One GM, Seeking Chiropractor

[PresidentDavid]

@Kevin No, what I'm saying is that you can do whatever you want so long as you back up your war with an actual IC reason. If you want to invade someone because their leader wears shirts with flowers on them then go ahead - but make sure you specifically RP that. The idea is that in order for a war to be declared, there has to be some reason, even if it's something small. But launching a full scale multi-billion dollar operation with hundreds of thousands of troops but giving no IC justification or even a tiny bit of Goverment role play explaining why said nation is launching the invasion is silly. Also, if troops are going to be loaded onto ships to invade another country, then it needs to be RPed that those armed troops were on the ships when try left port otherwise that is meta gaming.

Finally, this isn't complaining about Triyun (at least for me it isn't) he and I tend not to make things personal between each other as of late. What this is, is GM reform.

Edited April 19, 2014 by PresidentDavid

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Show me the rule that says it isn't.

If I open up the Connect Four box, there is no rule that says that the game isn't against incest and satanism, but that doesn't mean that I am correct in stating that it is about those things.
 

As Yawoo said, Crimea.

And as I said, one time in the last 40 years does not qualify as all the time.

Edited April 19, 2014 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[Uberstein]

India and Pakistan have been warring over territory since their inception. Sudan and South Sudan have had territorial conflicts along their borders in recent years. The Sino-Indian border dispute also comes to mind. The Iran-Iraq war was also in part prompted by border disputes. And do I even need to mention the constant territorial disputes between Israel and the rest of the Middle East?

 

Territorial conflicts happen all the time Melech. Just because it isn't a superpower doing it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Kevin Kingswell]

If I open up the Connect Four box, there is no rule that says that the game isn't against incest and satanism, but that doesn't mean that I am correct in stating that it is about those things.
 

And as I said, one time in the last 40 years does not qualify as all the time.

 

Some people may be playing this game to create world spanning empires as they find that fun. Sure it sucks for everyone else but that is a hazard of playing. Seriously this is one of my pet hates about how people talk about CNRP. Not that people are angry or annoyed as that is all fair for them to feel but people seem to say this is what I want to do for fun but I don't like what you do for fun so you can't do it. 

 

I mean we either choose to dissolve CNRP as it stands and go off into little groups and write our own stories in our own little worlds or we write stories in one big world where each player can effect the outcome.  

[Centurius]

If I open up the Connect Four box, there is no rule that says that the game isn't against incest and satanism, but that doesn't mean that I am correct in stating that it is about those things.
 

And as I said, one time in the last 40 years does not qualify as all the time.

Satanism and incest aren't part of connect four, warfare and conquest is a part of nations and international politics.

 

Falklands War, Yugoslav Wars, 91-92 South Ossetia War and there are a few more.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Centurius

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

India and Pakistan have been warring over territory since their inception.

Until the 90s, they had one war every 10 to 20 years, with hardly any useful territory being exchanged. This is not analogous to wiping out countries.
 

Sudan and South Sudan have had territorial conflicts along their borders in recent years.

Ethiopia and Eritrea did the same thing in the 90s when Eritrea gained independence. These are usually short, low-scale conflicts over small portions of territory. Again, not analogous to wiping out countries.
 

The Sino-Indian border dispute also comes to mind. The Iran-Iraq war was also in part prompted by border disputes. And do I even need to mention the constant territorial disputes between Israel and the rest of the Middle East?

The India-China conflict was 40 years ago and has since been solved diplomatically, the Israelis and the Arabs haven't done anything major in 40 years, and the Iraq-Iran thing is great as long as Triyun is happy being our version of Saddam Hussein.
 

Some people may be playing this game to create world spanning empires as they find that fun. Sure it sucks for everyone else but that is a hazard of playing. Seriously this is one of my pet hates about how people talk about CNRP. Not that people are angry or annoyed as that is all fair for them to feel but people seem to say this is what I want to do for fun but I don't like what you do for fun so you can't do it.

This is not Triyun's game, and this is not Cent's game. This is a game shared by all of us. If one person makes the game suck for the rest of us, then it should be our right to rectify the situation in the most efficient way.
 

I mean we either choose to dissolve CNRP as it stands and go off into little groups and write our own stories in our own little worlds or we write stories in one big world where each player can effect the outcome.

Frankly, I think losing the map would be the best thing for us at this point. It will get rid of 99% of all our conflicts and will make RP so much better because people will get to roleplay as the culture they most want to be. If you want, you can still use Earth's geography for this, but just like in CN, countries can overlap in territory.
 

Satanism and incest aren't part of connect four, warfare and conquest is a part of nations and international politics.

