Jump to content

Reforms and why they fail...


Evangeline Anovilis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Greetings,

 

First off, please excuse if my thread lacks a bit in eloquency, for I am feeling a bit unwell at the time of writing this. However, I still want to discuss an issue that has for some time now been plaguing CNRP. Which is the way our community has approached the idea of reform since the creation of CNRP2. I think that hardly anyone can say that the situation has really improved since or has been great since, and this despite several attempts at reform. I think that to understand the reason why up to now any and all reform attempts pretty much failed to really improve the situation, it is necessary to understand the grievances that exist (and should be taken serious), the measures that have been taken and the way these measures were taken.

 

There have been two waves of reforms in CNRP since the creation of CNRP2. The first of these was the early scaling back of some empires and the establishment of custom cultures/custom continents. It was thought to address a perceived lack of interesting land, but it was implemented in a manner that quite simply seems set up to fail (which is why I opposed it from the beginning), given that it first of all was not even implemented universally to the same degree. I would say, there are four large countries in the RP, that actually took up large swaths of map space. These would be Russia, Tianxia, Athens and the American Commonwealth. In Tianxia, the land reform meant the return to the borders of Qing China, plus some islands, freeing up pretty much everything beyond. In Athens, we at least see the freeing up of protectorates. Russia I think most people can somewhat excuse, given it is three people sharing a country that spans most of Russia, not just one person hoarding it all. And the MGL in the American Commonwealth did nothing at all. The impression one gets from looking at this isn't so much reform, than just giving a bit in to calm a bad consciousness, but to whomever looks on from afar won't feel that much comes of it. Additionally, experiments like Pasirung or oher continents do not take off, mostly because it is a rather roundabout way to solve the issue, by not freeing up interesting land, but by trying to make other land interesting. The greatest legacy of this reform really just is Melech going off-map and that it made the war between MGL and me possible, given before, Triyun held most of the potential staging grounds and tried to mediate.

 

The second attempt at reform was a bit more serious an endeavour, and I think it grasps more what actual grievances are and what we should try to address. The second reform introduced a troop floor and reformed modifiers somewhat, in order to make smaller people matter more. This reform sadly came a bit late, but it is, in my opinion the step in the right direction. The issue smaller people have with CNRP is not so much that there's no interesting land (it is an issue, but not the main issue), but that there is just not much that allows smaller people to matter. In this sense, the second reform was certainly helping the issue, however, I think it did not go far enough.

 

I think the main appeal of RPs like CNRP2 (in its prime days) and CNRPA for newer and especially for smaller people is not so much the lack of legal precedent (a matter most don't understand, else it would be there), that there's a clause to kick people (which hardly ever gets used and most often becomes just a big controversy) or who RPs (except for a select few, but the majority seems to not mind the more controversial members of either side), but it is the idea that everyone kind of matters, at least somewhat. Which not really is the feeling you get from CNRP. I think what ought to be considered is that a nation in CNRP2 could be between around 50,000 soldiers and 950,000 soldiers, I think CNRPA made it up to 850,000 soldiers, but I'm not going to look up these details. That's quite a dfference between lower limit and upper limit. However, you get a bit more generous civilians x10 multiplier, which allows for people to reach a decent number quite quickly. People thus tend to be more inbetween 200,000 and 850,000, so the largest are about four times the size of the smallest. Meanwhile, if we look at CNRP, the floor is at 200,000 and the upper limit is nonexistent. Troop numbers are calculated with a civilians x8 multiplier, which makes for generally smaller army sizes. But in combination wth the lack of upper limit, you can find nations like Vicidalia, which had a humble 260,000 or so soldiers, in a world with Tianxia, somewhere at 2.5-3 million. The largest nation thus outclasses smaller nations by a factor of around 10. And taking this into account, it should become quite apparant as to why people feel they matter not too much. Because such a comparison is utterly crushing.

 

There is of course a case to make, that it was already in the past possible to get by with a smaller army. If I take as example first Faraway, it had 450,000 soldiers or so, which isn't too high. But it still was overall not unimportant. Or at least I did not feel unimportant, because my actions and opinions at least went into a decision-making process of the three-way coalition with Tanis and MGL, that had some say in North America and in some ways was stronger than MGL is now on his own. So, even with smaller numbers, if you can find friends and establish proper ties, numbers add up and become considerable enough to be of importance in great power struggles. And similarly, just because you are surrounded by giants doesn't mean you are unimportant. Japan with its one million isn't too small, but it is still not too much compared to Tianxia and Russia, yet I wouldn't say Japan doesn't matter. I do not feel too threatened by my neighbours. But I think overall, we should also consider what CNRP2 has taught us, and to me, that is that even 850,000 is a good number to achieve security (unless the world goes down in OOC intrigue, but there I could've had uncapped numbers and it'd be the same).

 

I personally think, it would be sensible to establish the troop counts of nations in a way that may not necessarily equalise them, but make them more equal to at least the degree that 4-5 small nations can achieve at least numerical parity with the largest nation. So, an upper limit in soldier count around a million or so at most [pre-conversions], if the lower limits are not heightened. Of course, this would considerably weaken the ability of larger nations to defend themselves or to dominate, however, it would not rule out that a diplomatically well-versed nation can keep being a respected power. It would however also not rule out that an isolated large state be taken out by a coalition of smaller states. Similar to how it is in other RPs.

