CNRP OOC Thread

[The FSM]

[quote name='Karl Martin' timestamp='1284004387' post='2447341']
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.
[/quote]


These are my thoughts on 'I dont recognize X' statements.

These sorts of statements stem from the fact that this is a group of people voluntarily coming together for the purpose of sharing and collaborating on stories. CNRP also has a de facto monopoly on RP due to various historical and reasons of scale. (By reasons of scale I mean that CNRP is the only RP community with enough members to create a self-sustaining and continuous storyline. Numerous attempts at establishing offshoot fantasy RP communities have failed because they have not received enough attention and have been treated as a sideshow to CNRP) Given CNRP's monopoly on fantasy RP, the only way for someone to RP is to do so as part of the CNRP community (unless they want to RP by themselves).

These statements are RPers attempting to exercise their free will to say what kind of RP activity they will or will not engage in. Were there other RP options present besides CNRP or RP by yourself then we wouldnt be having this discussion. Choice of RP community would allow people in CNRP some recourse when the rest of the community decides to implement a rule that they do not agree with.

CNRP really has no way of forcing RPers to do anything if it were not for the fact that CNRP is the only RP community available and that being 'wiped' from CNRP essentially makes you an RP pariah.



No one should be forced to RP anything they do not want to RP. This is not a game, at least it was not meant to be a game when we first started using one map for our RP, and if some people view this as a game where you agree to play by the rules when you get added to the map then they have a corrupted view of what CNRP was meant to be (in my opinion). This was meant to be a place for sharing stories, does there need to be some give and take in order for an RP community to survive? Sure.

But should people be forced to RP things they dont want or in ways they dont want because a small majority of people want to do it that way? I dont think so.

[Sargun II]

Forcing somebody to not do something is the same as forcing somebody to do something.

[Captain Enema]

I'd prefer we all just stop being so danged aggressive and sit down and talk about things before we go to war for the sake of making a better story.

[The FSM]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1284096779' post='2448629']
Forcing somebody to not do something is the same as forcing somebody to do something.
[/quote]


The person who wants to go to war can always go to war with someone else who is more receptive to going to war. The person being forced into going to war doesnt have that option.

And yes TBM, I wish we all did that more too.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='The Flying Scotsman' timestamp='1284099552' post='2448657']
The person who wants to go to war can always go to war with someone else who is more receptive to going to war. The person being forced into going to war doesnt have that option.

And yes TBM, I wish we all did that more too.
[/quote]

So your solution is to force them to do something else?

People forget that no matter how much they want to ignore it, this is still [b]CN[/b]RP. We still retain the basic functions of the nations we are tied to: the ability to declare war, go into peace mode (or in this case Botha mode, with appropriate handicaps much like how staying in peace mode hurts your economy), the 25-day inactivity mark, a direct correlation between tech, improvements, and wonders, etc. People being "forced" into war have the ability to call on allies and to defend themselves. RP is not always consensual, but deal with it. You're on a community board based off of a game where most activity revolves around the war function. If you don't want to interact with the community, join a private board.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' timestamp='1284008196' post='2447392']
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.
[/quote]

Pretty much agree with this. Auto-advancing should be reserved for only extreme cases, and it should exist as a means of curtailing abuse (rather than enabling it). To that end it should simply be applied on a case by case basis with at least one GM approving each one.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1284100343' post='2448662']
So your solution is to force them to do something else?

People forget that no matter how much they want to ignore it, this is still [b]CN[/b]RP. We still retain the basic functions of the nations we are tied to: the ability to declare war, go into peace mode (or in this case Botha mode, with appropriate handicaps much like how staying in peace mode hurts your economy), the 25-day inactivity mark, a direct correlation between tech, improvements, and wonders, etc. People being "forced" into war have the ability to call on allies and to defend themselves. RP is not always consensual, but deal with it. You're on a community board based off of a game where most activity revolves around the war function. If you don't want to interact with the community, join a private board.
[/quote]

Or people could start to I don't know... Respect each other and their real life limitations and look at something more than the .png in a thread. If you want to expand go play the main game and start tech raiding or something like that, it gives you all the expansion you want. This is also CN[b]RP[/b]

