The GM's Hall

[Triyun]

 

You may be genuinely interested in pursuing Triyun's arguments, but he is making them in bad faith, so you are hopefully alone in your naivety. He is taking advantage of imperfect wording and the propensity of this community to argue. Not in order to make CNRP2 better, but in order to cause conflict and perhaps get the rules changed to benefit his style of RP by putting pressure on the GMs and splitting the community. Nobody is going to say a word about 90% of the random alterations he's mentioning in his poorly-veiled slippery slope argument, and he's doomed to fail anyway because the community was literally started as a middle finger to him. But I'd rather not see otherwise sound-minded persons being drawn into this nonsense.

I'm asking for a reasoned opinion, I'm giving examples of how this rule is to be applied and what its logical conclusions are.  Considering this rule was apparently based on me having an all drone air force (something that simply does not exist), I'm entitled to understand the scope of it, and now that it extends out to stealth I'm also entitled to understand the scope, otherwise its impossible to conform to the rules.  Granted I am deliberately pointing out flaws, but that's cause the rule makes no sense to me.  As for dividing the community, I'm not going to particularly care if it divides people who rush to burn me at the stake anyways, cause they'd say flying P-51s is god modding.

 

What you can't though do is claim you're all about rules and fairness and then arbitrarily change stuff targeting one player when you are playing a game that says you're supposed to give everyone a clean slate.  That's just being a hypocrite.

[bones wizard]

Triyun stop using space tech.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I have come to the unfortunate discovery that the XB-70 was also a prototype.. so.. continuing the walk back.. I will be using a piece of equipment that did see service, the B1-A.. it was tested, did deliver ordinance, and sired the B1-B. B1-A has a higher speed and a lower smaller payload weight than its baby, but I'll live with it. It can still pull mach 2.2 and the b-58c hustler, which can hit mach 3.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Hereno]

Granted I am deliberately pointing out flaws, but that's cause the rule makes no sense to me.  As for dividing the community, I'm not going to particularly care if it divides people who rush to burn me at the stake anyways, cause they'd say flying P-51s is god modding.

He admits that I'm correct.
 

What you can't though do is claim you're all about rules and fairness and then arbitrarily change stuff targeting one player when you are playing a game that says you're supposed to give everyone a clean slate.  That's just being a hypocrite.

Nobody ever did any of this, 0/10 try again.

tl;dr - What bones wizard said.

[Triyun]

If you want to talk just with the GMs, there is a PM button that would allow that. The reason nobody is talking to the GMs in private is because they aren't actually interested in getting rule clarifications. They want to start arguments and grandstand, and the only place they can do that is here on the forums (or on IRC like Triyun insisted on doing yesterday).

I requested to query they told me to take it to the forums, you were there if you recall:

 

Triyun: through query
[11:02pm] Biohazard: sigh
[11:03pm] Biohazard: Take it to the forums Triyun
[11:03pm] Biohazard: What makes it canon is someone recognizing it
[11:03pm] Voodoo: lol
[11:03pm] Triyun: If I have ten carriers though may they be recognized?
[11:03pm] Triyun: I have ten carriers in game
[11:03pm] Voodoo: None of his shit is insta=win
[11:03pm] Biohazard:        Mogar   
[11:03pm] Biohazard: Don't antagonize
[11:03pm] Voodoo: It's not even described
[11:04pm] Hereno: <Triyun> Its not e-lawyering Im trying to figure it out incompatible encoding
[11:04pm] Hereno: this lie right here wuold have g otten you banned if i had ops
[11:04pm] Biohazard: Triyun, I'm going to stop paying attention to this now
[11:04pm] Hereno: i don't get why you people are so tolerant of idiocy
[11:04pm] Biohazard: Good day
[11:04pm] Rudolph: This shit belongs on the forums
[11:04pm] Rudolph: And it should stay on the forums

 

He admits that I'm correct.
 

Nobody ever did any of this, 0/10 try again.

tl;dr - What bones wizard said.

 

I admit I am deliberately pointing out flaws, not to divide but because its a bad ruling.  Its poorly decided.  Can one not question GMs logic and ask to expound upon reason when the effect of the rulings seem unreasonable?  Why is that a bad thing.  This isn't 1960s Red China with whatever Mao says is gospel is it?  

