AironthFlamewing Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) #2 precipitated #1 because Triyun threatened to roll me because of the OTH. Considering the OTH wasnt even in question shouldnt the entire thing be tossed out or no? Edit: Grammarz Edited February 3, 2012 by graniteknight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1328230837' post='2913472'] [b]The way I'm seeing this, both sides are being really whiny OOC-wise.[/b] What is clear are: [/quote] Hahahahaha I mean oh god hahahaha Sorry where was I? Oh yes. Hahahahaha. Priceless. [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1328230837' post='2913472'] 1. MO transferred the islands through RP, and as such unless he starts another RP move saying he challenges it, there is no way Triyun can use this OOC whining for IC actions. 2. MO's OTH radars have not be activated, and as such Triyun wouldn't know just how far they would reach. Unless he;s being an paranoid OOC whiner where anything aimed at his direction is considered a threat, his RP on that particular aspect doesn't make sense. [/quote] Also way to miss the point. Granite said he transferred the islands and then Triyun posted afterwards saying some forces had been sent to secure them ergo the islands belong to Triyun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) I know how far the USC ones reached, I'm making similar assumptions. If my intel is bad IC, that is too bad then. Guess what there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We still invaded their asses. I've landed troops. Either MO doesn't dispute it. Or we go to war. He posted an IC transfer of sovereignty, I consider any further attempt to resist that a DoW, further since he's DoWing without any conditions I consider this him starting a war with no terms of conduct, to which I happily agree. Edit: Also sadly for you MO, my ability to see the OTH site with satellites is easy. You can see it with Google Earth. Now what could legitimately be disputed is the accuracy of my intelligence claims that it was operational and how far it reached, but if you consider that the reality of my intentions and my rhetoric are not always the same, you have no case here other than that Yuan Jia is a total dick to Australia. I would acknowledge that this is true. Edited February 3, 2012 by Triyun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Under no way or circumstance am I declaring war on you Triyun... just so you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1328231030' post='2913475'] Hahahahaha I mean oh god hahahaha Sorry where was I? Oh yes. Hahahahaha. Priceless.[/quote] For a guy who bows down and offers himself to anyone stronger, you sure are loud. Maybe I should have just crushed you back during the Najambia crisis. But then, that wouldn't make me any different from other people who cross OOC lines. [quote name='Kevin Kingswell' timestamp='1328231030' post='2913475']Also way to miss the point. Granite said he transferred the islands and then Triyun posted afterwards saying some forces had been sent to secure them ergo the islands belong to Triyun.[/quote] Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I did say the islands belong to Triyun. [quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1328231092' post='2913477'] I know how far the USC ones reached, I'm making similar assumptions. If my intel is bad IC, that is too bad then. Guess what there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We still invaded their asses. I've landed troops. Either MO doesn't dispute it. Or we go to war. He posted an IC transfer of sovereignty, I consider any further attempt to resist that a DoW, further since he's DoWing without any conditions I consider this him starting a war with no terms of conduct, to which I happily agree. [/quote] I agree with what you said, only when MO actually resists through RP. Edited February 3, 2012 by Kankou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Whether your declare war or not, you're committing aggressive action by any attempt to reassert sovereignty over those Islands which are now my islands which can be interpreted as a functional equivalent to a declaration of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Kankou, I'm a bit unclear on your sat recon, are you tracking the German naval assets because they are traveling in a large cluster? Or are you claiming to track each one individually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 Which roll are you talking about? The first one when all the ships would have been in Germany, the second one concerning the subs, or the current movement to Avalon which has yet to be rolled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 As not to start another thread, I'd like to bring this up anyways. I've had a few conversations with people over the past few days about player interaction and what is fair and what is not. We have people wanting to return to the past when the rules and GMs didn't exist and so forth. Well I'm curious what people would think about just completely getting rid of the map. I'd like your opinions if this could be done or if people would like to see it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Opposed to it, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1328387632' post='2914549'] Opposed to it, really. [/quote] Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I'm against it because where you are on the map often plays into RPs a lot. The geography and the cultures of where you are has really been a driving force in CNRP, at least since I started in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Most of what we RP depends on where we are. It's a great driving force in what we try to accomplish in CNRP. However we should probably try installing some kind of SoI multiplier to restrict massive holdings which are kept together by alliances forged among OOC friends. Okay, the SoI multiplier was a joke, but really, some kind of limitation would be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 World conquest is a silly thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1328388436' post='2914556'] Most of what we RP depends on where we are. It's a great driving force in what we try to accomplish in CNRP. However we should probably try installing some kind of SoI multiplier to restrict massive holdings which are kept together by alliances forged among OOC friends. Okay, the SoI multiplier was a joke, but really, some kind of limitation would be nice. [/quote] Stop being ambiguous. Who do you want to see reduced? Triyun and I? Say it and I'll reduce my holdings right now. I can't speak for Cent or Vektor or Martens, but if they're the people who are abusing the system say it. Don't just say people, name the culprits and say who you want limited. I don't think we need a map anymore because interaction is becoming subjective. You want certain people to interact, but not everyone and I think if we're going to have all these separate interaction universes. We should go back to news report and limited character RP, something we don't need a map for. In this way, everyone has his or her own universe in which to RP in and can allow certain people to interact or not to interact, which it seems that most people want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1328389124' post='2914559'] Stop being ambiguous. Who do you want to see reduced? Triyun and I? Say it and I'll reduce my holdings right now. I can't speak for Cent or Vektor or Martens, but if they're the people who are abusing the system say it. Don't just say people, name the culprits and say who you want limited.