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1284118046' post='2448743']
Or people could start to I don't know... Respect each other and their real life limitations and look at something more than the .png in a thread. If you want to expand go play the main game and start tech raiding or something like that, it gives you all the expansion you want. This is also CN[b]RP[/b]
[/quote]

We all have RL issues - welcome to life, that is no excuse for not having a war. This is not RL, your government can not simply go "I have issues in another realm of existence, bye." Respect can only go so far - there is a lock thread for people who are not in war, and need to be absent from the game. Once in war, the lock privileged is gone, as it should be. Many of us don't want to tech raid in CN - but find CNRP an appropriate outlet of our... expansionism. There is nothing wrong with that as it incorporates both the CN in CNRP and the RP in CNRP. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people whine about RL issues, I hate to be callous, but if you have RL issues that are so large that they prevent you from responding to a war, then what gives you the right to maintain your land as it is? Governments can not simply take a vacation and appear back on the scene later while an army is on its doorstep... bad things happen.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1284125029' post='2448797']
We all have RL issues - welcome to life, that is no excuse for not having a war. This is not RL, your government can not simply go "I have issues in another realm of existence, bye." Respect can only go so far - there is a lock thread for people who are not in war, and need to be absent from the game. Once in war, the lock privileged is gone, as it should be. Many of us don't want to tech raid in CN - but find CNRP an appropriate outlet of our... expansionism. There is nothing wrong with that as it incorporates both the CN in CNRP and the RP in CNRP. Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing people whine about RL issues, I hate to be callous, but if you have RL issues that are so large that they prevent you from responding to a war, then what gives you the right to maintain your land as it is? Governments can not simply take a vacation and appear back on the scene later while an army is on its doorstep... bad things happen.
[/quote]

And being part of a community means you respect the rights of others to take a break should they really have no way to rp. What gives you the right to maintain your land? The fact there is a 25 days inactivity rule in place, one that should not be altered because of someone wants to get some more land in his own color on the next update. I am not saying that there should not be sanctions if it is obvious a defender is stalling on purpose but I do not see any reason why an attacker should have an advantage over someone else due to real life issues beyond their control. You want the right to expand in a timely manner? Others want the right to take a break when they really can't handle it all.

The point of this post; people should learn to respect situations beyond the control of another player. We do this stuff for fun after all not to destroy other people.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1284125683' post='2448805']
And being part of a community means you respect the rights of others to take a break should they really have no way to rp. What gives you the right to maintain your land? The fact there is a 25 days inactivity rule in place, one that should not be altered because of someone wants to get some more land in his own color on the next update. I am not saying that there should not be sanctions if it is obvious a defender is stalling on purpose but I do not see any reason why an attacker should have an advantage over someone else due to real life issues beyond their control. You want the right to expand in a timely manner? Others want the right to take a break when they really can't handle it all.

The point of this post; people should learn to respect situations beyond the control of another player. We do this stuff for fun after all not to destroy other people.
[/quote]

What gives me the right to maintain my land? Participation in the community, and not leaving without proper notification. Leaving has been abused in the last 2/3 of my major wars. No doubt, my perspective is different than most of the community's on this matter. As it is, I see a lot of people posting about respecting situations beyond the control of another player, aka, real life. But what about respect that is owed to the attacker? Waiting endlessly because someone is having RL issues is a little silly, to me. As I have said, no government can simply take a vacation while an enemy is at their doorstep, so what gives the defender the right to claim that they can still hold all their land while they're away, without any repercussions? Even in CN, in peacemode, there is an economic hit to prevent long absences.

[Executive Minister]

I firmly believe that it is silly to translate OOC leaves of absence in any way, shape or form, into IC. There is no 'time' in between posts in a thread. If your opponent does not respond to your actions OOC'ly, this does not mean that his forces IC'ly are frozen in place while you advance.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284128791' post='2448827']
I firmly believe that it is silly to translate OOC leaves of absence in any way, shape or form, into IC. There is no 'time' in between posts in a thread. If your opponent does not respond to your actions OOC'ly, this does not mean that his forces IC'ly are frozen in place while you advance.
[/quote]

Of course forces won't be frozen into place, that's why when you autoadvance, you have to take casualties. I'm not implying that forces will be frozen, what I'm trying to depict is that a lot of argument is going into the fairness of the defender, but no one (besides myself) is arguing on the attacker's behalf.

