CNRP2 Discussion: Protectorates

[Uberstein]

There is a discontinuity in what is being pushed. TidyBowlMan allegedly told Rota that protectorates are 100% IC, and thus cannot be enforced by preventing a nation from rolling there IC. The rule thread, on the other hand, says that people must ask protectorate owners for permission to roll there.

 

I feel the best way to solve this is through a community discussion; what exactly do we want to do as a community with protectorates?

 

My personal feelings are that protectorates should exist, but should require stationed soldiers to be maintained. In that fashion, since soldiers are stationed there, it makes literally no sense that a nation would suddenly spawn up with a fully armed military and government w/o the permission of the occupying force. The very IC nature of protectorates would make them require OOC permission.

 

Given the limit we have on soldiers, I feel this would be a self-limiting factor, much like nation size. Sure, a nation could secure a vast protectorate, but they'd spread themselves thin by doing it.

 

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Alternatives?

[Beauty]

[23:09] <+Rotavele> Mogar whats the final ruling? GMs or Your map thread

[23:09] <+Mogar> GMs

 

You can't have everything you want. This is the main problem with CNRP2, everyone wants stuff handled OOCly when they don't get their way. Handle it ICly. 

[Uberstein]

I have handled it ICly. I've had soldiers in those territories since my nation formed.

 

Also, GM's do not make the rules. Community discussion does.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Uberstein

[Captain Enema]

I said Protectorates are an IC entity not labeled on the Map thread. I also said someone can roll into a protectorate despite the protector's OOC objections, but they'd be forced to deal with the protector icly. 

 

In short, if someone decides to ignore my ooc warning not to roll in my protectorate, they roll a nation in my protectorate, I deal with it ICly as my troops are there. This puts them in an interesting position as they would not have permission to be rping there and would have to rp at somewhat reduced stats.

 

What those stats are, no idea. 

 

I'd normally just say your ingame citizen count and that's it.

[Markus Wilding]

My personal feelings are that protectorates should exist, but should require stationed soldiers to be maintained. In that fashion, since soldiers are stationed there, it makes literally no sense that a nation would suddenly spawn up with a fully armed military and government w/o the permission of the occupying force. The very IC nature of protectorates would make them require OOC permission.

 

Echoing this in line with my response in the OOC thread.

[Beauty]

I have handled it ICly. I've had soldiers in those territories since my nation formed.

 

Also, GM's do not make the rules. Community discussion does.

 

The GMs are elected to make rulings. First you said the map thread makes the rules on this, that didn't go your way.

 

Then we got the GM involved and he made the ruling, that didn't go your way so you keep whining.

 

Now after the community votes you can't OOC keep someone from RPing, hopefully you'll chill. 

 

Everything is not going to go your way 100% of the time.

 

I said Protectorates are an IC entity not labeled on the Map thread. I also said someone can roll into a protectorate despite the protector's OOC objections, but they'd be forced to deal with the protector icly. 

 

In short, if someone decides to ignore my ooc warning not to roll in my protectorate, they roll a nation in my protectorate, I deal with it ICly as my troops are there. This puts them in an interesting position as they would not have permission to be rping there and would have to rp at somewhat reduced stats.

 

What those stats are, no idea. 

 

I'd normally just say your ingame citizen count and that's it.

 

That's exactly what I was saying. It should be handled ICly.

 

Echoing this in line with my response in the OOC thread.

 

Why do you want all these OOC rulings effecting IC? You do know this is a roleplay community right?

[Uberstein]

So far, the only one who seems to disagree with protectorates is Rota. Does anybody else disagree, or is this the case of one very loud discontent member among a content many?

[Markus Wilding]

Yes, this is an RP community, but not everything can be handled IC. That's why we have the GMs, for one.

[Captain Enema]

Yall know Rotavele is trolling right?

[Beauty]

So far, the only one who seems to disagree with protectorates is Rota. Does anybody else disagree, or is this the case of one very loud discontent member among a content many?

 

No I am saying the same thing as TidyBowlMan. You are saying you can say no OOCly and they can't even put soldiers there and fight you for the protectorate. He is saying they can.

[Uberstein]

At severely limited stats.

 

But, that brings up two ideas of how protectorates should work. TBM's "Reduced stats and at a disadvantage, but still able to roll." or the other option of simply using what existed in CNRP but with the requirement of maintaining it with soldiers.

[Beauty]

At severely limited stats.

 

But, that brings up two ideas of how protectorates should work. TBM's "Reduced stats and at a disadvantage, but still able to roll." or the other option of simply using what existed in CNRP but with the requirement of maintaining it with soldiers.

 

Not sure how it works here, but in CNRP they used your total soldier count as your entire population you RP. You can RP them all as soldiers. So can he. Also if a foreign power intervenes... That might be bad for you.

[Uberstein]

Well, the point of this discussion is to figure out the rules for such a thing.

 

Personally, I feel that they should be limited to civilian arms, as they have no state to create things like tanks, airplanes, or missiles. Of course, if the occupying country has built or stationed those things in the territory, the chance to capture them through clever RP should be possible.