[/quote] I want EVERYONE limited, not just a few specific people. What people seem to miss is that I'm very egalitarian, and yet people think I target only the few. Of course there are people who really did fought tooth and nails for what they have now, but that's the few, not the majority, and I'm not one to make exceptions unless it's due to extreme circumstances (RL crisis, etc, you get what I mean). [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1328389124' post='2914559']I don't think we need a map anymore because interaction is becoming subjective. You want certain people to interact, but not everyone and I think if we're going to have all these separate interaction universes. We should go back to news report and limited character RP, something we don't need a map for. In this way, everyone has his or her own universe in which to RP in and can allow certain people to interact or not to interact, which it seems that most people want. [/quote] I'm against the very concept of "limited interaction". If people want to do it in some other world, I'm fine with it, but I will be sticking to the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 And I like that Kankou, I apologize for doubting your egalitarianism. However, instead of making an arbitrary limitation through numbers and formulas, I'd rather have the limitation be through war. Are people allied as friends, yes, it's been that way since '08 and when the map started. However, what amazes me is that no one seems willing to oppose a large antagonist, maybe it's in the works and I don't know it, but after a few queries, I'm starting to doubt that kind of action. Furthermore, I agree with your qualms of limited interaction, but again I'd like to see if the community would rather something like that as these past few interactions with Botha, Generalissimo, and others seems to point that when there was limited interaction CNRP was better. I do, however, disagree with their ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1328389864' post='2914562'] However, what amazes me is that no one seems willing to oppose a large antagonist, maybe it's in the works and I don't know it, but after a few queries, I'm starting to doubt that kind of action. [/quote] I would say it's a problem on both fronts. On the one side, there's the problem of people not having the spine to fight to the end or join the fighting (I think every single non-planned war except for the Korean War had the other side ditching in the middle of the conflict). On the other side, there are the few !@#$%*y whining people who use the most underhanded methods and then cry that the other side is not cooperating and running to the mods, at the same time calling upon allies where ideological and geopolitical considerations seem to have been thrown out the window all for the sake of keeping power. It's a vicious cycle. To be frank, I don't see anything improving unless we first reset alliances, then get the spineless trained for war. The second part is much easier than the first, since the political status quo is in favor of those in the current alliances. It's like how the UN security council vetoes exist unchanged despite the changing world situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 But how would you just simply say, you can't be allies with that person. That's imposing in the same way that people are arguing against now. Someone is always going to be on top, whether it be Triyun, or Martens, or Jed, or whomever. If you reset the alliances, chances are the same people will be at the top of the geo-political food chain. That hasn't changed since I first arrived, even if you reset the map, nothing would change. However I do feel like destroying the map would change things as you would no longer have to fear a war against you, that you didn't want to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I liked CNRP before the map, but I don't know if removing the map would make things better or worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1328390755' post='2914564'] I would say it's a problem on both fronts. On the one side, there's the problem of people not having the spine to fight to the end or join the fighting (I think every single non-planned war except for the Korean War had the other side ditching in the middle of the conflict). On the other side, there are the few !@#$%*y whining people who use the most underhanded methods and then cry that the other side is not cooperating and running to the mods, at the same time calling upon allies where ideological and geopolitical considerations seem to have been thrown out the window all for the sake of keeping power. It's a vicious cycle. To be frank, I don't see anything improving unless we first reset alliances, then get the spineless trained for war. The second part is much easier than the first, since the political status quo is in favor of those in the current alliances. It's like how the UN security council vetoes exist unchanged despite the changing world situation. [/quote] To be honest, at least from my perspective the alliance situation isn't how people represent it. Since the summer I've cancelled with several major nations: Cochin, whatever JEDs nation was called prior to Canada, Germany. Others have gone inactive like RA, and I haven't resigned with Voodoo. The big problems I see are failures to honor alliances, and failures to take advantage of things. Often times to me it feels like people expect others to lose for them. I find this to be a troubling and unrealistic attitude. For me at least I have good relations with most of my neighbors, and then Athens which is a special relationship that has built itself up over the years. I don't particularly see this type of alliance structure as being unnatural. In regards to changing the status quo though, I've done it, its not undoable. What I find so frustrating is how many people don't do anything except say that things can't possible change. Thats not true. I spend the first months of this current nation with 0 tech, no nukes, no navy because of terms surrounded by Cochin, Keshav and their allies in Vaule, Minilla Islands, Australia, and Selenarctos. All nuclear powers, had they struck first even if my allies fought back and eventually won, I would have been destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 [quote name='Justinian the Mighty' timestamp='1328391752' post='2914572'] I liked CNRP before the map, but I don't know if removing the map would make things better or worse. [/quote] Killing the map would be killing CNRP, basically. Most everyone lives for their pixels on the map. It would just be Open National RP then, with less strict rules. So I support removing the map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I see what you did there, Vince... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 It is my goal to shake the world order after my war is completed. So, let's wait until then. In the meantime, Jia needs to start the breakfast gossip Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) I, perhaps like some, mostly want to do my [i]thing[/i]. Don't knw what it's for other people, but in my case, this [i]thing[/i] is doing stuff in space, and carefully constructing a very expensive, yet positively awesome nation. I goddamn love space, so that's what I do. I lately have tried keeping out of alliances and politics and all those shenanigans. Edited February 5, 2012 by Lynneth 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.