CNRP OOC Thread

[Kankou]

Slightly changing my proposal: You can have a tag partner given that the partner is not in teh conflict, and the other side agrees.


Wouldn't that cut down on abuse?

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1283913664' post='2446098']
Slightly changing my proposal: You can have a tag partner given that the partner is not in teh conflict, and the other side agrees.


Wouldn't that cut down on abuse?
[/quote]
Not at all.

Tag partners would take out all the strategy inherent in running a nation. While the other side agreeing goes a long way to prevent abuse, it still would not be equal to the original RPer RPing his own troops. Different people have different strategies, so one could argue that they won/lost the war based on the awesomeness/failness of the Tag partner. Personally, if someone doesn't respond then the other party should be allowed to auto-advance.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1283914096' post='2446106']
Not at all.

Tag partners would take out all the strategy inherent in running a nation. While the other side agreeing goes a long way to prevent abuse, it still would not be equal to the original RPer RPing his own troops. Different people have different strategies, so one could argue that they won/lost the war based on the awesomeness/failness of the Tag partner. Personally, if someone doesn't respond then the other party should be allowed to auto-advance.
[/quote]

At which point should an auto-advance be allowed, depending on the pace of the war?

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1283945772' post='2446473']
At which point should an auto-advance be allowed, depending on the pace of the war?
[/quote]

I'm afraid I'm not totally clear on what you're asking. If you're asking should an auto-advance be allowed during a war if the other side does not respond in an adequate amount of time - then yes, I support that. If not, then please explain your question once more for me

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1283950590' post='2446510']
I'm afraid I'm not totally clear on what you're asking. If you're asking should an auto-advance be allowed during a war if the other side does not respond in an adequate amount of time - then yes, I support that. If not, then please explain your question once more for me
[/quote]

As one of the first acts as GM, I'd too would like to know the answer to this question, at what point does the community feel an auto-advance is needed? Can an arbitrary number of days even be reached? Hopefully we can set a clear and defined rule or procedure to follow so that the current GMs, and those of the future, may be able to mediate conflicts more easily in the future.

At the moment, these things (the AAs) [i]seem[/i] like they are more trouble than they're worth... I know everyone has a certain stigma with absences (legitimate or not) because of Mudd's actions in the past... and I know we had an overwhelming response to auto-advances and their implication being on a case-by-case basis only.

AAs serve as a proverbial hanging sword over a community member's head when it comes to war... accept it or be wiped, as is the long standing rule. Do not use OOC absence as a delay tactic, etc. While the 'pre-GM EM' would staunchly be against such a wiping rule, the 'post-GM EM' must conform to community rules, and may only change them if a desire to do so is seen in the community.

However, it still stands that there is also a number of members that I find sympathizing with posters like TBM when it comes to 'I'll take a lock whenever I damn well feel like it', which reflects the fact that at times, RL can be a !@#$%*. I know i speak for everyone when I say RL>>CNRP, but at the risk of sounding like a flip-flop, I recognize that others put a lot of time and effort into their wars, and do not like to see their labours go unrewarded (at least in the meantime). They feel cheated, or wronged and have a reasonable and legitimate concern that an absence during a war may be dishonest.

Of course, any change to, or clarification of the auto-advance phenomena would not be retro-active. I'd like to have an open and frank discussion on auto-advances and how people feel about them in this thread, if the community would be so kind as to humor me.

[Centurius]

No auto-advances unless there is solid evidence the victim of a war is stalling it on purpose or refuses to war at all.

[Sal Paradise]

edit: wrong thread


edit2: might as well use this space to ask a question that's been bugging me.


A lot of people apparently don't recognize things like unplanned wars or spy rolls. What kinds of things are we allowed to not recognize? Personally, I'd like to not recognize future technology.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Sal Paradise

[Joey67500]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1283977898' post='2446861']
No auto-advances unless there is solid evidence the victim of a war is stalling it on purpose or refuses to war at all.
[/quote]

I'd agree with this on the exception of:

If the person refuses the war, they shouldn't be auto advanced. For instance, if I say I don't recognize wars that weren't discussed or planned with me beforehand, and then someone declares war on me, and I refuse to recognize it, I don't see a need to have them get an auto advance, unless by the at all, you mean they won't war even if preplanned, in which case I believe they should be given a little time, but auto advances could be used. (Wasn't sure if you meant at all in the sense no wars, or at all in the sense of refusing the whole war.)

[The FSM]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1283978389' post='2446875']
edit: wrong thread


edit2: might as well use this space to ask a question that's been bugging me.


A lot of people apparently don't recognize things like unplanned wars or spy rolls. What kinds of things are we allowed to not recognize? Personally, I'd like to not recognize future technology.
[/quote]


People say they dont recognize unplanned wars, but I have yet to see a situation where a player refusing to recognize an unplanned war has been anything other than kicked out for not responding to RP since not responding to RP War results in an auto-win for the other side (thats a rule somewhere I believe).