 

At the same time, I do however hasten to add, that I personally will at no time advocate any limitations on mergers or cooperation between people, beyond what already exists, for the simple reason that I think mergers and coaltions are something to be encouraged, not discouraged. The issue is, we should try to achieve greater parity between people, not nations and if people actually cooperate and work together to push an agenda or defend their interests, such should not be penalised. Because that is the utmost form of cooperative political RP you'll get, where a group of people will need to discuss their objectives and get them through a collective decision-making process.

 

Overall, I think that by implementing limits on soldier and ship numbers (aircraft already are kind of capped), there's more chance for smaller people to have an impact on world politics and the balance of power, which in turn will lead to improved competition and via this hopefully also to an end to stagnation as we know it. This should open the door for smaller people, so that these nations have more of a chance to achieve something if they put enough ambition and wit into it. Naturally, I do however also hold that it must be kept in mind that what we can do (and should do) is make a more level playing ground, and it is then up for people to actually taking advantage of it and take an initiative and put wit into it, if they want to be successful... or to leave it be, if they still feel like they got no chance. Because as it is, there is a hurdle in numerical terms, which we should try to fix, a hurdle in the techscale to 2025, which however, for all cursing and complaining, is manageable (we could raise the lower limit to 2000 though) and a difference in skills, which we cannot fix and which I think we could pretty much all live with. Except of course the few of us who steadfastedly refuse to ever work together, but that's something that goes beyond rules and is just the personal issues of a few people.

 

Feel free to discuss, for I do consider this an official debate thread with possible poll at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/353/279/e31.jpg

Also all of what you said sounds about right Eva. I'm just not sure if we can ever merge again as one community. You have the people that are like "ARHHHHHHHHHHHH TRIYUN CENT. EVA TOXIC PLAYERS, WATCH ME SHOVE THIS &$/@? UP MY &@$ . TOXIC PLAYERS AH AH AHHHH NO THEYRE EVIL OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING IM GOING TO BASH MY HEAD THROUGH A WALL" and then you have CNRP that is like "Yes our RP has a pulse of a 90 year old man that is in a vegetative state. Yes our RPers are in denial that our game is almost perfect. Yes I know we won't admit that we need the little guy to have a fun RP. Yes yes I understand that players don't want to be in the world run by an oligarchy. Oh and of course if we changed a few of our rules we could see a reemergence of a united community. That all makes sense, but I mean, if we do that then that means we have to reason with TBM and Mogar and we are simply just above doing such a thing."

This is all just like a really bad drama where both sides of the story are severely flawed and there is no "good guy". I hope we get a united community again. Edited by PresidentDavid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want an rp to work, make sure mogar isn't in it. 

If this simplistic logic would be true, CNRP would be flourishing, given he left a good while ago.

 

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/353/279/e31.jpg

Also all of what you said sounds about right Eva. I'm just not sure if we can ever merge again as one community. You have the people that are like "ARHHHHHHHHHHHH TRIYUN CENT. EVA TOXIC PLAYERS, WATCH ME SHOVE THIS &$/@? UP MY &@$ . TOXIC PLAYERS AH AH AHHHH NO THEYRE EVIL OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING IM GOING TO BASH MY HEAD THROUGH A WALL" and then you have CNRP that is like "Yes our RP has a pulse of a 90 year old man that is in a vegetative state. Yes our RPers are in denial that our game is almost perfect. Yes I know we won't admit that we need the little guy to have a fun RP. Yes yes I understand that players don't want to be in the world run by an oligarchy. Oh and of course if we changed a few of our rules we could see a reemergence of a united community. That all makes sense, but I mean, if we do that then that means we have to reason with TBM and Mogar and we are simply just above doing such a thing."

This is all just like a really bad drama where both sides of the story are severely flawed and there is no "good guy". I hope we get a united community again.

I'm not sure that RPs will ever move together again. The underlying issue, in my opinion, is that when Mogar made analogies of this being the French Revolution of CNRP, he was kind of correct. But like the French Revolution, not all that came of it was great, the end of it is merely more of the pre-revolutionary state, just less bad. And the damage is done, the box is opened, as new ideas roam around. The French Revolution introduced Europe to ideas of liberalism and nationalism that were suppressed for decades thereafter by the established powers, but would not go away for centuries and vastly outlast the old system. In CNRP, ever since RP2 was founded, we now have new notions in the community that have not been present before, such as that it is possible to split the RP, or that it is possible to just outright kick people out of an RP. These are both, in my opinion, dangerous ideas, because they added hardly anything positive to the RP and just led to estrangement within the community. Fundamentally, a reunion of RPs would require the "landed nobility" to give up some priviledges, while the "broad masses" would need to find ways of resolving disputes that do not go as far as just secceeding or banning people.

 

So, we'd need to resolve grievances as a community, instead of just dabbling around and taking the easy way out. That would mean however acknowledging that the other side has some actual issues with the way we behave, it would require a civilised culture of debate and the willingness of people to actually make stands in a constructive manner. I already pointed out to you on IRC, there were times in the past, where such had been possible and kind of worked, when the community actually came together and addressed the issues that were then present in the GM system, leading to the current elected GM system. We didn't split then. We didn't debate at length the kicking of people then. And even now, there are ways to reform the system through democratic process. And it isn't that hard to establish majorities for legitimate grievances, if one can articulate them properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mael's attempt at a rule for CNRPA would be incredibly relevant to this debate, as would just about everything President David said, most notable to me.