[Captain Enema]

Wait a second.. Are you seriously insisting that someone has to put your desire to have a war at the same level of consideration as their real life activities?

BWAahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, u mad son.

NO, no, no, no, and once again, ABSOLUTELY no. Your war can wait until I'm damn good and read for it to start. If someone is abusing the lock system yall can go to a GM.

Until that time real life takes priority over anything here in what we do in CNRP. Desires to have an RP war are just that, A DESIRE, you will not die some horrible death if you don't get your big mama jama war posts in. YOUR brain will not collapse if you don't get to roll someone with the brilliance of your text. YOU will be just fine if you wait a week, two weeks, or even longer for someone to be ready.

My life right now would probably be in a bit of a mess if I had to take long periods of time to post and conduct a complicated war.

Some of you kids need to stop being so damn selfish and thinking just of yourself and your "desire" to have your little war/cake. This is a community of role players with very real lives going on outside of these forums. Unlike CN, what we do here can take several hours a day to organize, write, post, and so forth. CN, the comparison being thrown own, is a 5 minute a day deal at best if you log in and make your little clickity clicks.

[Yawoo]

TBM, do you just enjoy posting for the sake of increasing your post count? If you read what I posted, you would have seen that I am not advocating that people put their RL's on the same level of RP, quite the opposite, in fact. I'm advocating, for the attacker to receive the same amount of fairness that people seem to be so bleeding heart about with the defender.

[iamthey]

There are two extremes in this argument, one is the one which you, decry yawoo. That an attacker must orient their schedule of advance to the schedule of their opponent, the defender. In all honesty I sympathize with your position. There are certainly people here cut throat enough, and so lacking in integrity that they couldn't be taken at their word on whether or not they were actually busy IRL. It is definitely possible that someone could take advantage of the community's sympathies and turn the leeway given to a defender into a new weapon with which to defend their nation. In that regard I can agree with you, that this position is probably unfair. Some would say that an attacker entered that war voluntarily and so they should have to accept the defender's rl time table, again though we all know there is someone out there with a HUGE ego who would take this degree of latitude and abuse it.

However there is another extreme, and that is that a defender should have to orient their RL timetable to the IC schedule of an attacker. This I would argue as not equal, but likely even worse than the defensive extreme. While the impacts of the defender favoring policy are represented in a slower RP, and a delay on your invasion, the impacts of the aggressive favoring policy are reflected in the inability of a player to address their RL concerns adequately. What you are basically suggesting is, that if I have finals this week, it is better that I fail my tests and RP with you, than do well and delay your pixel gains. Or rather that my success in education should come at the cost of my own land and RP. If you so abhor that a defender should have outlandish flexibility, then I really don't see how you can say the same for the attacker.

Edited September 10, 2010 by iamthey

[Yawoo]

I see where you are coming from IaT, and I agree that it doesn't make sense to change one flexibility for another as it isn't fair, and I'm not sure exactly how to change it to make it fair to both sides. The way it currently is, however, is far from fair to the attacker, and in my opinion, that needs to be rectified before more freedom and flexibility is discussed for the defender.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1284129522' post='2448833']
Of course forces won't be frozen into place, that's why when you autoadvance, you have to take casualties. I'm not implying that forces will be frozen, what I'm trying to depict is that a lot of argument is going into the fairness of the defender, but no one (besides myself) is arguing on the attacker's behalf.
[/quote]

And when one auto-advances, a number of complications can occur, as we all know. Losses are conflicted, defenses are not taken into consideration or are incorrectly depicted, etc. To frank, it would be infinitely wiser on the part of the attacker to wait and be patient, instead of moving to advance the war on their terms.

Would it not be a boon to you if the community finds, of its own accord, that the defender is purposefully stalling? I understand your eagerness for acclaim, as I often enjoy waiting around to see the community's responses to my own posts, yet I do not see why your 'side' for lack of a better word seems they are at a loss if responses are not made quickly.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Executive Minister

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284132797' post='2448859']
And when one auto-advances, a number of complications can occur, as we all know. Losses are conflicted, defenses are not taken into consideration or are incorrectly depicted, etc. To frank, it would be infinitely wiser on the part of the attacker to wait and be patient, instead of moving to advance the war on their terms.