Not the kinds seen in CNRP.
 

Falklands War, Yugoslav Wars, 91-92 South Ossetia War and there are a few more.

Only the Falklands War would count in that list, because it was the only case where one country tried to take land from another country. The wars in the Balkans and in South Ossetia were wars of independence.

Edited April 19, 2014 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[Triyun]

One time in the last 40 years isn't "all the time." Additionally, since there was no actual war, does it really count as conquering?
 
I still would have called it a massive dick move, but yes, I wouldn't have opposed it to any real extent.

Yes

4 Fights over Kashimir, all the Arab-Israeli Wars, Saddam's invasion of Iran, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the Russian Invasion of Georgia, the Ethiopian Eritrean War, the Ethiopian Somali War, the Vietnam War, the Korean War....

 

Edit:  Also no Melech, the South Ossetia war was a war for Russia to take 1/3 of Georgia in all but name.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Triyun

[Uberstein]

Melech, the reason the map was originally made is because people were tired of having to figure who owned what when we fought wars. It was annoying to have three people all claim to own Moscow and have any real semblance of war. It added more complication, more arguments. If you want to go play without the map, fine go. Nobody is forcing you to stay in CNRP.

[Kevin Kingswell]

Until the 90s, they had one war every 10 to 20 years, with hardly any useful territory being exchanged. This is not analogous to wiping out countries.
 

Ethiopia and Eritrea did the same thing in the 90s when Eritrea gained independence. These are usually short, low-scale conflicts over small portions of territory. Again, not analogous to wiping out countries.
 

The India-China conflict was 40 years ago and has since been solved diplomatically, the Israelis and the Arabs haven't done anything major in 40 years, and the Iraq-Iran thing is great as long as Triyun is happy being our version of Saddam Hussein.
 

This is not Triyun's game, and this is not Cent's game. This is a game shared by all of us. If one person makes the game suck for the rest of us, then it should be our right to rectify the situation in the most efficient way.
 

Frankly, I think losing the map would be the best thing for us at this point. It will get rid of 99% of all our conflicts and will make RP so much better because people will get to roleplay as the culture they most want to be. If you want, you can still use Earth's geography for this, but just like in CN, countries can overlap in territory.
 

Not the kinds seen in CNRP.
 

Only the Falklands War would count in that list, because it was the only case where one country tried to take land from another country. The wars in the Balkans and in South Ossetia were wars of independence.

 

Losing the map won't stop the problem of people warring others for whatever reasons they choose. You would still be open to invasion just it would be much more complicated cause of not knowing terrain and direction and other such problems. As for it not being their game that is true but this game belongs to no one. If someone is making the game suck for you then you can either:

 

A) Suck it up and try to work around it whilst still following the set down rules.

B) Try to change the rules to make it better for you and worse for them.

C) Quit.

 

In order of what I think is best I say it goes A then C. B should never come into it. 

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

4 Fights over Kashimir

Referenced above

all the Arab-Israeli Wars

Those were 66, 58, 47, and 41 years ago.

Saddam's invasion of Iran, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait

Again, fine as long as you want to be our version of Saddam Hussein. If so, the number of Kurds you have genocided is surprisingly low.

the Russian Invasion of Georgia

They didn't take any territory, just gave South Ossetia and Abkhazia increased regional autonomy.

the Ethiopian Eritrean War

This was solved legally, with both people coming out with gains of certain pieces of territory. If you want to invade a country and take half their land with them getting half of Alaska, be my guest.

the Ethiopian Somali War

I guess this was technically within the last 70 years, but it was over a small piece of territory that was largely Somali in ethnicity. What you do is in no way akin to the conflict.

the Vietnam War, the Korean War....

The Korean war was 60 years ago. These wars were also wars of Reunification of countries that had historically been unified and it had only been the previous decade or so that the were separated. When you went around unifying China as the PRC, that would fit in here. What you do nowadays most certainly does not.

[Uberstein]

Then deal with it IC. The reasons for not doing large scale invasions these days IRL are largely political. Superpowers breathing down eachother's necks, police actions, the works. If there is nothing like that stopping anyone, why shouldn't they invade for territory? If their enemies don't put up a fight, why shouldn't they take it? It's an IC political problem.

[Triyun]

Referenced above

Those were 66, 58, 47, and 41 years ago.

Again, fine as long as you want to be our version of Saddam Hussein. If so, the number of Kurds you have genocided is surprisingly low.

They didn't take any territory, just gave South Ossetia and Abkhazia increased regional autonomy.