 

Beyond that I'm pretty sure bones is being sarcastic, as I don't in fact have any posts on space tech unless you mean GPS, in which case... no?

[Captain Enema]

Why would you even need to ask about your carriers? I wasn't aware naval size was capped.

[Mogar]

Not yet, I would think we should do so soon though, kinda unfair considering the original rules were designed with sub 50k nations in mind, not 200k/25k infra supertiers.

[Captain Enema]

Mogar, stop wetting your panties about Triyun.

[Hereno]

I requested to query they told me to take it to the forums, you were there if you recall:
 
Triyun: through query
[11:02pm] Biohazard: sigh
[11:03pm] Biohazard: Take it to the forums Triyun
[11:03pm] Biohazard: What makes it canon is someone recognizing it
[11:03pm] Voodoo: lol
[11:03pm] Triyun: If I have ten carriers though may they be recognized?
[11:03pm] Triyun: I have ten carriers in game
[11:03pm] Voodoo: None of his !@#$ is insta=win
[11:03pm] Biohazard:        Mogar   
[11:03pm] Biohazard: Don't antagonize
[11:03pm] Voodoo: It's not even described
[11:04pm] Hereno: <Triyun> Its not e-lawyering Im trying to figure it out incompatible encoding
[11:04pm] Hereno: this lie right here wuold have g otten you banned if i had ops
[11:04pm] Biohazard: Triyun, I'm going to stop paying attention to this now
[11:04pm] Hereno: i don't get why you people are so tolerant of idiocy
[11:04pm] Biohazard: Good day
[11:04pm] Rudolph: This !@#$ belongs on the forums
[11:04pm] Rudolph: And it should stay on the forums
 
 
I admit I am deliberately pointing out flaws, not to divide but because its a bad ruling.  Its poorly decided.  Can one not question GMs logic and ask to expound upon reason when the effect of the rulings seem unreasonable?  Why is that a bad thing.  This isn't 1960s Red China with whatever Mao says is gospel is it?  
 
Beyond that I'm pretty sure bones is being sarcastic, as I don't in fact have any posts on space tech unless you mean GPS, in which case... no?

That conversation happened 20 minutes after, and Markus had to threaten to ban you to make you finally even "request" the query, which was denied as nobody wants to entertain this nonsense. There are ways to say a rule is unfair rather than to make huge incidents, Tywi--- err, I mean, Triyun.

[supercheese]

All triyun had originally asked was for the GMs to explain their ruling, and he gets responded to like this

or, just go by the community guidelines instead of inventing technology like you always do and like this entire community was created specifically to get away from your technobabble !@#$%^&*, it is not asking alot of you to do.

 

And like this  

Nobody cares if you're not trying to get an advantage over people. The point is when people spend hours of their lives researching tech !@#$ because they need an edge over everyone. Which would mean they'd be forced to RP as something other than listless conquerors, whilst pretending that it's good RP because they put a lot of effort into gaming their technology.

But no he's the bad guy.

[Mogar]

is it asking alot to not attempt to exploit rules to gain as many advantages as possible and simply follow a similar force makeup as everyone else rather than an unproven doctrine?

[Kevin Kingswell]

do you have a degree in aeronautics to understand how a minute change to an airframe could have dramatic and potentially disastrous effects on said airframe Kevin? Do you feel that level of knowledge is something that should be reasonably required in order to play on an equal battlefield?

 

You are right I don't however, I am certain that if I swapped some hard points on a fighter to carry bombs instead of missiles it would be feasible to make it a ground attack aircraft if not a very good one.

 

On this issue though is anyone here an actual military commander with real military experience so that they know how a proper war is fought and how every little battle and issue that comes up can and will effect the ability of one side to fight. Does anyone here know enough about the current technology to know exactly how it would work if used against other modern technology to an exact degree? 

[supercheese]

is it asking alot to not attempt to exploit rules to gain as many advantages as possible and simply follow a similar force makeup as everyone else rather than an unproven doctrine?

Then a rule should be made limiting the number of UAVs each nation has.

Or can I suggest counting the UAVs into the total aircraft limit? But in a way that's fair like 1 fighter=x number of uavs, since these uavs would be much weaker then other aircraft.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

is it asking alot to not attempt to exploit rules to gain as many advantages as possible and simply follow a similar force makeup as everyone else rather than an unproven doctrine?

