Yala Misr Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 What you've done is you've used a method of the game that involved in-game politics and spun it in such a way that military force rules the government of CN. Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 This is aimed at us and completely unfair. Nothing more to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 By not wanted you mean nuked down below top 50 on that sphere so that they can't be voted, correct? This makes an interesting point. Mighty armies can now directly affect who can and can't get elected to Senate. Goodbye democracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 First I saw it was the GPA conflict. This is not a new idea, just the implementation of a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 This change was requested months ago. It is an entirely logical change to avoid sanction abuse. Leave politics out of game design, please. How it is "abuse" if the people condone a senator's actions by voting for him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaklin Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 Ugh.This change was requested months ago. It is an entirely logical change to avoid sanction abuse. Leave politics out of game design, please. I think it's more of the timing of it being implemented. I understand that it was requested months ago. And if that's how the game is wanted to be designed, that's fine; however, it's unfair to change it during a time where it is being used for a major conflict in the IC of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell Scream Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 Why not consider not hiding as cowards in peace mode? You are an anarchist alliance planning not to survive this,why peace mode? You are on everyone's PZI list already. Admin says so,then thats how it will be. He won't change it,Admin is to powerful. And...weren't you the one saying there would be no sanction wars? Btw,I just voted Andromeda member for Senate,Cylon not up there anymore,whoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Front Posted August 21, 2008 Report Share Posted August 21, 2008 I disagree with the timing of this update which leaves us at a disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogodai Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Ugh.This change was requested months ago. It is an entirely logical change to avoid sanction abuse. Leave politics out of game design, please. Define 'sanction abuse'. Don't forget, people do actually VOTE for senators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Whats the difference between vox larger members, such as this senator, hiding in peace mode and watching the others get slaughtered? We see it in wars where a bunch of guys get wind and let there alliance mates get wrecked while they sit in peace mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 What fascinating timing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Ugh.This change was requested months ago. It is an entirely logical change to avoid sanction abuse. Leave politics out of game design, please. So it's sanction abuse if a senator is in peace but it's okay to allow people to completely destroy the Senate feature by attacking any candidate but their own who gets elected? Senators are already kept in check by the democratic voting system, this change is unnecessary and favours large alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Sharpe Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 The timing is unfortunate, no doubt, but you can easily argue that this conflict has shown exactly how easily the system can be manipulated, hence the need for correction. Not sure shouting "admin bias" is going to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaklin Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Whats the difference between vox larger members, such as this senator, hiding in peace mode and watching the others get slaughtered? We see it in wars where a bunch of guys get wind and let there alliance mates get wrecked while they sit in peace mode. Dose this have ANYTHING to do with the current discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Front Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Whats the difference between vox larger members, such as this senator, hiding in peace mode and watching the others get slaughtered? We see it in wars where a bunch of guys get wind and let there alliance mates get wrecked while they sit in peace mode. If you are a senator and you become unpopular you can be nuked and attacked until you're out of voting range. Being in peace mode prevents larger armies interfering with the sphere's democratic election process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrnea Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Whats the difference between vox larger members, such as this senator, hiding in peace mode and watching the others get slaughtered? We see it in wars where a bunch of guys get wind and let there alliance mates get wrecked while they sit in peace mode. Because, their larger members are fighting a different battle. Ever heard of Banking? Also, you need to stay in the top ranks to be voted into Senate, and up until this update, Senate was used as a weapon of war, thus Peace Mode is a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Sharpe Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 So it's sanction abuse if a senator is in peace but it's okay to allow people to completely destroy the Senate feature by attacking any candidate but their own who gets elected? Senators are already kept in check by the democratic voting system, this change is unnecessary and favours large alliances. I would suggest here that once a senator is elected, he maintains his status even if dropping under whatever % or number is necessary. This would solve both problems. I thought that's how it worked actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Libera Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Changes are made when he gets em programmed. I remember wars being fought when he changed how tech affected battles. It happens...you can't expect Admin to wait forever while the rest of CN fights. At the very least there won't be cowardly senators anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 IC, I am on the other side in the ingame conflict. However I must agree - making this change at this time affects people's in-game plans. In general, rules changes are usually administered when there isn't a major conflict going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 The timing is unfortunate, no doubt, but you can easily argue that this conflict has shown exactly how easily the system can be manipulated, hence the need for correction. Manipulated how? Democratically elected Senators are responsible to their constituents. There is no need for this change, the Senate system already has checks on its power. Peace mode is and always has been a perfectly legitimate tool in war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude Lebowski Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 (edited) Why not consider not hiding as cowards in peace mode? You are an anarchist alliance planning not to survive this,why peace mode? You are on everyone's PZI list already. Maybe someone is a hippie and he wants to RP as a hippie? Why would someone who wants to play from peace mode be put on a disadvantage against others when elected into Senate.? But the timing is the main problem here, they could have at least waited until the next Senate election. Edited August 22, 2008 by Dude Lebowski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Front Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Actually, why stop here. Just automatically give senate to the top three nations in the sphere every month. That way we can completely destroy the illusion of a level playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaklin Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 Changes are made when he gets em programmed. I remember wars being fought when he changed how tech affected battles.It happens...you can't expect Admin to wait forever while the rest of CN fights. At the very least there won't be cowardly senators anymore. It's still common curtsy to players to not screw a large amount over in an update that can alter the ENTIRE game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogodai Posted August 22, 2008 Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 The timing is unfortunate, no doubt, but you can easily argue that this conflict has shown exactly how easily the system can be manipulated, hence the need for correction.Not sure shouting "admin bias" is going to help. You still didn't answer me. How has the system been manipulated, in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted August 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2008 I would suggest here that once a senator is elected, he maintains his status even if dropping under whatever % or number is necessary. This would solve both problems.I thought that's how it worked actually. He retains his votes but no new ones can be placed if he is knocked out of range. This was changed to entirely favour large alliances who can pour financial resources into keeping their senate candidates in range even while they nuke everyone else's into the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts