lutai Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 could I be unbanned from chat sense Drake banned me for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 (edited) could I be unbanned from chat sense Drake banned me for no reason. Hold on, let me link this... Edited November 29, 2009 by Biohazard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franz Ferdinand Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 could I be unbanned from chat sense Drake banned me for no reason. I do believe that IRC is separate from these boards, and therefore, are not regulated by the same rules. There is always a reason for being banned from something, so what would this be, by any chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutai Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 I do believe that IRC is separate from these boards, and therefore, are not regulated by the same rules. There is always a reason for being banned from something, so what would this be, by any chance? Trying to be the good guy and be friends with Drakedeath but resulted in him insulting me and then banning me also he banned me from Medirp which is separate from CNRP so may i say misuse of OP powers in the IRC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Trying to be the good guy and be friends with Drakedeath but resulted in him insulting me and then banning me also he banned me from Medirp which is separate from CNRP so may i say misuse of OP powers in the IRC. Generally, when I ask you to leave me alone, I want you to leave me alone, not harass me in query, #cnrp, and #medirp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Trying to be the good guy and be friends with Drakedeath but resulted in him insulting me and then banning me also he banned me from Medirp which is separate from CNRP so may i say misuse of OP powers in the IRC. Y'know, Drake told you all this in a query already, and it's statements like these that make me see he's doing the right thing. Fast typing, my $@!. I type faster than you. Better yet, type slower, and use spell check. Even better, use Microsoft Word. See that little green, squiggly line? It means that the sentence is grammatically incorrect. See the red squiggly line? It means that the word is misspelled. Enjoy. Generally, when I ask you to leave me alone, I want you to leave me alone, not harass me in query, #cnrp, and #medirp. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutai Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Generally, when I ask you to leave me alone, I want you to leave me alone, not harass me in query, #cnrp, and #medirp. Ok lets leave IRC problems out of the forums and agree never to speak or interact with each other ok ,just unban me and just end this matter ok. And im sorry for harassing you because i didn't aim to ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Ok lets leave IRC problems out of the forums and agree never to speak or interact with each other ok ,just unban me and just end this matter ok.And im sorry for harassing you because i didn't aim to ok. Epic kiss-arsery. Plus ten failpoints. Either way, if you wanted to be unbanned, take care of it on IRC, not on the forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 I think you could add security features in there, for example that any offensive action is considered a war in itself. Or just plainly return the favor attack back without declaring war. Well, then we start regulating people's RP's. If someone nukes someone, that person is going to be declaring war. Offensive actions can be construed as anything. I could say if someone says something funny about my hat, that's a declaration of war on my nation. Forcing all wars to be planned, while having a good intention, doesn't provide the same good result people think it will have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagato the Great Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Fast typing, my $@!. I type faster than you. Better yet, type slower, and use spell check. Even better, use Microsoft Word. See that little green, squiggly line? It means that the sentence is grammatically incorrect. See the red squiggly line? It means that the word is misspelled. Enjoy. just because Lu doesn't speak perfect English, it could be his second language, you don't need to act like that bio. I mean, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 just because Lu doesn't speak perfect English, it could be his second language, you don't need to act like that bio. I mean, really. What are you going on about? Lutai is from the US. English is his FIRST language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagato the Great Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 I said it COULD be. i don't know where he lives, how am i supposed to know that? i assumed that he was Chinese. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Just because he was born in the United States does not mean English is his first language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Just because he was born in the United States does not mean English is his first language. He's told us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Epic kiss-arsery. Plus ten failpoints.Either way, if you wanted to be unbanned, take care of it on IRC, not on the forums. A little hard to do that when he's banned there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagato the Great Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 You can be born in the US and still be Chinese, or whatever, and still not have English as your first language. I was born in the US. english isn't my first language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 He's told us I didn't say lutai. I just meant in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 "For reference, we request that confirmation be given regarding the authenticity of the past signatures. We also request that the current