How about you provide us with an overview of proven and applicable doctrines then. Because, quite honestly, I don't see the point in making this doctrinal, if most people don't have a clue on how doctrines work and you wouldn't want to bother people having to study this, no? I, quite frankly, think that enforced doctrines in an RP that tries to be less military technobabble than CNRP are going to fail and that we'd be better off to just limit numbers and check for actual technological flaws in equipment, not whether it was made for the purpose it is used in or not.

 

 

You are right I don't however, I am certain that if I swapped some hard points on a fighter to carry bombs instead of missiles it would be feasible to make it a ground attack aircraft if not a very good one.

It's called a multirole fighter and those exist already. As far as I know, the Rafale can carry up to 13 bombs (250 kg precision guided) and the Typhoon is at up to 6 bombs (1000 lb precision guided). They then still carry up to 8 or 6 air-to-air missiles respectively. As far as I can see.

[Triyun]

That conversation happened 20 minutes after, and Markus had to threaten to ban you to make you finally even "request" the query, which was denied as nobody wants to entertain this nonsense. There are ways to say a rule is unfair rather than to make huge incidents, Tywi--- err, I mean, Triyun.

 

Twenty minutes of trying to talk about a simple explanation and the logic and getting insulted in response.  GMs shouldn't be making decisions they cannot defend, not with advanced aeronautics degrees but with simple logic, it just doesn't exist in this decision because no one can explain why:

1)  Only one person's aircraft carries are half non-canon

2)  Canon Drones + Canon Aircraft Carrier + Parking Drones on Carrier = Both Non-Canon.  

 

Those aren't that complicated or hard questions to answer but there is a refusal to answer them, instead there is wild claims of plots to ruin the game.  Its simply not rational.

 

On top of all that YES a ruling itself does need expanded on because of what its worded as.  It references all drone air forces.  Those simply don't exist in anyone's forces.  I myself have hundreds of manned aircraft.

 

The wording specifically references what things were designed for.  Some stuff like big ships such as the carrier are adaptable and designed as such.  Many weapons platforms have been modded from their original purpose.  It makes little sense.

 

The force ratio argument also is problematic.  The CN RP 2 rules state people are free to spend those points how they want, stealth non-stealth mix, bomber- fighter mix.  This ruling has been said to super impose a ratio which makes anyone have like 12 aircraft stealth max suddenly.  That's a complete alteration of the rules without any vote by players.

 

These are not complicated questions, they are valid concerns that in my judgement at least are easily seeing as conflicting with a plain reading of the rules.  In response we get wild demonization claims by several people.  That's far more inappropriate then asking as question.

[PresidentDavid]

 

Twenty minutes of trying to talk about a simple explanation and the logic and getting insulted in response.  GMs shouldn't be making decisions they cannot defend, not with advanced aeronautics degrees but with simple logic, it just doesn't exist in this decision because no one can explain why:

1)  Only one person's aircraft carries are half non-canon

2)  Canon Drones + Canon Aircraft Carrier + Parking Drones on Carrier = Both Non-Canon.  

 

Those aren't that complicated or hard questions to answer but there is a refusal to answer them, instead there is wild claims of plots to ruin the game.  Its simply not rational.

 

On top of all that YES a ruling itself does need expanded on because of what its worded as.  It references all drone air forces.  Those simply don't exist in anyone's forces.  I myself have hundreds of manned aircraft.

 

The wording specifically references what things were designed for.  Some stuff like big ships such as the carrier are adaptable and designed as such.  Many weapons platforms have been modded from their original purpose.  It makes little sense.

 

The force ratio argument also is problematic.  The CN RP 2 rules state people are free to spend those points how they want, stealth non-stealth mix, bomber- fighter mix.  This ruling has been said to super impose a ratio which makes anyone have like 12 aircraft stealth max suddenly.  That's a complete alteration of the rules without any vote by players.

 

These are not complicated questions, they are valid concerns that in my judgement at least are easily seeing as conflicting with a plain reading of the rules.  In response we get wild demonization claims by several people.  That's far more inappropriate then asking as question.

 

I thought the consensus was that fictional/new-designed stuff was too confusing so it was optional recognition? 

[Biohazard]

I think this needs a bit of clarification.

 

The GMs did not make a new rule. We do not have that power. Our ruling handles ONLY this specific case. 

