Rudolph Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 So far to my understanding of the posts in this thread, most people look to be okay with removing the clause entirely and open the RP to 50k NS nations since there are caps already in place.If no one else has any ideas regarding this clause or alternatives, I'll be putting up a voting thread to finally get this done and over with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shave N Haircut Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Before/while we replace this, perhaps it would be prudent to also include a means by which we can formally have a person ousted from the RP for bad behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Before/while we replace this, perhaps it would be prudent to also include a means by which we can formally have a person ousted from the RP for bad behavior. Â Do you mean rule breakers or just people you disagree with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolph Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 I believe Hereno means people like Tywin who actively exploit the rules for their own benefit. IE: Rule breakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Â Do you mean rule breakers or just people you disagree with. Â If I could design a system myself, it would be one wherein a person could approach the GM team and, with a majority vote of GMs in favor of allowing the vote, have a thread posted wherein a person could be removed via 48 hour community vote. Â Not that I'm so stupid as to think your question was anything other than a personal attack, but someone around here has to take some initiative and lay out an idea, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Â If I could design a system myself, it would be one wherein a person could approach the GM team and, with a majority vote of GMs in favor of allowing the vote, have a thread posted wherein a person could be removed via 48 hour community vote. Â Not that I'm so stupid as to think your question was anything other than a personal attack, but someone around here has to take some initiative and lay out an idea, eh? Â It wasn't a personal attack but whatever. So you are arguing for a system where if anyone disliked someone else and managed to get the GMs to agree that person could bring up a vote to expel someone even fi they have broken no rules? Is that what you are arguing for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Â It wasn't a personal attack but whatever. So you are arguing for a system where if anyone disliked someone else and managed to get the GMs to agree that person could bring up a vote to expel someone even fi they have broken no rules? Is that what you are arguing for? Â If the GM team is corrupt enough to allow a vote to go ahead based on arbitrary reasoning, we should know that. If the community is awful enough to allow persons to be voted out of the RP for dumb reasons, I don't see why any of us should want to be a part of it in the first place. Â You have my apologies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 I believe Hereno means people like Tywin who actively exploit the rules for their own benefit. IE: Rule breakers. Exploiting shitty rules to fight 100ks of NS is not rulebreaking. If you want to play sandbox imperialist, try to get through someone who knows what he is doing without retcons and GM decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014  If the GM team is corrupt enough to allow a vote to go ahead based on arbitrary reasoning, we should know that. If the community is awful enough to allow persons to be voted out of the RP for dumb reasons, I don't see why any of us should want to be a part of it in the first place.  You have my apologies.  No problem I apologize if my initial post did seem like an attack. However, I must say I am confused at what you are aiming for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 No problem I apologize if my initial post did seem like an attack. However, I must say I am confused at what you are aiming for. You said in Margrave's thread that you support the ability of the GMs and community to jointly approve removing someone from the RP. I just don't think the reasons that are acceptable to call a vote need to be codified, because I think that there would be backlash against the GMs for calling votes based on arbitrary reasons, and I don't think the community will vote anybody out without a good reason. I also sort of have a problem with the wording you used in regards to "rulebreaking". I've broken several rules since I've been here: for example, I claimed land that Ty owned. It was a mistake and I rectified it. Whereas Tywin's behavior on the forums lately has not really broken any rules, but I do feel it has been very detrimental to the community. See what I mean? I don't think you have to worry about the community kicking people out arbitrarily, but I do think we need to have a codified means to kick people out for the sake of retaining our sanity. And it would also allow the several CNRP persons who want in to be able to get in without needing a vote unless they prove to be detrimental to our RP. While I am very much against their whining in Mogar's thread, I don't actually support barring people from the RP based on their NS alone, not least because problem RPers come with nations of all sizes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Detrimental to the community for enjoying warfare against superior numbers? Never once did I act aggressively against anyone. Both times I rolled I roleplayed a native population throwing out the imperialists. If people want to attack me with 10x my NS or more, I dont whine to the GMs or ask for retcon, I say bring it. How is that "bad for the community?" I dont think I asked for a GMs help to resolve a conflict once. It is always the whiny imperialists who cant stand fighting someone who knows what he is doing who cries and rages and pleads for mod intervention and roleplay disruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Contrary to popular belief, being annoying is not breaking a rule. Tywin should be allowed back. that being said: THE CAPS must stay in place, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margrave Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 And obviously I support removing the vote in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Â If I could design a system myself, it would be one wherein a person could approach the GM team and, with a majority vote of GMs in favor of allowing the vote, have a thread posted wherein a person could be removed via 48 hour community vote. Â Not that I'm so stupid as to think your question was anything other than a personal attack, but someone around here has to take some initiative and lay out an idea, eh? Â I came into this discussion hoping to post something exactly like this. I support this proposal and believe it would strike a fair compromise between community action and GM restraint. I would love to see more discussion on this and if people have objections I would love to talk it over as a community. Edited June 21, 2014 by Californian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 The votes should remain in the hand of the community lest the same problems that plagued cnrp1 reassert themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolph Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Unless anyone else has any alternatives to the clause, I'll be throwing up a poll in an hour that'll simply be a yes or no poll on keeping the clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 one month of active RP, (lets say three posts a week, should try to interact with others, etc) and then a community decision upon the end of a month, similar to the original idea of an interview system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 I agree with Mogar's sentiment and like the idea of an interaction period to see how the player's going to handle adjusting to the format. The process can be accelerated or slowed at GM's judgement so long as a minimum voting period is still adhered to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 I just threw out example numbers, I think they would need to be tweaked based upon someone's RP style more than a flat rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 I think Mogar's proposal is a good overhaul of what we currently have. I don't think we need to explicitly require a post number or rate. If someone doesn't post in the entire month I think that's a clear indicator of activity. I could get behind this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolph Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 So the proposed idea would be a month and then a vote, vote and then a month or just a month test-trial for players new to CNRP2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californian Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 Correct, a month and then a vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) I see this situation happening: Â Said person being voted on is in the middle of an IC action that a lot of people dislike, but well within the rules, so they aren't voted in. Â Â When it comes to voting on people it should be vote for all or vote for none. Make the vote before they enter, should it be done, to avoid a nation being wiped in the middle of a story. Otherwise, you're just creating a situation where some people, because of an arbitrary meaure, are treated differently for no reason. Edited June 21, 2014 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 21, 2014 Report Share Posted June 21, 2014 (edited) Voodoo's concern has merit. Perhaps the one month period is too long a trial. I'd think one week should be sufficient to verify whether or not they are going to adapt well and prevent them from having the opportunity to get into trouble to quickly.. unles.. they rush into it.. in which case.... well that's a sign they're not doing it right. It'd also prevent them from being victims of late game ic hostility. Edited June 21, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex 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.