Yes I know we won't admit that we need the little guy to have a fun RP. Yes yes I understand that players don't want to be in the world run by an oligarchy. Oh and of course if we changed a few of our rules we could see a reemergence of a united community.

So long as you enjoy #hegemon, #nordic, or any other skull and bones club, there isn't going to be a remergence of a united community.

If this simplistic logic would be true, CNRP would be flourishing, given he left a good while ago.

I was one of the first to leave in fact, since I was stuck permanently as The Cape being bombed and nuked flat.

I'm not sure that RPs will ever move together again. The underlying issue, in my opinion, is that when Mogar made analogies of this being the French Revolution of CNRP, he was kind of correct. But like the French Revolution, not all that came of it was great, the end of it is merely more of the pre-revolutionary state, just less bad. 

I think it reason it became so successful also comes from Triyun's signature, Everyone wants their Sandbox, it became clear however that CNRP1 would forever be Triyun and TSI's, and after months of reading this....
 

 

 

Convince me why I should bother Triyun? Every day someone has another take on the rules. Every day someone attempts to use a clique to manipulate the rules so that at any point and time something completely implausible becomes plausible with no documentation in order to screw folks over. This is not a creative community, it is a competitive and destructive one. You are master of it with all your pals so its your sandbox. I'll leave you with the sand. I have better toys to play with.

The simple reality is this community does not have to stay in any singular world, we can all make our own individual RPs if we so wished, why play in a sandbox that has a predetermined result? that limits the vast majority of the community to minimal stats that will do nothing against the TSI trifecta that controls RP1? Dillon could tomorrow make a RP in which he is god king and has the same statistics as everyone else in the world put together, and if he found enough people willing to play the map would get pinned and it'd be yet another option for people to choose.

Revolution success.

If you are seeking ideas on how to make RP1 more appealing, prove its a better world for everyone, not that I expect you to be able to do so yourself Evangeline, but I do believe you're committed to attempting to.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mael's attempt at a rule for CNRPA would be incredibly relevant to this debate, as would just about everything President David said, most notable to me.

The anti-hegemonial rule? It's pure garbage. Not that I say there are no issues, but there are better ways to fix it.

 

So long as you enjoy #hegemon, #nordic, or any other skull and bones club, there isn't going to be a remergence of a united community.

I reasonably enjoy #hegemon, wasn't ever #nordic. But I like to treat it as an OOC community, not IC.

 

I was one of the first to leave in fact, since I was stuck permanently as The Cape being bombed and nuked flat.

Indeed you were and I argued already before that it wasn't the greatest thing to have you nuked. But it just shows that the lack of success here isn't related to your person, nor would I say is the success of other RPs.

 

I think it reason it became so successful also comes from Triyun's signature, Everyone wants their Sandbox, it became clear however that CNRP1 would forever be Triyun and TSI's, and after months of reading this....
 

Quote

 

 

Convince me why I should bother Triyun? Every day someone has another take on the rules. Every day someone attempts to use a clique to manipulate the rules so that at any point and time something completely implausible becomes plausible with no documentation in order to screw folks over. This is not a creative community, it is a competitive and destructive one. You are master of it with all your pals so its your sandbox. I'll leave you with the sand. I have better toys to play with.
The simple reality is this community does not have to stay in any singular world, we can all make our own individual RPs if we so wished, why play in a sandbox that has a predetermined result? that limits the vast majority of the community to minimal stats that will do nothing against the TSI trifecta that controls RP1? Dillon could tomorrow make a RP in which he is god king and has the same statistics as everyone else in the world put together, and if he found enough people willing to play the map would get pinned and it'd be yet another option for people to choose.

I already stated before and will do so again... there was a time when people persevered through this and tried to overcome it. I'm not saying that rallying a grant coalition would work, given you most likely lack stats and we kind of saw in CNRP2 how throwing mass alone works (not at all), but a community can initiate reform and democratically pass it.

 

Revolution success.

Technically it's seccession and for a good part it isn't a real issue, but I know I'm not the sole person who'd prefer more unity.

 

If you are seeking ideas on how to make RP1 more appealing, prove its a better world for everyone, not that I expect you to be able to do so yourself Evangeline, but I do believe you're committed to attempting to.

It's a matter of what one wants to achieve and what one would find acceptable to sacrifice for it. I do not think there are no issues, but I kind of "grew up" under the tutelage of a person that fought even against the most damning odds and would at the end just try again. I'm not going to say I can do much on my own and I don't have much faith that much will happen (based on reactions up to now), but if CNRP can be reformed, I'm all for that over any off-shot. Sadly, I do not think such will happen though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unity would mean concessions, something I do not perceive happening in RP1, unless there is some level of limitation of the alliances "upper tier" nations are able to create, then we will forever remain in Tricent's sandbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your entire first post in this thread,

 

I feel it accurately portrays the opinion of most of those who have abandoned CNRP1, as well as the unwillingness to actually provide any sort of concessions, since we went down that road previously and it led to the same exact behavior, after only about two months, since China evidently has an incredibly valid CB to decapitate the United Kingdom after no IC interactions besides UK wishing to buy weapons and be cooperative with China.

 

But then again that's exactly the type of behavior that if it were ruled against and not actively promoted by an OOC clique we might not be here discussion how to put the genie back in the bottle.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unity would mean concessions, something I do not perceive happening in RP1, unless there is some level of limitation of the alliances "upper tier" nations are able to create, then we will forever remain in Tricent's sandbox.