[JEDCJT]

I think the auto-advance should be applied every 10 days if the person on the receiving end of an invasion/war/whatever doesn't reply within that period of time. This can be taken from Sargun's compromise for the current war in Britain (as opposed to the 4-day auto-advance), and should be applied as precedent on any future wars.

When taken in context, the 10-day auto-advance allows for sufficient period of time for a player (to be called the defender) to respond to an invasion or war, while providing for a way for the other players (the aggressors) to continue on the war at a reasonable pace if the defender doesnt reply within that specific timeframe (this may not be applicable to the four-day autoadvance, depending on one's opinions and views). This applies when the defender uses OOC reasons to stall the war or refuses to war at all, as Centurius said.

And if a person refuses to recognize a war or an invasion of their country, they get wiped.

Just my two cents, folks.

Edited September 8, 2010 by JEDCJT

[lutai]

Well my point of view, of players refusing to respond to unplanned wars is stupid.

For one

1.People should really take in mind in the word, "UNPLANNED!".Which means the other player, has really screwed he/her nation for not thinking war through.Which gives the player they declared on, a prime advantage over them in the war.

2.Just because its a unplanned war, doesn't mean for you to CRY ABOUT!(Even though some of us do, even if it's not unplanned).You made a nation on CNRP, and to be frank you should know their will be people who want to destroy you or be friends with you.

So thats all I haft to say.

Oh! one more thing.What happened to Scotland?

Edited September 8, 2010 by lutai

[JEDCJT]

[quote name='lutai' timestamp='1283987101' post='2447048']
Oh! one more thing.What happened to Scotland?
[/quote]

Well, Scotland went over the 25-day inactivity period and was 'wiped' when ITDA and Deschaine took it over as their protectorate. King Penchuk made a last-ditch attempt to avoid being wiped by making a thread affirming Scotland's independence, but ITDA and Deschaine disregarded that, keeping Scotland as a protectorate.

And then J Andres and Louisiana invaded. And the war currently rages on.

Edited September 8, 2010 by JEDCJT

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1283950590' post='2446510']
I'm afraid I'm not totally clear on what you're asking. If you're asking should an auto-advance be allowed during a war if the other side does not respond in an adequate amount of time - then yes, I support that. If not, then please explain your question once more for me
[/quote]
I believe the intent of the question was to determine what is an adequate amount of time?

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1283978389' post='2446875']
A lot of people apparently don't recognize things like unplanned wars or spy rolls. What kinds of things are we allowed to not recognize? Personally, I'd like to not recognize future technology.
[/quote]

Another thing I wish to clarify. It was recently brought to my attention that X is completely adamant against ever RPing with Y and Z again, and will place this notification in an official capacity (ie: Factbook or Signature), are these arbitrary declarations ie: 'I do not recognize planned wars, please pm me',[i][b] [/b][/i]'If you wish to War me, be prepared to type your fingers off. No exceptions from now on. I don't like chess' legitimate in CNRP rule? As others have said, we have had no clear cut case of this scenario save for the unfortunate Junio incident. I suppose this 'clash of ideologies' may also translate to a CNRPer vs a Botha moder... in my opinion, such a clash has never happened based on an IC/OOC veneration of Botha/Transvaal. This is also another topic i wish to clarify for future GM usage.

[Kankou]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1283997418' post='2447231']
Another thing I wish to clarify. It was recently brought to my attention that X is completely adamant against ever RPing with Y and Z again, and will place this notification in an official capacity (ie: Factbook or Signature), are these arbitrary declarations ie: 'I do not recognize planned wars, please pm me',[i][b] [/b][/i]'If you wish to War me, be prepared to type your fingers off. No exceptions from now on. I don't like chess' legitimate in CNRP rule? As others have said, we have had no clear cut case of this scenario save for the unfortunate Junio incident. I suppose this 'clash of ideologies' may also translate to a CNRPer vs a Botha moder... in my opinion, such a clash has never happened based on an IC/OOC veneration of Botha/Transvaal. This is also another topic i wish to clarify for future GM usage.
[/quote]

Not sure what you mean by "IC/OOC veneration of Botha/Transvaal", but there had already been a clash that was only solved by the benevolence on the part of the "free-for-all" player: The USC-PRC clash.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1283998435' post='2447247']
Not sure what you mean by "IC/OOC veneration of Botha/Transvaal", but there had already been a clash that was only solved by the benevolence on the part of the "free-for-all" player: The USC-PRC clash.
[/quote]

Well, I've just noticed that no one has or seems to never will war with botha because of IC/OOC veneration. I could be wrong though.

EDIT: But thats besides the point. What I am asking is for the actual legitimacy of 'I DO NOT RECOGNIZE X'. Can people really do this? Is this accepted by the community?

Edited September 9, 2010 by Executive Minister

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1283999580' post='2447269']
Well, I've just noticed that no one has or seems to never will war with botha because of IC/OOC veneration. I could be wrong though.