Would it not be a boon to you if the community finds, of its own accord, that the defender is purposefully stalling? I understand your eagerness for acclaim, as I often enjoy waiting around to see the community's responses to my own posts, yet I do not see why your 'side' for lack of a better word seems they are at a loss if responses are not made quickly.
[/quote]

A few reasons:

1. More time away potentially gives the defender(s) more time to plan strategies to hit back.
2. More time waiting with forces deployed in a foreign land, or on the way to a foreign land increase the lack of troops in home territory. And while lower troops at home is the result in a war, extended absences on the part of the defender should not cause the attacker to be at a disadvantage as it is now.
3. How long is "too long" as it is, ten days could be considered reasonable absence - which, to me, is a bit absurd.
4. Why do we have a lock thread, if you can essentially get a lock whenever you claim "RL problem - must hold RP"? This enables the defender to abuse the system way too much and leaves the attacker sitting at a disadvantage for long periods of time.
5. etc.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Yawoo

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1284133437' post='2448863']
A few reasons:

1. More time away potentially gives the defender(s) more time to plan strategies to hit back.[/quote]
As I'm sure you know the same may be said for the attacker.
[quote]
2. More time waiting with forces deployed in a foreign land, or on the way to a foreign land increase the lack of troops in home territory. And while lower troops at home is the result in a war, extended absences on the part of the defender should not cause the attacker to be at a disadvantage as it is now.[/quote]
I have yet to see an instance where one was attacked during a war in progress where the effects in that war directly affected the new war. In fact, I recall a extreme disdain for those that attempt to do such things. Whether you consider separate threads as distinctly different points in a timeline or not, if one wishes a war to use information (such as deployed troops or not) from an ongoing war, generally one must post in that war thread itself, which would of course mean that the new aggressor must wait like the old one.
[quote]
3. How long is "too long" as it is, ten days could be considered reasonable absence - which, to me, is a bit absurd.[/quote]
Whether it is an arbitrary four or ten days has never been firmly established. I have yet to see the rule 'if one does not respond in 4/10 days, you may advance'. The 25 days inactivity rule was abused by Mudd again and again, this is certain, however I categorically refuse to tar everyone else with the same brush. In any case, there is NO LONGER any arbitrary number of days auto-advance rule. Auto-advances or their counterpart, the lock now fall under GM jurisdiction. If it is brought to our attention at any time that someone is pulling a Mudd it will be our perogative to strike that individual down with as much contempt as possible.
[quote]
4. Why do we have a lock thread, if you can essentially get a lock whenever you claim "RL problem - must hold RP"? This enables the defender to abuse the system way too much and leaves the attacker sitting at a disadvantage for long periods of time.[/quote]
We have a lock thread to ensure that members have a way to publicly announce that they require a leave. No more IRC or pming, everyone must know that someone requires a lock.

It seems that your primary concern is that with forces deployed elsewhere, ie: in thread A, you become vulnerable at home. If someone, lets say EM, wishes to DoW you, Yawoo, under the pretenses that your forces are preoccupied in thread A, I believe it should already be understood that EM MUST post this invasion in thread A. IF he creates a thread B, that is of a separate instant in time, and the deployments in A should not be reflected in B. IF he posts in A, and some member of the war has not posted, then of course that invasion would be iced as well. Far too long have we seen wars with members:a,b,c, and d versus e,f,g and h, where a, b and g,h post numerous times before c,d,e and f which destroys any sense of coherency at all. While this has been ignored in the past, it is my firm belief that a post like a separate invasion should fall under this understanding.

[Yawoo]

[quote]I have yet to see an instance where one was attacked during a war in progress where the effects in that war directly affected the new war. In fact, I recall a extreme disdain for those that attempt to do such things. Whether you consider separate threads as distinctly different points in a timeline or not, if one wishes a war to use information (such as deployed troops or not) from an ongoing war, generally one must post in that war thread itself, which would of course mean that the new aggressor must wait like the old one.[/quote]

Would he though? Why would Participant X attacking Y have to wait on the Y and Z front when that doesn't effect his front?