There's no need for concessions.  You place nice and you get a fair shake, you act like North Korea and you get bombed, nothing more, nothing less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no need for concessions.  You place nice and you get a fair shake, you act like North Korea and you get bombed, nothing more, nothing less. 

Then you can enjoy your sandbox, and the rest of us shall remain in ours, but Eva's goal is to restore life to RP1, and unless there is changes to any of the several common issues it will stay that way. I played nice as The Cape, my fair shake was getting nuked.

 

Do not pretend that the playerbase that created the right enviorment for the revolution that occurred have somehow dramatically changed in the three months since RP2 died.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there was no discontent whatsoever within the community even before I got nuked and Tricent used their UN to do nothing for purely OOC reasons, I don't recall multiple several day long arguments in #cnrp, and zoot almost managing to get a 60% vote to completely remove the two from canon.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, now there is multiple alternative RPs that do not require you to be an ally of Centurius, Triyun, or unable to do anything. But please, feel free to explain why RP1 would be a better option to anyone below around 65,000 NS.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I normally don't post in these things because they usually end up to be pointless, buuuuut I feel like throwing my opinion in.

I feel like the main problem with this RP is the community instead You have two extremes, The "Tricent" side and the "revolutionary side". The majority of the RPers fall on one of these sides (to different extremes) and each side thinks their right. This leads to the incredible OOC bitch fests that occur, and These bitch fests are what puts new members off. Honestly you take one look at the conversations that go on in here and all it is is this incredible animosity that is always happening. Until BOTH sides can admit their wrong and BOTH sides can agree to change their overall attitudes, this community is going to continue to stagnate and decline.

Edited by supercheese
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely there was no discontent whatsoever within the community even before I got nuked and Tricent used their UN to do nothing for purely OOC reasons, I don't recall multiple several day long arguments in #cnrp, and zoot almost managing to get a 60% vote to completely remove the two from canon.

You can't remove people from canon in CNRP and that's better that way. The introduction of any such issue is not conductive to the community and if someone can get a 60% to agree that stuff is broken, they should use it for a systemic reform. As long as we continue attack people, not systems, there will be hardly any unity, which is why I detest of the idea of kicking people and why I don't want you to make my thread merely a basis for throwing dirt at Tricent. It is true they may not share the popular opinion on reforms, but that doesn't mean they are everything wrong with the RP.

 

I normally don't post in these things because they usually end up to be pointless, buuuuut I feel like throwing my opinion in.

I feel like the main problem with this RP is the community instead You have two extremes, The "Tricent" side and the "revolutionary side". The majority of the RPers fall on one of these sides (to different extremes) and each side thinks their right. This leads to the incredible OOC !@#$%* fests that occur, and These !@#$%* fests are what puts new members off. Honestly you take one look at the conversations that go on in here and all it is is this incredible animosity that is always happening. Until BOTH sides can admit their wrong and BOTH sides can agree to change their overall attitudes, this community is going to continue to stagnate and decline.

Feel free to throw in opinions more often. I agree with part of your post and think we need to establish a more conductive and actually cooperative spirit that values communal unity and not just an egocentric bashing of everything different than oneself. There are issues, which are not addressed, mostly because those who are at the receiving end blame people over skewed rules and by doing so mostly just give the other side ammunition against the irrational hatred that should not be sanctioned with giving in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The community has not been well for years; I recall early on it was a multi-polar, fascinating place, an impossible place, with people like LVN, Martens, Gebiv, etc. There was a good balance. The comfortable friendship of the top tier in CNRP1 before the rupture turned the world boring and stale, and to be honest, the nature of the IRC in CNRP1 made a lot of people unlikable. I realize it's an offsite dialogue forum, and that it is also the internet, wherein terrible things dwell, but the arrogance, "humorous" chauvinism, racism, the casual rudeness...well, I voted with my feet.

 

 

I prefer this new shattered world to any other; I roleplay my story, and if people don't care for it, that's their lookout, not mine. My heavy work schedule and "list of things to do today" precludes me from keeping up with RP often enough, and years of doing this have burned me out abit on story telling, so I lost my nation in CNRP2 to Cent's empire building. It's fine; the nature of the world now is so busted up that all I have to do is join another fracture, whereas before I would have been "forced" to play somewhere else on the map, probably some third world country where no one wants to play. And it was so tiring to hear people say "Thems the breaks kid" or "it's a challenge to your ability to write, you should embrace it". Whining about Germans in Africa and such because you've locked them out of anywhere they actually wanted to play on the map.

 

Not a problem anymore; three roleplays serve the community of interest better than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The community has not been well for years; I recall early on it was a multi-polar, fascinating place, an impossible place, with people like LVN, Martens, Gebiv, etc. There was a good balance. The comfortable friendship of the top tier in CNRP1 before the rupture turned the world boring and stale, and to be honest, the nature of the IRC in CNRP1 made a lot of people unlikable. I realize it's an offsite dialogue forum, and that it is also the internet, wherein terrible things dwell, but the arrogance, "humorous" chauvinism, racism, the casual rudeness...well, I voted with my feet.

