jer Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) ZI - sending a nation to ZI once PZI - sending a nation to ZI permanently EZI - sending a user to ZI permanently, regardless of re-rolls .. is how I understand it (although I'm not 100% sure at all - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If the above descriptions are accurate then there is a clear distinction between PZI and EZI which should not be ignored. Edited March 3, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 ZI - sending a nation to ZI oncePZI - sending a nation to ZI permanently EZI - sending a user to ZI permanently, regardless of re-rolls .. is how I understand it (although I'm not 100% sure at all - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). If the above descriptions are accurate then there is a clear distinction between PZI and EZI which should not be ignored. That is how the accepted definitions seem to run, but the reality is that none of those three situations ever translate that way to reality. ZI'ing a nation originally held all three of those definitions depending on the circumstance. As it is now, it's rarely as clear as "okay now you're at ZI everything is fine and dandy." The main difference between PZI and ZI tends to be a more general difference between "temporary" and "indefinitely." Sometimes "indefinitely" stretches across re-rolls, though it's not as common for it to stretch across genuinely different characters. All EZI does is take the meaning of PZI and chop into two parts. It's not necessary and only leads to a situation where people seem to think that these are more or less legal terms. They're just basic statements of intent, not contracts or treaties or anything. So it's not at all necessary to make fine cut distinctions in words that don't, in practice, accomodate fine cut distinctions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 Zi - ZI'd once Perma ZI - You're $%&@ed unless you get amnest, including rerolls. Nothing in the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted March 3, 2009 Report Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) That is how the accepted definitions seem to run, but the reality is that none of those three situations ever translate that way to reality. ZI'ing a nation originally held all three of those definitions depending on the circumstance. As it is now, it's rarely as clear as "okay now you're at ZI everything is fine and dandy." The main difference between PZI and ZI tends to be a more general difference between "temporary" and "indefinitely." Sometimes "indefinitely" stretches across re-rolls, though it's not as common for it to stretch across genuinely different characters. All EZI does is take the meaning of PZI and chop into two parts. It's not necessary and only leads to a situation where people seem to think that these are more or less legal terms. They're just basic statements of intent, not contracts or treaties or anything. So it's not at all necessary to make fine cut distinctions in words that don't, in practice, accomodate fine cut distinctions. Actually I think it is necessary. For me, whilst I don't approve of PZI, it is a far more acceptable punishment than EZI because it at least allows people to start afresh with the game by creating a new nation, whereas EZI under the above definition says that the sentenced player is going to be harassed for as long as they're playing CN regardless of re-rolling until they quit, and no sooner. That is a crucial difference in the two punishments for me and because it's such a big difference (especially when the game has been losing players for a while, until Jarheads turned up) it absolutely deserves a different definition. Zi - ZI'd oncePerma ZI - You're $%&@ed unless you get amnest, including rerolls. Nothing in the middle. Why not? I really do not see the harm in clarifying things, as there is clearly another situation which is ignored by your definitions - the one where a single nation gets ZI'd but the user is free to create a re-roll which will end the punishment. Edited March 3, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Why not? I really do not see the harm in clarifying things, as there is clearly another situation which is ignored by your definitions - the one where a single nation gets ZI'd but the user is free to create a re-roll which will end the punishment. Except that that situation doesn't really ever happen, at least not nearly as clear cut as that. You either let someone go, or you don't. If you make an agreement that someone will re-roll and then you'll stop attacking them, then that's the result of a specific agreement, not a judicial sentencing, and it's still basically PZI, they just got off it quicker or easier than normal. It's easy to draw these theoretical lines between these terms but I've never seen them carry over into actual practice in nearly so clinical a fashion. You're either "ZI'd" (which doesn't even strictly mean being attacked all the way to exactly 0.00 infra or sometimes may involve being kept at 0.00 for a relatively short while) or "PZI'd," in which case you're being attacked until the attacker either no longer wishes to attack you or no longer has the ability to attack you. It's very rare that simply making a new nation changes anything, and it's also not the case that a new nation or even a new character is necessary to get off of these lists. These sentences aren't broken down into obvious categories, and basically amount to nothing more than "If we feel like attacking you and there isn't something stopping us, than we will, and this is our statement of intent to do so." They're very rarely any more precise or specific than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Nemesis has a couple of people. EZI: Van Hoo III, Soccerbum PZI: SpiderJerusalem, meyer0095, Mykep ZI: daggarz Also this is one of those threads that appears way too much, but unfortunately is a side effect of unclear listings. You will never go unless you go from alliance to alliance. Both of these points have been made earlier on but eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Zi - ZI'd oncePerma ZI - You're $%&@ed unless you get amnest, including rerolls. Nothing in the middle. Unless you're Universalis. (Their original peace terms to Legion involving them ZIing a Legion member, TWICE. Weirdest offer ever.