This was solved legally, with both people coming out with gains of certain pieces of territory. If you want to invade a country and take half their land with them getting half of Alaska, be my guest.

I guess this was technically within the last 70 years, but it was over a small piece of territory that was largely Somali in ethnicity. What you do is in no way akin to the conflict.

The Korean war was 60 years ago. These wars were also wars of Reunification of countries that had historically been unified and it had only been the previous decade or so that the were separated. When you went around unifying China as the PRC, that would fit in here. What you do nowadays most certainly does not.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia might as well be provinces of the Russian Federation.  Also comparing people to Saddam is distasteful, considering his internal policies, that you referenced them shows poor taste.  Lastly its peoples own fault if they lose.  If someone can take and hold Alaska from me, but I take something else I'll consider peace on those terms.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Losing the map won't stop the problem of people warring others for whatever reasons they choose.

It will at least remove the land factor as one of the choices. People will still declare wars because they don't like a person or whatever, but at least "I want England," will no longer be a viable reason.

In order of what I think is best I say it goes A then C. B should never come into it.

Why shouldn't we be able to punish people for being antagonistic to the group? We're not allowed to kick them out, so we just make it so that they can't ruin the game for the rest of us.
 

Then deal with it IC.

Thank you for losing all credibility here.

The reasons for not doing large scale invasions these days IRL are largely political.

There are so many other reasons for not invading places that are impossible to replicate in CNRP. Invasions cost money, the general public is against wars, the UN is generally unbiased when it comes to one country invading another and essentially works to stop them all. Also, wars work completely differently in the real world than they do here. Everyone agreed that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, so there was little international resistance to removing him. I bet the same thing would be true of removing Kim Jong Un. We have that here, where players are internationally antagonistic, repressive, or in rare cases actually genocidal. Nobody really objects to invasions to remove those regimes. What is the major difference between RL wars and RP wars? Look at the map, and you won't see West Germany, japan, Grenada, Panama, or Iraq colored the same as the US. You go in, you topple a government, you form a new stable one, and you leave. If that was how CNRP wars worked, I would have absolutely no qualms with them, but they don't.

Superpowers breathing down eachother's necks

Great, now try making it so that this wasn't a world where all the big guys were BFFs.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

South Ossetia and Abkhazia might as well be provinces of the Russian Federation.

But they're not.

Also comparing people to Saddam is distasteful, considering his internal policies, that you referenced them shows poor taste.

If you don't want to be compared to Saddam, stop using what he did as justification that what you're doing is the real life norm.

Lastly its peoples own fault if they lose.  If someone can take and hold Alaska from me, but I take something else I'll consider peace on those terms.

No, it is your fault. What you do is basically tie people up, throw them on a train track, and blame them for when a freight train kills them saying that they weren't strong enough to derail it. If people try to get into a shooting war with you, then it is their own fault. When you force them into things, it is 100% your fault.

[Uberstein]

The difference is, Melech, is that we don't have enough players to do that. There aren't RL people sitting in those territories waiting to rule it. As such, installing an independent but friendly country is literally impossible unless we get a sudden influx of players. As for making the superpowers not be BFF's, that's not my problem. You can't just expect a OOC rule saying "you can't be friends if you're this tall." That's absurd. Give them a reason to not be friends. Find a way to offer one or the other something that is more than what they currently get. Use POLITICS.

 

And oh no, Melech doesn't think I have credibility. Woe is me, my ego is truly shattered. I must go kill myself to deal with the shame of being thought less of by Melech.

[Triyun]

It will at least remove the land factor as one of the choices. People will still declare wars because they don't like a person or whatever, but at least "I want England," will no longer be a viable reason.

Why shouldn't we be able to punish people for being antagonistic to the group? We're not allowed to kick them out, so we just make it so that they can't ruin the game for the rest of us.
 
Thank you for losing all credibility here.

There are so many other reasons for not invading places that are impossible to replicate in CNRP. Invasions cost money, the general public is against wars, the UN is generally unbiased when it comes to one country invading another and essentially works to stop them all. Also, wars work completely differently in the real world than they do here. Everyone agreed that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, so there was little international resistance to removing him. I bet the same thing would be true of removing Kim Jong Un. We have that here, where players are internationally antagonistic, repressive, or in rare cases actually genocidal. Nobody really objects to invasions to remove those regimes. What is the major difference between RL wars and RP wars? Look at the map, and you won't see West Germany, japan, Grenada, Panama, or Iraq colored the same as the US. You go in, you topple a government, you form a new stable one, and you leave. If that was how CNRP wars worked, I would have absolutely no qualms with them, but they don't.