 

 

I prefer this new shattered world to any other; I roleplay my story, and if people don't care for it, that's their lookout, not mine. My heavy work schedule and "list of things to do today" precludes me from keeping up with RP often enough, and years of doing this have burned me out abit on story telling, so I lost my nation in CNRP2 to Cent's empire building. It's fine; the nature of the world now is so busted up that all I have to do is join another fracture, whereas before I would have been "forced" to play somewhere else on the map, probably some third world country where no one wants to play. And it was so tiring to hear people say "Thems the breaks kid" or "it's a challenge to your ability to write, you should embrace it". Whining about Germans in Africa and such because you've locked them out of anywhere they actually wanted to play on the map.

 

Not a problem anymore; three roleplays serve the community of interest better than one.

 

 

I normally don't post in these things because they usually end up to be pointless, buuuuut I feel like throwing my opinion in.

I feel like the main problem with this RP is the community instead You have two extremes, The "Tricent" side and the "revolutionary side". The majority of the RPers fall on one of these sides (to different extremes) and each side thinks their right. This leads to the incredible OOC !@#$%* fests that occur, and These !@#$%* fests are what puts new members off. Honestly you take one look at the conversations that go on in here and all it is is this incredible animosity that is always happening. Until BOTH sides can admit their wrong and BOTH sides can agree to change their overall attitudes, this community is going to continue to stagnate and decline.

I understand your view, my issue is simply this.  Yes we were more powerful, when we sneezed the world catches a cold, but when I look at behavior I just don't see where we're supposed to compromise.  

 

Consider when we were in CN RP 2 together this last time (quantitatively military forces were about the same).  The CB for attacking Britain was literally that it asked France for severing ties with Japan in exchange for France's proposal for an alliance with Britain.  There was simply no threat of force if France did not comply.  (You can read the post.  Its non-existent.)  However this was used as an excuse to try and stream roll Britain.  The message I took from that is not that they want a fresh start ICly, they want to be able to do what they want and us what we want.  The message I took is that they feel if they don't get everything they want and the world entirely revolve around their will they're going to break the sand box.  Then consider how Mogar left CN RP 2.  Mogar left it because DotCom was going to invade him.  This was after Mogar demanded DotCom adopt a friendly policy towards Japan and proceeded to then harass her afterwards.  Then consider his multiple freak outs on IRC, bringing up topics 4+ years old about grand victimization, spending months trashing other nations, then immediately turning around and demanding they come to his aid and being allies.  I simply do not see what the point in giving concessions to this type of personality is going to get me other than demands for more concessions.  He's simply a rude impolite person who lacks impulse control on these tbqh about it.  

 

I've negotiated with people in CN RP I've disagreed with before.  I've done asshole behavior to others and have it done to me.  Most people can rise above that for civilized discussion where both sides talk without going off on long self victimhood soliloquies of questionable logical sequence.  That's just not present here.  Present me with substantive rule change and policy proposals, not demands of vagueries coupled with demands the world revolve around the self, I'm happy to sit down and discuss it.  We both want part of NE Asia fine, I don't care about that.  Never have, I've dealt with that IC with a lot of people: Keshav, Cochin, Kankou, Lavo, Mercy, Frost.  Often it ended in conflict but one has to ask oneself why is this case specifically that there is so much bad blood.  I've been in those other equations before without it being like this.  I don't think I'm the x factor in the equation.

 

Its easy to say everyone's at fault.  I don't deny that I can come across ICly as being very stubborn if my incentives IC say to do that, and OOC to say its a non-OOC issue, but I think that's different.  I'm role playing a national leader.  National leaders make cost benefit decisions.  You do not see Putin withdrawing from Ukraine at the moment, you didn't see Saddam leave Kuwait till he started getting his ass kicked, you didn't see Bush not invade Iraq, you don't see Xi backing down on the South China Sea just because all of these are incredibly unpopular because they see it in their national interest and their personal political interest and the cost opposed on them isn't high relative to the perceived benefits accrued.  I simply do not see 1) why this should be an emotional issue or subject to ranting 2) how these issues are anything but a political dispute and should be resolved in this arena.  I do not agree with any of the moves IRL I brought up IRL, but I recognize the world as it is and if I am in a position where I am writing a position paper, editorial, etc, I engage with it as is, free of emotional jargon.  

 

I would say that a similar course of actions should be necessary from people in CN RP in order for there to be community unity.  What I have said is there is a flaw in the CN RP game system which is that the only course of forceful persuasion for you disagree with is military action.  Which means if two people want say Silesia, which in and of itself is 100% fair and no foul on either, the only way for someone to resolve that dispute is to take it by force.  Now I do not see the force as being necessary immoral, and the morality of the use of force in CN RP depends a lot where you sit.  The Battle of Britain and the Drakan Invasion of whatever Mogar's South African nation was called has about the same level of justification IC, both involved bombing metropolitan targets not just military forces, but obviously people's positions on those two conflicts had very different positions on them not based on an objective moral standard.  So you cannot 'legislate' players behaviors for standard of military force.  Instead what I would say is introduce some sort of system that requires cost for holding new land and protectorates, and introduce a sanction system to impose cost minus the use of force.  I would also say ban making diplomacy or 'diplomacy prep' i.e. knowing the outcome of diplomacy via IRC before it is posted on board.  This would make the diplomatic system and the need to legitimate one's use of military force much higher.