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) Zi - ZI'd once Perma ZI - You're $%&@ed unless you get amnest, including rerolls. Nothing in the middle. I don't agree with that, generally because I don't think people should be followed through rerolls Edited March 4, 2009 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 [big quote removed] I see. Well, this has been quite enlightening for me, I'd always assumed all ZI lists would be neatly structured and complete with some loose guidelines of just how naughty you have to be to get on each one ... but I can see how that wouldn't be practical given the flexibility that a ZI list needs. Thank you for the explanation, Heft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rand0m her0 Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) IRONs is up to date, even has the list of the guys who's ZI's have finished or council chose to let go. If you want to take a look at it you don't even need an account. Edited March 4, 2009 by rand0m her0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smooth Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) Heft, Ejay, I have to respectfully disagree. The fact that players believe they have a right to track people down through use of OOC IP addresses in order to continue to attack them, information an IC persona should not have, creates the need to distinguish Perma-ZI (indefinitely holding a nation at ZI) and Eternal-ZI (indefinitely holding a player at ZI) Edited March 4, 2009 by Smooth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Nemesis has a couple of people.EZI: Van Hoo III, Soccerbum PZI: SpiderJerusalem, meyer0095, Mykep ZI: daggarz Also this is one of those threads that appears way too much, but unfortunately is a side effect of unclear listings. You will never go unless you go from alliance to alliance. Both of these points have been made earlier on but eh. Bring it. And consider yourself coupededed. EZI should not exist. A player should not be banned from a game by other players...Thats what mods are for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Heft, Ejay, I have to respectfully disagree. The fact that players believe they have a right to track people down through use of OOC IP addresses in order to continue to attack them, information an IC persona should not have, creates the need to distinguish Perma-ZI (indefinitely holding a nation at ZI) and Eternal-ZI (indefinitely holding a player at ZI) A much better distinction, if one were to be made, would be to use "character" instead of "nation." There are plenty of times when someone re-rolls yet it's obvious they have no intention of doing anything different at all and were only re-rolling in order to maybe hide their nation or to maybe drum up sympathy or muddy up the works or whatever, but they're still playing the same exact character with the same exact intentions and goals. Essentially all they've done is change their name. Granted, this isn't always the case, and sometimes things are abused, but it happens enough of the time that a distinction should be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 A much better distinction, if one were to be made, would be to use "character" instead of "nation." There are plenty of times when someone re-rolls yet it's obvious they have no intention of doing anything different at all and were only re-rolling in order to maybe hide their nation or to maybe drum up sympathy or muddy up the works or whatever, but they're still playing the same exact character with the same exact intentions and goals. Essentially all they've done is change their name. Granted, this isn't always the case, and sometimes things are abused, but it happens enough of the time that a distinction should be made. Who are you to decide that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 A much better distinction, if one were to be made, would be to use "character" instead of "nation." There are plenty of times when someone re-rolls yet it's obvious they have no intention of doing anything different at all and were only re-rolling in order to maybe hide their nation or to maybe drum up sympathy or muddy up the works or whatever, but they're still playing the same exact character with the same exact intentions and goals. Essentially all they've done is change their name. Granted, this isn't always the case, and sometimes things are abused, but it happens enough of the time that a distinction should be made. So you're going to prejudge or wait until their new IC character does something? If you truly want to distinguish between IC and OOC as your alliance has just grandstanded for, then please do try to not appear hypocrites by using OOC traces to punish brand new IC characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Zi - ZI'd oncePerma ZI - You're $%&@ed unless you get amnest, including rerolls. Nothing in the middle. PZI that does not extend across re-rolls is actually a pretty common practice and has been for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Heft, Ejay, I have to respectfully disagree. The fact that players believe they have a right to track people down through use of OOC IP addresses in order to continue to attack them, information an IC persona should not have, creates the need to distinguish Perma-ZI (indefinitely holding a nation at ZI) and Eternal-ZI (indefinitely holding a player at ZI) Eh, dumb though. Not saying YOU are, by the way, hi Smooth. I just believe in PZI and ZI. Dude wants to reroll his nation, I don't care, let him. The whole "We will kill you if your name is @@@ .. You can be @@@@, but not @@@". Dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I think it's more dumb that you seem unable to comprehend the idea of someone creating a new nation to roleplay in a completely different way to how they did before. Your reasoning for continuing ZI accross re-rolls essentially boils down to your own inability to distinguish between an OOC human being and an IC ruler, and that is your fault and no-one else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 (edited) A much better distinction, if one were to be made, would be to use "character" instead of "nation." There are plenty of times when someone re-rolls yet it's obvious they have no intention of doing anything different at all and were only re-rolling in order to maybe hide their nation or to maybe drum up sympathy or muddy up the works or whatever, but they're still playing the same exact character with the same exact intentions and goals. Essentially all they've done is change their name. Granted, this isn't always the case, and sometimes things are abused, but it happens enough of the time that a distinction should be made. Or carry out DDoS attacks like certain people are implying Edited March 4, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I think it's more dumb that you seem unable to comprehend the idea of someone creating a new nation to roleplay in a completely different way to how they did before. Your reasoning for continuing ZI accross re-rolls essentially boils down to your own inability to distinguish between an OOC human being and an IC ruler, and that is your fault and no-one else's. Exactly this Ejay. I would have said it less eloquently so I'm glad I was beaten to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holyone Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 for those looking to see what PZI is like feel free to fly the NAAC flag and AA for a brief while. You'll get attention very quickly. (To NPO reading this,, you're about a week or two overdue since that last war expired, send some more people please) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yubyubsan Posted March 7, 2009 Report Share Posted March 7, 2009 Eh, dumb though. Not saying YOU are, by the way, hi Smooth.I just believe in PZI and ZI. Dude wants to reroll his nation, I don't care, let him. The whole "We will kill you if your name is @@@ .. You can be @@@@, but not @@@". Dumb. You should join GOD. 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.