Great, now try making it so that this wasn't a world where all the big guys were BFFs.

 

There's no mechanism for assuring friendly governments in areas.  If I had that ability I'd use that instead more.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

The difference is, Melech, is that we don't have enough players to do that. There aren't RL people sitting in those territories waiting to rule it. As such, installing an independent but friendly country is literally impossible unless we get a sudden influx of players.

So instead, you advocate a situation where our already low number of players is dropped farther. Smart.

Give them a reason to not be friends. Find a way to offer one or the other something that is more than what they currently get. Use POLITICS.

Are you actually Uber? I mean, you have his profile, but the way you talk is that of someone who just popped out of the womb, wound up here, and has no idea of how this whole situation works. Let me tell you little baby, for it will aid you in life. When you do that, a funny thing occurs that both of them turn around and team up on you.

And oh no, Melech doesn't think I have credibility. Woe is me, my ego is truly shattered. I must go kill myself to deal with the shame of being thought less of by Melech.

Have fun with that, and don't be afraid to get creative.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

There's no mechanism for assuring friendly governments in areas.  If I had that ability I'd use that instead more.

Just do what the Soviets did.  Stash some Spetsnaz around the presidential palace so that if the leader gets too antagonistic, you pop him.

[Centurius]

Are you actually Uber? I mean, you have his profile, but the way you talk is that of someone who just popped out of the womb, wound up here, and has no idea of how this whole situation works. Let me tell you little baby, for it will aid you in life. When you do that, a funny thing occurs that both of them turn around and team up on you.

Sure, if you do it in a dumb way and do not offer something more tempting than the status quo that happens. That's politics.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

Sure, if you do it in a dumb way and do not offer something more tempting than the status quo that happens. That's politics.

What is possibly more tempting than to never get rolled ever.  Together, you two have more strength than the rest of the world combined, so I have a good feeling that unless you wanted to take all of China, nothing is going to change that.

Edited April 19, 2014 by KaiserMelech Mikhail

[PresidentDavid]

Melech are you proposing something? I'm not sure if I understand What you are trying to say other than the map thing. There is a sizable minority of us that would like to see the map go away but that's not going to happen for a bit longer until the situation gets worse - that's the waiting game we have to play.

What are you advocating?

Edited April 19, 2014 by PresidentDavid

[Triyun]

The Problem with this whole argument is that Tianxia's not actually occupying this huge space that would otherwise be occupied by newer players.  

 

If Tianxia reduced solely to its East Asian domains, MGL has already said he wants Hawaii and Alaska.  That would go to the AC.  Russia would take the Stans.  That leaves land in South Oceania which new players can get today anyways, land in India which new players can get anyways, and land in the middle east which new players can get anyways.  South Americas entirely a protectorate save for the Falklands so new players can get that.  Antarctica is an ice sheet.   I guess Britain, but again Britain's open for collab RP.  Same with Athens really.  If Athens reduced to southern Europe, the most you'd get was MGL taking Louisiana and the Germans and Russians taking a few parts of land, or areas like Africa and the Middle East opening up, but people can play either of those nations today.  So there is no real evidence either great Empire is an obstacle to other people playing.  

 

Now onto the idea of divide and conquer.  Why divide and conquer at all?  Honestly, there is such a myopic view of strategy.  Look at Russia, Russia has the gross stats and geography to be the single most powerful nation.  Mascuria makes a choice to be a weak grossly undermanned, incompetent, parody of Russia and kills 1/3 of Russian max strength out of the gate.  An independent strong Russia could have a huge sway on world affairs.  Shammy (and he acknowledges this), gets weakened by rerolling a lot, long nations gain legitimacy, each time he rerolls he has to regain all his influence.  Shammy btw was able to play a pretty good challenge to Cent in Europe, so that invalidates the idea that you can't operate against one.  If he and Vekt had better coordination they could have won.  Lyn's made the choice to be strategically isolated, so has iKrolm.  They could do a treaty tomorrow and invest a bit of time and build up a rival military core.  MGLs got a decent independent base.  Curri's got a strong nation but he RPs his forces using really out of date stuff.  I could go on but the math doesn't lie.

 

Its also worth mentioning that people do do diplomacy, and a lot of nations like having good ties with Tianxia or Athens, and that we actually are pretty friendly.

 

What does lie is the fact that a lot of people want to have it all.  They want to get to be these great white knight but have it handed.  And when they don't get that they blame the strong.   What doesn't work is a bunch of small nations getting together, yelling really loudly and alienating everyone else, then complaining Hegemony is too hard.

[Zoot Zoot]

So as promised... my post.