 

To Margrave's post, I guess I would say I'm not sure.  I don't think that cooperation between Lavo and Lynneth, who for most of that time were the two largest nations by a good margin was that big a factor in global politics, and I know for a fact that I did go to war when I invaded Europe against that Martenist Bloc we had him cooperating with Lavo, and though they had just fought a planned war our bloc thought Lynneth, plus he was merged with BR making them the biggest.  I didn't necessarily see that as a deterrent.  I think you're sort of super imposing a few things.  

-First I don't think that what the top 2 nations matter that much, and for most of the Tianxia-Athenian Alliance they weren't the top two nations.  Again Lyn-Lavo cooperation never mattered all that much.  Both Lyn and EM were bigger than Cent, and Cochin and Kankou were about even.

-I think the Martenists or Germanics in particular do need to sort of get over stuff.  What I mean by that is that I've found they sort of take the view if they can't get exactly what they want they tend to leave.  I take the view it would be the same to me saying if I can't have all China right away I'll leave.  I think one of the problems is staying power.

-Which brings up the other thing.  Cent and my alliance is firmly routed on one foundation: reliability.  Its not broness.  Sarah's ranted about Cent holding Europe in a stranglehold in the past, and everyone knows I listen to her more than everyone.  So I don't think its fair to say its OOC, and indeed there have been some instances where Cent and my alliance has been strained such as my growing relations in the past with Poland and Japan, and his with Germany.  But the fact is while other players are fickle, Athens and Tianxia are two established states that you can be confident will be around in 2 months to help you deal with the consequences of you supporting the other on a dispute.  Both are roughly committed to the rule of law and international norms, though I have more a American approach to it, he has more of a European one.  Both are relatively territorially happy, so you don't have to trade land gains for favors.  That's why the Athenian-Tianxia Alliance works.  I'd say I tend to like Eva, Shammy, MGL, and Justinians states as major powers but I don't trust the first two to necessarily be in the same nation in two months, and I don't trust the latter two to always post when they say.  If Athenian Interests are stable non-expansionist relatively, committed to rule of law, and its reliable, why wouldn't Tianxia have a partnership?  It is the same reason the US and EU cooperate so closely despite being by far (at least potentially if EU gets its shit together) the two most powerful and certainly two most advanced political entities in the global order IRL.

 

In CNRP2, players actions pretty much pushed Carthage and Sparta and then Carthage and UK close together the same way.  People have to take responsibility for their own actions.  If you treat two players going into the game at the same time with a level of hostility, demanding their recognize your special zones of influence while denying them their own, of course their going to cooperate.  Its common sense.

 

I hope Eva and PDs efforts are successful, and if there is substantive proposals with details of improvements not just grievances I'm open to cooperating and having a dialogue.  But I won't do negotiations that are just demanding apologies and nerfing for perceived slights that when subject to scrutiny don't really match what the complainers say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The community has not been well for years; I recall early on it was a multi-polar, fascinating place, an impossible place, with people like LVN, Martens, Gebiv, etc. There was a good balance. The comfortable friendship of the top tier in CNRP1 before the rupture turned the world boring and stale, and to be honest, the nature of the IRC in CNRP1 made a lot of people unlikable. I realize it's an offsite dialogue forum, and that it is also the internet, wherein terrible things dwell, but the arrogance, "humorous" chauvinism, racism, the casual rudeness...well, I voted with my feet.
 
 
I prefer this new shattered world to any other; I roleplay my story, and if people don't care for it, that's their lookout, not mine. My heavy work schedule and "list of things to do today" precludes me from keeping up with RP often enough, and years of doing this have burned me out abit on story telling, so I lost my nation in CNRP2 to Cent's empire building. It's fine; the nature of the world now is so busted up that all I have to do is join another fracture, whereas before I would have been "forced" to play somewhere else on the map, probably some third world country where no one wants to play. And it was so tiring to hear people say "Thems the breaks kid" or "it's a challenge to your ability to write, you should embrace it". Whining about Germans in Africa and such because you've locked them out of anywhere they actually wanted to play on the map.
 
Not a problem anymore; three roleplays serve the community of interest better than one.


Wow... Not to say you aren't usually logical, but that was the most coherent and reasonable thing I have ever heard you say. I also fear that I agree with it. I said I fear because I think we can still fix what is broken, but it's tempting to think the way you do. So tempting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider when we were in CN RP 2 together this last time (quantitatively military forces were about the same).  The CB for attacking Britain was literally that it asked France for severing ties with Japan in exchange for France's proposal for an alliance with Britain.  There was simply no threat of force if France did not comply.  (You can read the post.  Its non-existent.)

 

This is only if you ignore all the previous actions where Britain said "If you make a move we'll invade and destroy you," boxed France in, and in general became an implicit threat in and of itself. Asking that France abandon their only long-term ally in exchange for any kind of safety pretty much spelled out "We're isolating you" to anyone who was paying attention. On top of the part where you literally tried to $%&@ me over while I was at Basic Training.

But I mean, who's counting. Doesn't really matter anymore regardless. And I hardly need to remind you that there could hardly have been anything to push Carthage and Britain together in the week+9 posts it took for the two to decide on an alliance. Although "Keeping any one power from being too strong on the European Continent" was one of the huge talking points. Wonder who they might have been talking about.

 

*Goes back to doing her best to avoid interactions with Triyun.*

Edited by Shave N Haircut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In truth CNRP1 has become less Triyun and Cent's world and more Eva's world. Discuss THAT Eva! You evil lady!

It becomes my world, when others let it become my world. If you don't like that, feel free to work on that. And no excuses of me being "too OP", because my stats are nice, but far from the greatest.

 

*Holds up a sign that says "remove kebab Evangeline"*

You aren't in the RP, but feel free to join and do something about it.

 

I would say that a similar course of actions should be necessary from people in CN RP in order for there to be community unity.  What I have said is there is a flaw in the CN RP game system which is that the only course of forceful persuasion for you disagree with is military action.  Which means if two people want say Silesia, which in and of itself is 100% fair and no foul on either, the only way for someone to resolve that dispute is to take it by force.  Now I do not see the force as being necessary immoral, and the morality of the use of force in CN RP depends a lot where you sit.  The Battle of Britain and the Drakan Invasion of whatever Mogar's South African nation was called has about the same level of justification IC, both involved bombing metropolitan targets not just military forces, but obviously people's positions on those two conflicts had very different positions on them not based on an objective moral standard.  So you cannot 'legislate' players behaviors for standard of military force.  Instead what I would say is introduce some sort of system that requires cost for holding new land and protectorates, and introduce a sanction system to impose cost minus the use of force.  I would also say ban making diplomacy or 'diplomacy prep' i.e. knowing the outcome of diplomacy via IRC before it is posted on board.  This would make the diplomatic system and the need to legitimate one's use of military force much higher.

 

To Margrave's post, I guess I would say I'm not sure.  I don't think that cooperation between Lavo and Lynneth, who for most of that time were the two largest nations by a good margin was that big a factor in global politics, and I know for a fact that I did go to war when I invaded Europe against that Martenist Bloc we had him cooperating with Lavo, and though they had just fought a planned war our bloc thought Lynneth, plus he was merged with BR making them the biggest.  I didn't necessarily see that as a deterrent.  I think you're sort of super imposing a few things.  

-First I don't think that what the top 2 nations matter that much, and for most of the Tianxia-Athenian Alliance they weren't the top two nations.  Again Lyn-Lavo cooperation never mattered all that much.  Both Lyn and EM were bigger than Cent, and Cochin and Kankou were about even.

-I think the Martenists or Germanics in particular do need to sort of get over stuff.  What I mean by that is that I've found they sort of take the view if they can't get exactly what they want they tend to leave.  I take the view it would be the same to me saying if I can't have all China right away I'll leave.  I think one of the problems is staying power.

-Which brings up the other thing.  Cent and my alliance is firmly routed on one foundation: reliability.  Its not broness.  Sarah's ranted about Cent holding Europe in a stranglehold in the past, and everyone knows I listen to her more than everyone.  So I don't think its fair to say its OOC, and indeed there have been some instances where Cent and my alliance has been strained such as my growing relations in the past with Poland and Japan, and his with Germany.  But the fact is while other players are fickle, Athens and Tianxia are two established states that you can be confident will be around in 2 months to help you deal with the consequences of you supporting the other on a dispute.  Both are roughly committed to the rule of law and international norms, though I have more a American approach to it, he has more of a European one.  Both are relatively territorially happy, so you don't have to trade land gains for favors.  That's why the Athenian-Tianxia Alliance works.  I'd say I tend to like Eva, Shammy, MGL, and Justinians states as major powers but I don't trust the first two to necessarily be in the same nation in two months, and I don't trust the latter two to always post when they say.  If Athenian Interests are stable non-expansionist relatively, committed to rule of law, and its reliable, why wouldn't Tianxia have a partnership?  It is the same reason the US and EU cooperate so closely despite being by far (at least potentially if EU gets its !@#$ together) the two most powerful and certainly two most advanced political entities in the global order IRL.

 

In CNRP2, players actions pretty much pushed Carthage and Sparta and then Carthage and UK close together the same way.  People have to take responsibility for their own actions.  If you treat two players going into the game at the same time with a level of hostility, demanding their recognize your special zones of influence while denying them their own, of course their going to cooperate.  Its common sense.

 

I hope Eva and PDs efforts are successful, and if there is substantive proposals with details of improvements not just grievances I'm open to cooperating and having a dialogue.  But I won't do negotiations that are just demanding apologies and nerfing for perceived slights that when subject to scrutiny don't really match what the complainers say.

I had pretty similar points of view on both the war in Britain and in South Africa, IC and OOC. As I support hegemonial systems based on them providing security, stability and some level of international governance, the wars both were to me a failure of hegemonial order, as both wars solely gave reason to distrust the reliability of the hegemony to provide security benefits and it was mostly my war with MGL that prevented me from being that concerned about other issues. There's a reason I finally tried to get at least the non-proliferation regime to be enforced, because it's the last cornerstone of old order. I have argued multiple times already, even if not a moral issue, the actions taken back then have not benefitted the hegemony in the slightest and have not improved the world. Not that it matters much now, when hegemony has stopped working apart from nuclear issues. For better or worse...

 

I'm working on my staying power, given I acknowledge that it is my major weakness. Of course, time will show how successful that is. But yeah, that's indeed the one point I was not all too reliable in.

 

As the person RPing Romania, I can only agree on the Anglo-Spartan notion, mainly because after people turned my whole western border into a hostile one, I think noone should complain that I only strengthen my ties with Carthage and Britain, first being a reliable ally (and Cent can tell you that prior to CNRP2, we weren't on the greatest of terms), second being a good choice based on geostrategic positioning and my confidence that Triyun would not let me hang, because at that point, IC objectives aligned in preserving our countries and stopping the growing hostility coming from the lands inbetween us. While I had considered ties with France, due to Romanian Francophilia, such an option died with France being much closer to the enemy position (Alvonian-Yugoslav position) than Romania, same with Sweden. Only once that whole system collapsed and the immediate thread collapsed, approaching France cooperatively (at least as cooperatively as the situation allowed) was an option that would not just end in wasted time.