signature of the new leadership be transmitted to Eurasian Union HQ for proper filing" "When the papers were signed, did the Emperor and chancellor signing them have the power to enforce it? It seems unlikely due to the sudden government change. You can understand our concern, and we simply request the new government re-sign the terms to ensure there is no confusion in the future should an issue arise stemming from the validity of the signatures of the previous H.R.E government."Edit: grammar Metagaming. I smell it. To clear up, in this post: clicky I RPd that secretly, the Emperor and Chancellor had lost their powers by the time the treaty was signed, thanks to various bills/laws. Lavo's post about it click me was somewhat valid, and I answered appropriately here. >>"All treaties from before the change of government and name are still as valid as they were before. This includes the terms with the EU."<< This should be enough, really. It's an announcement that all treaties from the previous government are acknowledged by the current government, with no validity changing. To those not knowing it - such as the EU - the NAP etc would thus be completely valid, active, whatnot. They would have no real reason to ask any further. I thus smell metagaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I think you have a valid case, Lynneth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 I'd like to see the defense to these claims and either provide a valid argument and the posts can stay, or if this is metagaming then the posts deleted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 It isn't metagaming, to me it's a logical thought process. When I hear/read certain words, I ask questions. I think about what the person says and the possible scenarios. If a government suddenly changed about a week after an agreement was signed, there is going to be questions to the validity of the agreement. Thus, the request for the signatures of the current government is not so absurd, it's just as a safeguard to ensure that the agreement is binding. You don't see real life nations taking just the word of nations they have had tensions with. Look at North Korea, Iran and Russia. Do you think we ever took their word that they'd just get rid of their nuclear programs/decommission nuclear arms? No. We signed treaties and did diplomatic investigations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Even when he explicitly stated that the terms were still binding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Even when he explicitly stated that the terms were still binding? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 It isn't metagaming, to me it's a logical thought process. When I hear/read certain words, I ask questions. I think about what the person says and the possible scenarios. If a government suddenly changed about a week after an agreement was signed, there is going to be questions to the validity of the agreement. Thus, the request for the signatures of the current government is not so absurd, it's just as a safeguard to ensure that the agreement is binding. You don't see real life nations taking just the word of nations they have had tensions with. Look at North Korea, Iran and Russia. Do you think we ever took their word that they'd just get rid of their nuclear programs/decommission nuclear arms? No. We signed treaties and did diplomatic investigations. >If a government suddenly changed about a week after an agreement was signed, there is going to be questions to the validity of the agreement. In my timeline it's several weeks, by the way. I've also mentioned that several times in the thread, with weeks passing and whatnot. >You don't see real life nations taking just the word of nations they have had tensions with. A nation that surrendered because your side said "stop that". Would it be logical and/or rational for such a nation to try and weasel their way out of the agreement? Not really. They'd risk being invaded again. >Look at North Korea, Iran and Russia. Not really comparable. None of them pay any reparations (afaik), have a NAP enforced, et cetera. They also don't exist in the much more volatile CNRP-world. If you don't hold your word IRL, you get some embargos. If you don#t hold your word in CNRP, you get invaded. So, logically, it wouldn't make sense for my guys to lie to your guys, would it? Also tired, gonna write more tomorrow, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 >If a government suddenly changed about a week after an agreement was signed, there is going to be questions to the validity of the agreement. In my timeline it's several weeks, by the way. I've also mentioned that several times in the thread, with weeks passing and whatnot. >You don't see real life nations taking just the word of nations they have had tensions with. A nation that surrendered because your side said "stop that". Would it be logical and/or rational for such a nation to try and weasel their way out of the agreement? Not really. They'd risk being invaded again. >Look at North Korea, Iran and Russia. Not really comparable. None of them pay any reparations (afaik), have a NAP enforced, et cetera. They also don't exist in the much more volatile CNRP-world. If you don't hold your word IRL, you get some embargos. If you don#t hold your word in CNRP, you get invaded. So, logically, it wouldn't make sense for my guys to lie to your guys, would it? Also tired, gonna write more tomorrow, I think. 1. My timeline is the 3month = 1 year 2. True. I concede that point, however it is a trust thing ICly with my leader. 3. North Korea and South Korea signed an armistice. That's the closest thing to a NAP in the real world. Iran, we have tensions with and have attempted embargoes on. Russia...well most Americans know how we kept each other in check. Logically, if you knew you could get away with it, you'd do it. 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.