The Discussion Bus

[Hereno]

I didn't misunderstand it at all I just don't agree with you. There is a difference. There's no reason why if enough people want one we can't just have a vote if someone refuses to make their claim smaller after a bunch of people have expressed disapproval.

 

Moreover, if someone goes two/three weeks without posting their nation and all their RP gets wiped, so the basis your concern is predicated on is invalid.

 

Frankly, I've already seen Knights111 or whoever it was who wanted the Dakotas get bullied out of his claim over some bull shit about in-game land area because he's an unpopular player, and the same thing happened to Dillon when he wanted California. Kevin and Vektor are just too popular to be bullied out of their claims so now we're deciding to codify the rules. And don't think I didn't notice that despite all the whining, you guys waited until he rolled in as Persia or w/e in order to lay this down rather than picking on Kevin over Siberia. Is the actual reason that Sarah's claims are in conflict ever since she got turned away because y'all had a bone to pick with Cent/Triyun? So transparent and predictable. Go away.

[Centurius]

I didn't misunderstand it at all I just don't agree with you. There is a difference. There's no reason why if enough people want one we can't just have a vote if someone refuses to make their claim smaller after a bunch of people have expressed disapproval.

 

Moreover, if someone goes two/three weeks without posting their nation and all their RP gets wiped, so the basis your concern is predicated on is invalid.

 

Frankly, I've already seen Knights111 or whoever it was who wanted the Dakotas get bullied out of his claim over some bull !@#$ about in-game land area because he's an unpopular player, and the same thing happened to Dillon when he wanted California. Kevin and Vektor are just too popular to be bullied out of their claims so now we're deciding to codify the rules. And don't think I didn't notice that despite all the whining, you guys waited until he rolled in as Persia or w/e in order to lay this down rather than picking on Kevin over Siberia. Is the actual reason that Sarah's claims are in conflict ever since she got turned away because y'all had a bone to pick with Cent/Triyun? So transparent and predictable. Go away.

I think of all the arguments you could make about this Vektor being popular isn't one.

[Captain Enema]

Lol, yeah... have to side with Cent on this one. 

 

The system hasn't hit critical mass as of yet. If Knights111 wanted more land, he could have demanded an explanation as to why he wasn't getting it in the proper thread, which is the gm thread. 

 

He easily could have asked the GMs to make a decision in the matter. 

 

But really, given the land in question was in flux over other people rolling nations in the same area and competing claims, I think he got the amount of land that was appropriate for the situation.

 

 

That being said. 

 

If you really think we need some sort of policy to change it all up, write one up, get a bunch of people to support it, and we'll vote on it.

 

We really don't need to have a dick measure contest.

 

Either it'll get passed.

Or it won't.

 

Besides, We all know FHIC has the biggest weinie so yall can stop arguing over it.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I didn't misunderstand it at all I just don't agree with you. There is a difference. There's no reason why if enough people want one we can't just have a vote if someone refuses to make their claim smaller after a bunch of people have expressed disapproval.
 
Moreover, if someone goes two/three weeks without posting their nation and all their RP gets wiped, so the basis your concern is predicated on is invalid.
 
Frankly, I've already seen Knights111 or whoever it was who wanted the Dakotas get bullied out of his claim over some bull !@#$ about in-game land area because he's an unpopular player, and the same thing happened to Dillon when he wanted California. Kevin and Vektor are just too popular to be bullied out of their claims so now we're deciding to codify the rules. And don't think I didn't notice that despite all the whining, you guys waited until he rolled in as Persia or w/e in order to lay this down rather than picking on Kevin over Siberia. Is the actual reason that Sarah's claims are in conflict ever since she got turned away because y'all had a bone to pick with Cent/Triyun? So transparent and predictable. Go away.

You misrepresent the situation with Knights111, the only thing that made him unpopular was he wasn't following the same rules everyone else does. I personally barely know him and have zilch against him, but we are all beholden to the same rules otherwise they do not matter. The mapmaker was enforcing the rule.. and the gms made no exception for him at the time nor had he requested one.

Same situation with Triyun and Sarah. I put myself under a vote.. I got voted in. If they had put themselves up for a vote, I would have voted them in. They opted not to even give themselves that chance. At the time the 5o+ rule was effective and I was more than content to abide by it until it changed.

So why are they special that they would merit exemption other than ego?

In both counts the situation was handled appropriately and adequately as to the current rules structure. The only people who undermined their actions.. were the ones you portray as victims. They victimized themselves.

I started with Bhutan. I RP'd INTO Tibet,Nepal, and Myanmar although I could have initially claimed them as part of SOI. I did this because well.. first off I misunderstood the intial rules, but when I did clarify my understanding, I chose to abide by them like everyone is expected to. Edited July 3, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Knights111]

You misrepresent the situation with Knights111, the only thing that made him unpopular was he wasn't following the same rules everyone else does. I personally barely know him and have zilch against him, but we are all beholden to the same rules otherwise they do not matter. The mapmaker was enforcing the rule.. and the gms made no exception for him at the time nor had he requested one.

did i really ever break the rules?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

You were attempting to claim an SOI greater than your in game size. That is an attempt to break the rules. You were not permitted to do this. You then rescinded your claim there. Therefore.. no you didn't because you were not allowed to though you wanted to.

I started smaller than your initial claim, btw, and check my in game land area. Look at the land I now cover on the map. That's all it takes. A couple weeks, a little posting work to actually participate in the rp.. and whammy.. empire. No complaints. Just good play.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Captain Enema]

There is no official rule on land claim size though Mael, so no he didn't break any rules. 