EDIT: But thats besides the point. What I am asking is for the actual legitimacy of 'I DO NOT RECOGNIZE X'. Can people really do this? Is this accepted by the community?
[/quote]

I don't accept it, no. A nation in CN and in RL doesn't get to say "no thanks, you didn't plan this ahead of time. I don't recognize you." Or "I don't like you, I won't war RP with you"

[Joey67500]

While I agree just saying, hey I don't like you and won't RP with you is not productive. But I think if you declare war on them without planning and they requested such it should be abided by, or have it so if you do attack a nation then if they contact you via PM to discuss the war halts.


Edit: spelling

Edited September 9, 2010 by Joey67500

[Vedran]

I'd say it's at least tolerated by the community. Nobody is rushing to hate on these people. Acceptance, I don't know. I know I don't like it. I understand why some people do it (so they don't get rolled randomly by some high-NS nation), but some of them do it just because they don't want a war, and some people even plan the whole thing, including the outcome, before anything is posted.

I understand that many of us would like to RP diplomatic and internal stuff without getting into a war every two months, but the planned war thing and so-called "Botha mode" is just cutting yourself off from one facet of RP because you don't want it. I don't want it either, but not recognizing wars is taking it a little too far.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Joey67500' timestamp='1284003903' post='2447327']
While I agree just saying, hey I don't like you and won't RP with you is no productive. But I think if you declare war on them without planning and they requested such it should be abided by.
[/quote]

My personal, non-GM stance on the matter (which has no weight on the issue at all)

Edited September 9, 2010 by Executive Minister

[Karl Martin]

I said this before, but IF a country explicitedly stated a policy of closed RPing [b]from the foundation of the nation[/b] and has not done anything to antagonize another country (done by PLAYER, not some fake spy roll use of making a fake move done by others), I see no reason why the player should be force to go into wars.

[Captain Enema]

There should be no set auto-advance rule. The concept has its place but it shouldn't be a given. If I'm too busy in real life like I am now to be bothered with a war role play, the others are just going to have to wait and deal with it. However, I do recognize there are people who abuse things and for them this concept seems fitting. RPers should request permission for each and every auto-advance and support their request with specific examples of how they tried to resolve the problem and how that failed.

All three GMs should agree to allow an auto-advance before it is approved.

It shouldn't be easy to get such a far reaching power in CNRP. It should be very very very hard to get something like this. Further, I'll still take a damn lock any damn I need one. Yall can put on your huggies and wait till things slow down for people in real life before carving up their nations like a pack of jackals.

[king of cochin]

In my opinion Auto Advance is something that is better left in ambiguity on a case by case basis. We need to promote activity. If someone is found to be inactive it is simple courtesy and decency to prod them on. Vice versa, in a community RP you are expected to interact and respond to actions, which may sometimes be detrimental to your policies.

As in the case of Mudd's war, auto advance should be set by the sitting GMs on a per case basis.

[Joey67500]

Currently, I only recognize planned wars, not because I hate war or anything, just I think that a discussion allows a clear path, for instance if I discuss a war and we agree no nukes, and then we fight and everything is fine, but if I don't discuss and someone just declares on me, there's a lot of undecided variables. I don't generally wish to plan out who wins, although it can be a factor, but I wish to plan out the guidelines and how the war goes, not just because I'm a new player but because this format of RP is very different from what I've done in the past and I'd like to be able to have a say when someone is trying to kill my fictitious country that I spend time working on.

Now I understand "you can just respond do what they do." but that person has the benefit of planning out their war and being able to change whatever they want to satisfy their needs. I think that when it comes to our individual RP, if we have a realistic or reasonable explanation of why we don't recognize a war, then it should be abided by. But things like I don't like you, should not be.

Lastly, when it comes to OOC matters and the rules, I think they should be generally abided by or at least only a few rules can be ignored. Like a tech modifier or etc, but I think that not recognizing the position of GM or some rule just to satisfy your own ambition in a RP of a game, shouldn't be accepted.

And I saw that someone said "in real life and cybernations people don't get pre discussed wars and all." Well in CN wars are generally raids for tech which don't apply here, or an alliance war, there's no real nation on nation wars, except when people organize a 1v1 and discuss the guidelines beforehand.

And as to real life, there is discussion before war, not always between you and your adversary but amongst your allies. Generally (that's a big word), nations know if they are going to be attacked.

Time also differs in this game, when a country in real life attempts to raid invade a country, it takes quite some time to move the troops over and then plan and assign generals. Here's like "I'm at your border killing your men and I'm going to move 500 miles in a day btw."

Edited September 9, 2010 by Joey67500

[Stefano Palmieri]

I am and always will be for unplanned wars, but then again most of my favourite RPs has been during unplanned wars. It makes the game more.. realistic? Even though CNRP is not realistic, like as far as I know no one IRL has done a GNR/Nordland reformed multiple times and invaded the same country each time.