 

We did, however, come to a ruling about Triyun's drone swarms, and in case it wasn't clear to anyone, we found that they were non-canon due to the experimental nature of the X47 drone. That being said, Triyun, you're more than welcome to RP it under optional recognition. 

[Markus Wilding]

Requesting an autoadvance against Dinoz of Brandenburg in my [topic='122853']Operation Honey Sun[/topic] thread. I assume Ty PMed Dinoz on the 13th of this month when he responded, and Dinoz has made no posts since then that indicate he is active on this forum. His last IC post on the forums was July 3, as shown [post='3279157']here.[/post] Therefore I request an autoadvance to continue my operation as planned.

 

also yay actual work for our gms instead of silly arguing :v

Edited July 20, 2014 by Markus Wilding

[Chicago Noise]

Can I get some clarification on the OOC side for the Orkney and Shetland thing going on.  I'll site Lynneth's post in the map thread:

 

Justinian the Mighty, on 20 Jul 2014 - 2:10 PM, said:

I claimed Great Britain which includes Orkney and Shetland. I did not know you were already conquering the islands. I will be more vigilant from now on. However, if the rules permit, I contest this claim.

To quote you from 2 pages ago,
 

Justinian the Mighty, on 15 Jul 2014 - 9:47 PM, said:

I would like to place my flag in the United Kingdom, including all British Crown dependencies and British Overseas Territories, excepting those that are already claimed and/or protected. Name it the Kingdom of Great Britain.

EDIT: The Crown Dependencies are Jersey, Guernsey (including Sark, Alderney, Brecqhou, Herm, Jethou and Lihou.) and Isle of Man, which I don’t believe are claimed.

The Overseas Territories that I don’t think are claimed include: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and Turks and Caicos Islands

Emphasis in bold. As Orkney and Shetland were busy being annexed by Iceland, you didn't claim them as per this post. If you want them now, you'll have to use diplomacy. Or war.

 

The clarification I'd be looking for is if the part Lynneth put in bold.  It seems to be a gray area for the claim rules, as I staked my official claim today after the two weeks, which would have allowed for Justinian's claiming of Great Britain proper, which contains Orkney and Shetland.  However, because of the bold part, does that mean that my claim is staked and legitimized, which would leave him the options of diplomacy or war stated here, or does he automatically get them?  I'll leave this for clarification from the GM's.

 

That said, I am more than happy to RP this out, I just need to know beforehand if these are considered by the OOC rules mine, his, or evenly contested.  That way I can base what my governments position would be.

[The Zigur]

This is amusing to watch.

[Lynneth]

Well, my opinion is in the quote that Chicago used.

 

But Rudolph and/or Bio have the final say in this.

[Triyun]

 

I thought the consensus was that fictional/new-designed stuff was too confusing so it was optional recognition? 

 

Existing air frames and systems are allowed, which is what I complied with.  None of the stuff is experimental, experimental technology and testing something isn't the same.  Its like saying a videogame beta is experimental.  Experimental would be something more proof of concept in my mind.  

[Centurius]

I think this needs a bit of clarification.

 

The GMs did not make a new rule. We do not have that power. Our ruling handles ONLY this specific case. 

 

We did, however, come to a ruling about Triyun's drone swarms, and in case it wasn't clear to anyone, we found that they were non-canon due to the experimental nature of the X47 drone. That being said, Triyun, you're more than welcome to RP it under optional recognition. 

 

That's not what you told me on irc and you know it.

[Chicago Noise]

Thanks for responding Lynneth, but nevermind. I am going to concede the islands and reroll now that I have a better feeling for how things are done, and I'm struggling for varied material in Iceland.

[Californian]

Requesting an autoadvance against Dinoz of Brandenburg in my [topic='122853']Operation Honey Sun[/topic] thread. I assume Ty PMed Dinoz on the 13th of this month when he responded, and Dinoz has made no posts since then that indicate he is active on this forum. His last IC post on the forums was July 3, as shown [post='3279157']here.[/post] Therefore I request an autoadvance to continue my operation as planned.

 

also yay actual work for our gms instead of silly arguing :v

 

Agreed with Markus, Dinoz94 unfortunately hasn't read my PM which I sent over a week ago so I will request an autoadvance to continue my operations in Brandenburg as well.