[Dillon1102]

Well, the point of this discussion is to figure out the rules for such a thing.
 
Personally, I feel that they should be limited to civilian arms, as they have no state to create things like tanks, airplanes, or missiles. Of course, if the occupying country has built or stationed those things in the territory, the chance to capture them through clever RP should be possible.

I really like this idea! Anyone should be able to DoE in a protectorate BUT they have to fight the ruling power in the protectorate to become independent. Like with the American Revolutionary War.

[JEDCJT]

I'd be in favor for a limited stats idea. This would add some new flavor, as well a new dynamic, in CNRP2 and could really be fun for these involved. This could create a win-win situation, where anyone being denied land could still have the chance to do, albeit at severely reduced stats (which could encourage creativity, and not to mention it could give you that feeling of great satisfaction when you actually win against a much powerful protector), and the protector would still get to have fun trying to quash the rebellion/insurgency as well.

Edited June 3, 2014 by JEDCJT

[Captain Enema]

Put some thought into this first and keep in mind we have the over 50 vote and the nuclear vote to get through. This could be attached to either of those votes if people get some polling options put together and discussed in a timely manner. Or we could do it after those two in a stand alone vote.

 

 

Up to yall, I'm curious to see what you plebes come up with. 

[Captain Enema]

Well, the point of this discussion is to figure out the rules for such a thing.

 

Personally, I feel that they should be limited to civilian arms, as they have no state to create things like tanks, airplanes, or missiles. Of course, if the occupying country has built or stationed those things in the territory, the chance to capture them through clever RP should be possible.

 

This makes sense if you think about it. 

[Beauty]

This makes sense if you think about it.

They can also nationalize the weapons held there or steal them.
They also could get the weapons from foreign imports before staging a revolution.

Just putting that out there so there is not a definite rule "If RPing a protectorate uprising, you can't fight with anything but soldiers." But to add a "unless obtained through RP" clause to that.

Also they should be allowed to RP in secret before revolutionizing. Not immediately declared on as soon as they start role playing.

All of these things handled through OOC are getting really old. We have to give a chance to role play most of these things. Were trying to not be CNRP. Edited June 3, 2014 by Rotavele

[Hereno]

Well, the point of this discussion is to figure out the rules for such a thing.
 
Personally, I feel that they should be limited to civilian arms, as they have no state to create things like tanks, airplanes, or missiles. Of course, if the occupying country has built or stationed those things in the territory, the chance to capture them through clever RP should be possible.

What this sounds like: An interesting insurgency story where scarce resources are used by a player who attempts to, through cunning and wit, carve out a nation against larger forces.

What will actually happen: "Quickly, soldiers went and raided all the barracks and airfields and broke out with F-22s. They then flew into someone else's cities and bombed everything because lol fuck you for not letting me roll here, winning the war."

The kind of person who would get denied access to a protectorate is the same kind of person who would use gamey shit and generally just roll in to troll. We can handle the problem of large protectorates through IC means, or if it gets really out of hand with someone just being a dick over really interesting RP land, GM involvement. I'm all in favor of having lots of people and lots of activity, but not all activity and people are good. Nor are these situations where we force ourselves into allowing otherwise obviously shitty people into CNRP2 and create more and more needless drama.

[Beauty]

What this sounds like: An interesting insurgency story where scarce resources are used by a player who attempts to, through cunning and wit, carve out a nation against larger forces.

What will actually happen: "Quickly, soldiers went and raided all the barracks and airfields and broke out with F-22s. They then flew into someone else's cities and bombed everything because lol $%&@ you for not letting me roll here, winning the war."

The kind of person who would get denied access to a protectorate is the same kind of person who would use gamey !@#$ and generally just roll in to troll. We can handle the problem of large protectorates through IC means, or if it gets really out of hand with someone just being a dick over really interesting RP land, GM involvement. I'm all in favor of having lots of people and lots of activity, but not all activity and people are good. Nor are these situations where we force ourselves into allowing otherwise obviously !@#$%* people into CNRP2 and create more and more needless drama.

 

Yeah but you accuse everyone of trolling as well as troll a lot on your own. So you're not exactly a good source for that kind of information.

 

-----------------

 

Also in my opinion protectorates aren't needed. They are only for a person saying "Look i will determine who goes here" in some sort of autocrastic manner. If you want to roleplay in that area, do it. You don't have to put military there to roll in that area. If you want it exclusively for you, claim it.

 

I don't see why we let people say "Only I will say who goes here!" it sounds like it was made up by someone who couldn't be beat in game so everyone else just let them make this stuff up and everyone rolled with it.

 

For the sake of liberalizing the RP, I say it can be allowed. However it just needs to be dealt with ICly. I.E. Someone needs to speak up and say "This is retarded, you're just being an imperialistic piece of !@#$. If those regions want to govern themselves, don't get in their way."