 

We also are working on that and while I don't think I can disclose much, I can tell you, we are trying to keep personal grievances out, given that founding an RP based on that is counter-intuitive to the whole rationale of why PD and I started this.

 

 

 

This is only if you ignore all the previous actions where Britain said "If you make a move we'll invade and destroy you," boxed France in, and in general became an implicit threat in and of itself. Asking that France abandon their only long-term ally in exchange for any kind of safety pretty much spelled out "We're isolating you" to anyone who was paying attention. On top of the part where you literally tried to $%&@ me over while I was at Basic Training.

But I mean, who's counting. Doesn't really matter anymore regardless.

 

*Goes back to doing her best to avoid interactions with Triyun.*

The one reason where you got threatened was over Savoy. And without trying to argue the validity of the case, this was an IC issue that is related to the issue that backing Cisalpina was a better option to pursue. Triyun's reasons are his to explain fully, but given Romania followed a kind of mirrored policy from the East, the backing of Cisalpina happened most of all due to them opposing Markus, who was seen as key opponent of Romania. That this led to issues with France was mostly something that came up when Lyser brought up France, before it got all wiped, but had it not occurred, the issue would have already led to adressing the French grievances then. The endgame for Romania was mostly to work within the Eastern Bloc to keep Eastern Europe stable and avoid threats from that neighbourhood, Cisalpina and Northlands were partners based on keeping Alvonia down, as Markus was inevitably going to be revanchist and his policies showed as much. Carthage was an important ally, for keeping my maritime traffic in the Med safe, Sweden was approached once in the hope of a partnership in exchange for keeping Alvonia isolated, France and Britain joined in this only at the very end, mostly Britain as potential counterweight (which it ultimatively was) and the Franco-Italian issues over Savoy were hoped to be overcome via diplomacy, given that neither pushing France into Alvonia's embrace nor sacrificing Cisalpina looked very appealing. The final issue was however really that with the Eastern Bloc crashing down and Rudolph joining forces with Markus, my security policy for Europe failed and the only viable option became allying Britain to keep you people from gutting Romania or at least to have a fighting chance. When however Zoot uncovered Rudy trying to sell of parts of my country (which would not be gained without war), it was clear war was inevitable and you know... I rather fight it in his land than in mine.

 

The issue with CNRP2s war is that it IC happened due to failed diplomacy. Why your side felt compelled to not seek diplomatic solutions (Why did Yugoslavia prioritise Alvonia over keeping Romania on good terms, unless he wanted war? Why did France never seek to prevent Anglo-Romanian ties by providing an incentive for cooperation?) is the IC disaster that remains a mystery. The true disaster however is the OOC one, which is that your side was (apart from you) not willing to carry the IC consequences. Instead, people rather first made it a messy war and then ran for a new RP. People like Rudolph used as reason for leaving that I'd inevitably split up his country, based on talks with Euphaia, which kind of became invalidated as I signed a document that our coalition would not aim for land gains (which we did so people overreact less, which is OOC anyway, but well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a geopolitical viewpoint its hard to make the argument that Japan has or had a geopolitical stake in Europe.  The only thing Europe offers Japan minus situations where its been an imperialist power of such vast magnitude and had logistical hubs in the far east, is a counter weight to a shared Eurasian threat.  So I don't really see that.  What Britain's view was fundamentally shaped around the 'special zone' France's allies claimed she had and the demands made upon Britain (this was during your OOC leave of absence mind you) to respect a special French priviledge.  As a new power to the continent this makes no sense.  Historically Britain has opposed these geopolitically against would be Hegemons: Hapsburg Spain and Austria, Royalist France, Revolutionary France, Imperial France, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, and finally Soviet Russia.

 

Nobody else on the continent really was making similar claims and had the potential to bring in outside powers to disrupt the balance of power.  So therefore the British policy was to bring its power to bear to counterweight this and tip the continental balance in favor of the Eastern Bloc and her allies.  That didn't mean an iron clad guarentee Britain would go to war with the Eastern Bloc or the sovereign state of Cisalpinia in and aggressive war, but yes it was implicit it would defend it against French or French allied incursion.  

 

The point of all of this though reinforces the points I've been making.  These are IC decisions which people choose to way over read into and take offense OOC.  There was no implicit threat of aggression.  There's simply no evidence for it.  If people saw it its either that they have hyper active imaginations or paranoia.  And both I think probably require assumptions based on the OOC person rather than IC nation.  Granted France was a bit handicapped because it had poor diplomatic allies, but even still, if it acted on that the GMs had retconned that part of the RP, which again further reinforces this OOC thing.  

 

People need to be mature about this and recognize IC and OOC divides necessarily exist, and treat the OOC domain respectfully and not let it bleed into the IC actions.  If they cannot do that they have no real interest in reconciliation, and if that's the case, I'd appreciate not being lumped in with that, because again I'm ready to take in good faith an specific proposals for a new more unified community.  I am just not willing to discuss butt hurtness over IC actions that should have no bearing on a new RP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...