we should be happy that it did not yet occur and that even if it did not yet occur, if we give it the chance to occur by abolishing a rule and it then happens, it was irresponsible of us. Why are people so hellbound on nuking people below 20k NS anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted September 23, 2012 Report Share Posted September 23, 2012 In this case I endorse the idea of 'IC actions require IC reactions'. It's probably far-fetched to suppose that in CNRP people would RP actual consequences of a nuclear strike, or react as harshly as most nations would in the event of a nuclear strike against a drastically weaker nation, but I do not feel that an OOC rule does anything but detract from roleplay and prevent any opportunity for IC reactions in the first place. 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.