The legitimacy of GMs to dictate global events.

[Generalissimo]

If you didn’t want it to come to this perhaps you shouldn’t have been too casual with the atomic weapons.

Sumeragi was stonewalled after her nation was hit with +60 nukes, no one complained then.

Sumeragi had to deal with the consequences, and now you can too.

Let's all remember the use of nuclear weapons in the south pacific on Sumer and in South America... All the people not involved in those rp's didn't rp nuclear winter even though there were a lot of nukes used in both those wars. The same should apply now.

That’s right, if you weren’t in the nuclear war you don’t have to play the post atomic cataclysm, unless you want to. Edited February 18, 2009 by Generalissimo

[Gebiv]

Let me give you a quote from a PM that I will gladly screenshot if you want me to.

"Understood. Do what you think is best, just remember all map-bannings need to be referred through Mercy or me."

That was before I was a GM, meaning I had to ask a mod or a GM about a map banning. As I am a GM that allows me to ban someone from the map.

0_o

You've always been able to ban people from maps. It's an OOC map and doesn't reflect anything ICly.

[Stormcrow]

So you claim, but whether or not you want to pretend you have that right still won't change the fact that banning someone from RP and removing them from the map is a community decision

No.

The GM position is there for several reasons: To mediate disputes, to make small (moderation approved) Tweaking of the rules, to roll the Nukes and large weapons. It is also there to gently guide the tone and context of CNRP with small touches...or to reinforce the consequences of the actions of a large group of players. The GMs, (As long as they have moderation approval in their actions) are endorsed by both HK47, myself, and the Moderation Team to make the decisions we've enabled them to. If you fee they are unfair in their ruling, that is when you come to me. Indeed, a few of you have in the past, and most of the time the problems were worked out with a minimum of pain or wasted time, were they not? The GM is the way for the community to have a non-staff decision-maker, sort of their rep to the Staff. Through the GM, as well as through the forums, ideas and concepts can be brought to our attention rapidly, and we get quicker and easier rulings on issues as a result. The recent end to Mergers was NOT a Moderation suggested one, but a GM suggested one backed by a majority ruling of Moderation staff, based on a massive amount of complaints filed through both Mercy and the Mods here.

Use your GM's to benefit the community; do not continuously decry their unfairness, especially when it is unwarranted.

Fake Edit: And If you feel I am unfair, there are appropriate channels for such feelings, through HK47 (The actual Mod-in-charge here) and Senior Staff members of the Moderation Team. Don't vent those feelings here in public (And I expect fair warning before one of you try to flood Snape's inbox with complaints!)

TL;DR: Yes, I'm upholding the map ban ruling, as well as the powers the GM's have used (SO FAR).

[King Kevz]

For those asking why we have GM's to dictate events I ask you this question.

Lets say we are doing a re run of this nuclear war but without any GM's. Everyone luanches their nukes at each other and they activate their SDI's to shoot them down. Who decides how many SDI's are successful? The attacker, the defender or maybe a random third nation anyway lets move on. The nukes that got through hit and explode doing mas amounts of damage. Now who is there to stop said nation that has been hit from responding that after the initial damage they manage to repair said damage and get their nation back on its feet in three days? Answer nobody. That is why we have GM's. Anyway thats my viewpoint on this.

Also as the Mod's have said if you have a problem with the GM's you really should take it up with them not make these threads to complain.

[Sir Keshav IV]

[vent]Cut the GM's some slack. Mercy and Sargun have been working their asses off so that we can have a fair RP. I'd think it would be right to RP a little Nuclear Radiation everywhere as so many freaking nukes are flying all over the place. You want RP to be realistic then RP like that.[/vent]

LVN hes not forcing or dictating any terms at all.

[Agostinho Neto]

I think the GMs are needed, tought they should be aknowledged on military tactics, weapons stats and somehow "experts" in military and politics, so they can post a realistic and fair outcome. I think the response to the nuclear holocaust is even too soft, people should think before declaring war and launching nukes. For example you can't just launch nukes and expect nothing happens, you have to roleplay the consequences, if you don't - you are out, because "roleplay" means you have to play a role.. the role of the nuclear wasteland lol.

Edited February 18, 2009 by President Aliyev

[Generalissimo]

The current GM system is fine, there is very little to whine about.

I agree that all wars should be an OOC agreed before the crap flies. Better stories, less confusion would result. Also, stating somewhere in the first post what allies, if any, could join would be good too.

Agreed, wars should be between consensual parties agreed to a basic outline of events before hand. That will cut the out of character chatter, as it will be relegated to back rooms.

[King Kevz]

The current GM system is fine, there is very little to whine about.

Agreed, wars should be between consensual parties agreed to a basic outline of events before hand. That will cut the out of character chatter, as it will be relegated to back rooms.

That could work if parties could agree on the matter but it doesn't work that way with people who arn't friends. Take the Gebiv war for example I seriousaly doubt that Gebiv would turn round and say sure lets fght this war and I agree to lose in the end. No one wants to lose thats why we have such wars and why they usually result in OOC arguements.

[Generalissimo]

No one wants to lose thats why we have such wars and why they usually result in OOC arguements.

I fought a series of wars against Otto Verteidiger were the outcome of every battle was already decided, I was going to lose the war… it was only a matter of how.

[King Kevz]

I fought a series of wars against Otto Verteidiger were the outcome of every battle was already decided, I was going to lose the war… it was only a matter of how.

Yes and that shows you are able to be well honestly shows you are more mature. However, back in the good old days you could fight a war, have a good fight, lose and then go on to surrender and rebuild now a days its like if you lose you are either destroyed without mercy or forced into a surrender where you can't go from so you can see why people dont want to lose now days.

I must say when you had that war over your islands and we had fleets and aircraft and modern tanks without any of these new rules was a hell alot of fun.

[Vasili Markov]

I am RPing my nation taking a severe nuclear winter with fallout.

This due to a localised weather effect and an unfortunate cloud pattern, but my nation will survive and I will rebuild bigger and better than before and have a stronger link to the global RP as a result. The old damaged infrastructure will be replaced with new improved infrastructure in its place (backed up by my nation buying more infra & tech in-game). The damage will actually cause my nation to grow funnily enough in the long term and have a strong opinion on nuclear first strikes caused up by RP history.