PD offered a thought, it got shot down and buried.
KM got on his soapbox and ranted, and is in the process of burning up in the atmosphere as he crashes to Earth.
Triyun is defending his actions and his consistent style of role play
Uber is stirring the pot, as usual, offering nothing constructive, much like this post

So lets put something out there.
- Nothing is going to change, removing the map does nothing apart from remove the map, I know I for one like looking at the map ad saying 'that's my piece of land'.
- GM's need no more powers.
-Triyun does need to change, I am sorry, but this fundamentally goes back to the previous thread in which a clear majority of CNRP decided to simply stop recognizing you because of your behavior and how you treat people. The only reason that was not kept up, was because debate was opened on several issues, change was promised and it sank below the radar, and now it is clearly rearing its head in the form of KM's wrath... as it may be.

 

Using this recent conquest of Ireland as an example, Triyun's actions, no matter how hard he tries to dress it up with sound reasoning using past precedence to his actions and so on, was wrong morally. It is the equivalent of the heavyweight boxer choosing to only fight featherweights. The flip side to this, is that the guys who are big enough to fight back, won't because they feel they can't, a theory which has been proven a dozen times over with the exception of Shammy, who successfully fought off both Cent and Triyun into a stalemate. The other big guys are allied to him. Go figure.

Now the recurring argument which always arises from Triyun's camp is that between the rest of us, we have more than enough manpower and firepower to bring him down, now that is fully true. We do possess the resources and power between everybody who is not TSI, to bring down Triyun. But the simple fact is this, we don't possess the technical skill ability that Triyun does in war and before anybody responds with 'go do research then', 90% of us do not have the time in RL, to learn how to fight a real war against a modern nation, for the sake of a text based role play game.

So, how do we get around this? Well, some people want Triyun to leave. That isn't an option, as much as I wholeheartedly believe it would fix the problem, it isn't an option because then we just lose a good role player.

The other option is for Triyun to put all of his territories outside RL China into whitespace, UN protectorates to show how empty the map really is to perhaps entice new players, for no reason other than that.

OR, we just get on with the status quo and play longer than he does.

-Just saw Triyuns reply-
Nobody is saying it is your size that is a hindrance to new players, but your attitude and behavior towards them and select players in the community, whom you terrorize for whatever reasons you have at the time. You treatment of me when I had Britain, your treatment of PD when he had Texas, the treatment of Zephyr just before the shooting war broke out and both attacks on Lkft to simply name a few memorable occasions. I have no doubt others would remember more. The most recent example being your posts directed at me with your bombers, and your massive fleet getting angsty towards my fleet, to make people think you were about to attack me, rather than Britain. That is OOC, to allay suspicion from your true target. ICly, you had zero reason to act that way towards me, what nation in real life for that matter, assembles its entire battle fleet off the coast of a nation, harasses another nation, and then invades somebody completely different? It just doesn't happen.

I do realize that this is a long post, and its going to be seen as a gripe/attack on the hegemonic powers that be, but frankly, I couldn't care less anymore. I would be massively happy to see something change which makes the smaller players, (smaller being all nations not TSI), who feel like they cannot RP freely, be able to RP freely without fear of having months or years of writing and work blown down the proverbial gutter. But as it isn't going to happen, I'm not going to say anything more on the matter.


 

[Triyun]

First, you're in fact saying my size is.  Read up in your own post.  Its not new players who lack land they want, its current players who aren't getting the cities they want because they're not willing to work for it.  There's tons of land for new players including from Tianxia.

 

Second, I'm not IRL China.  My Emperor's not even Chinese.  My nation is based on the Mongolian Empire.  

 

Third, I've attacked Cochin, EM, Sumer, many large nations.  I don't look at nation size when choosing who to attack.  If large nations actions provoke wars, then so be it as much as small ones.  The fact is though that older nations also tend to be larger and more mature and thus easier to get along with diplomatically.  If Cent was a 30k nation he'd still conduct himself smarter than a lot of smaller fire crackers.

 

In regards to PD and Zephyr, PD openly provoked Tianxia by putting it on an evil list for no reason.  I've not hit Iceland at all where he hasn't.   Zephyr went on claiming territory and tried to force a solution, then caught caught when it didn't work his way.  That's way different then even this.  There's no reason to apologize if two people play with fire, but one sucks at it and gets burned as a result.   There's nothing really consistent here in your argument than jealousy.  I'm happy to talk about substance but try evidence rather than blame.

[Zoot Zoot]

Now I know you are simply trying to troll as the jealously card has been played. I am not jealous of being arguably the most hated member of the community.