 

I think people need to start seeing people imperializing stuff as aggressive and as a negative thing. Not a "Oh well there not touching me, so yeah"

 

 

This is how much of Europe you currently have protected just to dictate who will settle there. You're a land hog. The only reason I haven't blown you off the map is because I cant. The RP would be retconned because people would cry and say I am doing it for OOC reasons. You're the only person making a ton of protectorates and claiming a ton of land just to have power that I currently am aware of. 

 

Yes before you try to say its not just yours, I know. But you still dictate who settles there as well as others, making it complicated for new RPers who are eager to get started. You also are not this great little person OOCly. Your ignorance of what the Equestrians were lead you to believe someone was making a nation based on Bronies and trolling. You denied him the land and after he explained what it was, you still denied him it. 

 

As soon as someone says something about your land hogging ICly and wants to do something about it, The Ukraine will be right behind them. So it won't be retconned for OOC whatever.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Rotavele

[Evangeline Anovilis]

I really like this idea! Anyone should be able to DoE in a protectorate BUT they have to fight the ruling power in the protectorate to become independent. Like with the American Revolutionary War.

Yeah, just that in the 18th century, it was far easier to teach an ordinary citizen musket drills, it was easier to have about the same level of equipment than the colonial force and an outside power supplied a good deal of the money and weapons to make it possible (as well as their own armed forces in the later days). Wonder how you'll take on that tank or aircraft, which most people can't operate properly without training, while being equipped at best with a hunting rifle or your civilian semi-auto.

 

Personally, I'm in favour of protectorates, given they keep order up, idiots out and landgrabbers away. Of course, we also know how that could lead potentially to the situation where someone gets nowhere any land, because every protectorate owner refuses them, but I think that's just an issue of limiting how much protectorate can be established. If land isn't held by just a small minority, chances are, someone will accept a request and if not, I think then it is a bit of a sign as to how the community values the participation of a certian individual.

[Captain Enema]

Eh, the African protectorate keeps out Imperialists. other than that, i can't be bothered with whole rolls there. RP is RP, stop being haters and roll with it. 

[Hereno]

I don't accuse everyone of trolling, and I don't troll hardly ever. I've never trolled anyone in regards to CNRP2, at least not intentionally. Even so, I feel as though whether or not the aforementioned statements are true aren't really relevant to whether or not the scenario I outlined is likely. I think it's very likely.

However, you do make a good point at the end of your post. I find myself not agreeing so much with Uber's control of Poland/Belarus so much as his decision to exclude what he believes to be a troll from rolling next to him. Nobody wants to invest hours, days, or weeks of their time into a RP just to have some jerk roll next to them and throw it all out the window. But at the same time, it wouldn't be necessary for us to give Uber that veto power if we had another way to prevent griefing, such as keeping new RPers as optional until they can be confirmed by a vote of each of us. Perhaps after a week, so we can see if they actually intend to stick around and such. I'm sure that with the years of experience some of you have here that we can figure out a way to have our cake and eat it too. In any case, however, I do agree with keeping the kind of protectorates like TBM has for Africa insofar as having bases within/defending white space from already-existing nations using IC measures.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Hereno

[Beauty]

I don't accuse everyone of trolling, and I don't troll hardly ever. I've never trolled anyone in regards to CNRP2, at least not intentionally. Even so, I feel as though whether or not the aforementioned statements are true aren't really relevant to whether or not the scenario I outlined is likely. I think it's very likely.

However, you do make a good point at the end of your post. I find myself not agreeing so much with Uber's control of Poland/Belarus so much as his decision to exclude what he believes to be a troll from rolling next to him. Nobody wants to invest hours, days, or weeks of their time into a RP just to have some jerk roll next to them and throw it all out the window. But at the same time, it wouldn't be necessary for us to give Uber that veto power if we had another way to prevent griefing, such as keeping new RPers as optional until they can be confirmed by a vote of each of us. Perhaps after a week, so we can see if they actually intend to stick around and such. I'm sure that with the years of experience some of you have here that we can figure out a way to have our cake and eat it too. In any case, however, I do agree with keeping the kind of protectorates like TBM has for Africa insofar as having bases within/defending white space from already-existing nations using IC measures.

 

Let's RP this better. How about when you start a new nation. You start out with 1/10th of the forces you can have. Every day you get another 1/10th. It will be a time when you build your forces.

 

So if you start out and people have a problem with it, you pose little threat.

 

It would take out the re-rolling to war someone for revenge problem, and the bad neighbors problem. Two birds with one stone.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Rotavele

[Hereno]

Let's RP this better. How about when you start a new nation. You start out with 1/10th of the forces you can have. Every day you get another 1/10th. It will be a time when you build your forces.

So if you start out and people have a problem with it, you pose little threat.

It would take out the re-rolling to war someone for revenge problem, and the bad neighbors problem. Two birds with one stone.

This, coupled with a ban on missiles for that time period(ie. nuke roguing), could go a long way in preventing griefers without OOC action. Edited June 3, 2014 by Hereno