In other words: Say Kitex decided to attack Louisianan Manitoba while I was invading the Sarnungian Republic. Obviously, what happens an ocean away doesn't affect the N. American front, so why should Kitex be forced to wait on Sargun and my conflict if Sargun was the one away? I know traditionally, that's been the way it's done, but why? I'm not saying I support changing it, I'm saying there is an adequate argument for why another attacker doesn't have to wait - thereby putting the original attacker at more risk because of an OOC absence.

[quote]Whether it is an arbitrary four or ten days has never been firmly established. I have yet to see the rule 'if one does not respond in 4/10 days, you may advance'. The 25 days inactivity rule was abused by Mudd again and again, this is certain, however I categorically refuse to tar everyone else with the same brush. In any case, there is NO LONGER any arbitrary number of days auto-advance rule. Auto-advances or their counterpart, the lock now fall under GM jurisdiction. If it is brought to our attention at any time that someone is pulling a Mudd it will be our perogative to strike that individual down with as much contempt as possible.[/quote]

I'm not sure you understood what I was getting at: What I meant was, how long is too long before it becomes necessary to bring in a GM? Is it seven days, five days, ten days, etc...? Without a ruling on when it becomes too long, the system is just too prone for potential abuse and confusion.

[quote]We have a lock thread to ensure that members have a way to publicly announce that they require a leave. No more IRC or pming, everyone must know that someone requires a lock.[/quote]
Ah, that makes sense.

[quote]
It seems that your primary concern is that with forces deployed elsewhere, ie: in thread A, you become vulnerable at home. If someone, lets say EM, wishes to DoW you, Yawoo, under the pretenses that your forces are preoccupied in thread A, I believe it should already be understood that EM MUST post this invasion in thread A. IF he creates a thread B, that is of a separate instant in time, and the deployments in A should not be reflected in B. IF he posts in A, and some member of the war has not posted, then of course that invasion would be iced as well. Far too long have we seen wars with members:a,b,c, and d versus e,f,g and h, where a, b and g,h post numerous times before c,d,e and f which destroys any sense of coherency at all. While this has been ignored in the past, it is my firm belief that a post like a separate invasion should fall under this understanding.[/quote]

See first response

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1284139571' post='2448912']
Would he though? Why would Participant X attacking Y have to wait on the Y and Z front when that doesn't effect his front?

In other words: Say Kitex decided to attack Louisianan Manitoba while I was invading the Sarnungian Republic. Obviously, what happens an ocean away doesn't affect the N. American front, so why should Kitex be forced to wait on Sargun and my conflict if Sargun was the one away? I know traditionally, that's been the way it's done, but why? I'm not saying I support changing it, I'm saying there is an adequate argument for why another attacker doesn't have to wait - thereby putting the original attacker at more risk because of an OOC absence.
[/quote]
Are you so sure what happens an ocean away wouldn;t affect one front? Realistically it would affect, at the very least, morale, and if the enemy at home was threatening enough, it would eventually prompts a recall of the forces overseas. Or would you rather blatantly risk the integrity of your homeland for a little gain on another continent?

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1284139571' post='2448912']I'm not sure you understood what I was getting at: What I meant was, how long is too long before it becomes necessary to bring in a GM? Is it seven days, five days, ten days, etc...? Without a ruling on when it becomes too long, the system is just too prone for potential abuse and confusion.
[/quote]
At any point in time you feel there is abuse you can bring in the GM.

Now, this is not a ruling, but my personal opinion on the matter, but I would generally wait at least a week before calling us in.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1284152450' post='2449058']
Rule is un-necessary anyway. Everyone knows how CNRP nukes [url=http://imgur.com/JnDK0.jpg]actually[/url] work. So this would never become an issue.

Though if someone has the link I would like to see where that ruling was established, I remember the opposite being true myself.
[/quote]

I cried...so hard, this was possibly one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen in my life.

Bravo, bravo...bravo.

[Sal Paradise]

Someone needs to get out more.

[Sarah Tintagyl]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1284152919' post='2449067']
Someone needs to get out more.
[/quote]

Breaking my heart Sal...just breaking my heart.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1284152919' post='2449067']
Someone needs to get out more.
[/quote]

Hrm...

/Member title

Edited September 10, 2010 by iamthey