[Maelstrom Vortex]

The map thread clearly states that when staking a claim no one may claim a land size greater than their sphere of influence on the CNRP2 map thread here:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/121664-world-map-of-cnrp2/#entry3254843

It's under the section "starting a nation in cnrp2". Which is under a section labeled, rules. To me, if it is on the map thread, in the guidelines for writing a nation, it is an official rule.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Captain Enema]

Hmm, they must have added that in during one of the rule passing frenzies. 

 

Still, why are you being so high handed and preachy? Crap out the rule book you have lodged in your anus and go rp more. 

[Hereno]

My analysis of what actually happened is correct, so the alternative meaning of "popular" in my post can be inferred based on the point I was making. The only reason to be pedantic and to ignore the intent behind my post is to distract from the discussion.

 

Moreover, I do not recall ever voting for any rule that ties CN land to CNRP2 land. Feel free to show me the vote on this and prove me wrong any time you'd like to summarily end the discussion.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

My analysis of what actually happened is correct, so the alternative meaning of "popular" in my post can be inferred based on the point I was making. The only reason to be pedantic and to ignore the intent behind my post is to distract from the discussion.

Or simply to be accurate. Yes, accuracy can be distracting. I repeat, I have nothing for or agianst Knights111 and I was a major contributor to that discussion..

Moreover, I do not recall ever voting for any rule that ties CN land to CNRP2 land. Feel free to show me the vote on this and prove me wrong any time you'd like to summarily end the discussion.

I don't either. I just know it's in the rules section of the maps thread. The way I understand it is that it's part of the initial rules that came in with the creation of CNRP2 before they started revisiions from the original framework, but I may be wrong. I just know that the rule is there and that I and everyone else appear to be abiding by it and accepting it. Therefore, I can't prove you wrong, but I cannot prove you correct either.

[Mogar]

our original rule was any three states to a RL nation, with exceptions for America, China, and other large nations, once a reasonable number of players joined we relaxed that a bit, though I do not believe the intent of the SoI agreement was to allow huge nations to claim huge swaths of land, I'm not a GM so it's on them to figure out.

[Markus Wilding]

So while we're on all sorts of silliness, I propose a change to the way we have our players take over land.

 

Instead of a hard-lined "7 posts over 2 weeks" rule, which we currently have, I propose a Common Sense rule. Small islands, like Kiribati, the Canaries, anything in the Pacific, for example, would take one or two detailed posts. Provinces like Mecklenberg-Vorpommern, Savoy, Milan, etc. would take slightly longer, maybe four or five posts. Obviously the higher up you go, the longer it's going to take.

 

Note that I bolded detailed in that last paragraph. Obviously simple landgrabbing shouldn't be allowed, and when I mention detailed I don't expect it down to a T, but I would imagine one's post should be more in-depth than "we landed. yay."

 

Of course, this is all just a framework (and I slightly stole this from Voodoo) so feel free to propose alternatives/call me dumb.

[Captain Enema]

No, tbh, I really enjoy watching people actually have to work for new land. 

[Lynneth]

Eh, I'm alright with 7 posts for everything, instead just letting less detailed stuff for smaller bits of land slide.

[Voodoo Nova]

Now that I've gotten into it, I'm enjoying having to think of ways to create a story for a new territory. 

[Captain Enema]

Now that I've gotten into it, I'm enjoying having to think of ways to create a story for a new territory. 

That's the spirit, keep at it. 

[Uberstein]

It isn't much work to write seven single sentences, lol.

[Biohazard]

It really isn't. I'm in favor of the way things are currently, aha. 

[Hereno]

Me having to come up with 7 posts over two weeks to annex one province of Italy is dumb. That's fine for, say, Voodoo's annexation of Sudan, but when it's a small or uninteresting area, more often than not it simply ends in spam posts with a tally going up by one. A one-size-fits-all policy that TBM came up by himself which was never meant to be permanent is, well, inadequate, and it's hilariously bad that we're still using it in its original form.

[Uberstein]

When I posted it as a GM, I meant for it to be so bad that it would force a discussion on the topic. Instead you guys just rolled with it, lol.

[Rudolph]

To be fair, if the community wants to keep it that way, it should be fine but I do agree that it should be tweaked a tad bit to the community's liking. As for anything in specific, I cannot say.

With regards to the protectorates, the recent issue with Southern Italy has raised the issue that there are no concrete rules regarding protectorates and think we should hammer down specifics.

[Lynneth]

I believe the following:
Protectorates must explicitly be declared. Implying that one exists isn't enough.

A nation cannot declare a protectorate until it's 1 RL week old.

A protectorate isn't 'secured' until a week of non-interference from outside nations has passed. During this time, the population is not under full control of the protector. Afterwards, it is, but everyone should realise that claiming 100% support is bad taste.

 

Ideally, I would apply this to the current situation in Italy as well, but retroactive rules may not be liked by many people. Perhaps we could vote on that.

After voting on the stuff above.

[Captain Enema]

Saying a place is a protectorate isn't the same as making it a protectorate. The burden is on the rper to actually do some rp, failure to do so gives them no ability to influence the place. 

 

The issue with Southern Italy is fairly simple to me, Hereno said it was a protectorate, Triyun actually made it a protectorate. Thus, Triyun having troops and having physically established order in the region ought to have more actual control over the region. 

[Markus Wilding]

Protectorates have been established prior in RL history without boots on the ground. That shouldn't be a requirement of having a protectorate, why it may help, it shouldn't be the end all be all. Now, if RP is put into it to establish political or military control, then go ahead, by all means.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Markus Wilding