Probationary Zero Infrastructure (PrZI)

[Diogenes]

Part of it is, why would ANYONE in their right mind trust any of these damn people to begin with? Not a single one of them is truthworthy, so why would you trust them to determine what is a legitimate slip up and what isn't?

That's the exact point I was trying to make. Theoretically you could be ZI'd for something as petty as failing to buy infrastructure for a month. Obviously that isn't a very logical scenario, but it's still a plausible one.

Like many others who have posted in this topic, I am against PZI and EZI in general. However, I still think this would be an improvement over the status quo.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Quiziotle

[D34th]

I have a question. Is this in any way related to the NSO situation? They have a number of ZI/PZI listed nations carrying their AA and this appears to me to be a way to alleviate that situation.

Currently we have ZI/PZI nations allowed within the NSO but unable to grow or be aided. With this new policy would those nations in the NSO on ZI/PZI lists be granted probation?

It just occurred to me that this proposal came at a time when ZI/PZI nations and alliance membership has come to be a major issue albeit a localised one.

This guy has a point here.

[AlaricTheGreat]

P-ZI = Fail

In any form, no matter what someone did, unless it was OOC, and even then it should be up to Mod team to take action against them.

Such actions are directly aimed at forcing players to stop playing this game and destroy whole communities.

Those who order other players to be P-ZI should be banned from this game imo.

I have to agree with most of the above quote. This entire concept of anything beyond regular ZI is really overkill, and smacks of players overstepping their boundaries into gameplay moderation territory. If someone goes beyond the bounds of good sense and delves into OOC attacks, even attacks on RL properties such as DDoS attacks and the like that we've seen lately, their punishment should be left up to the game moderators and the local authorities, if need be.

Some people look at PZI-EZI as helping the game by forcing out what they consider to be "bad elements", but unless it is really written in stone, some people take that ability to enforce their own moral code on someone who may have been trying to have a bit of fun, i.e. nuke roguery and the like. Grow up, and move on with life. It's way too short to waste it by holding grudges for years.

This also ties into tracking IP's and such, which is another disgraceful act imo, but that's for another thread.

Edit: I seem to have fallen in love with the word "really".

Edited March 11, 2009 by Alaric the Great

[Earogema]

Another form of ZI?

Really?

[Gruthenia]

Only in CN would aping the real life penal system be considered an improvement over the status quo :lol:

[Goose]

While your idea* has merit, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this idea is put forth simply to allow the blood-lust of larger nations to be satiated.

StrongNation: We have no targets!

Gov't: We have lots of targets!

StrongNation: They're all ZI and have been there for months. I need wars now!

Gov't: Oh. I have an idea. Let's let the ZI people be off of ZI, but get a contract written that wherever they go, we can attack them for any reason we make up in the future when they've grown!

StrongNation: Brilliant! I want blood!

EDIT: *The idea I'm referring to is Tyga's, but I fail at quotes and am too lazy to fix it. The idea of probationary ZI has no merit in my opinion.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Goose

[SonOfHoward]

Once the punishment of ZI is dealt then it should be over. If they mess up again, ZI them again.

[Qaianna]

Once the punishment of ZI is dealt then it should be over. If they mess up again, ZI them again.

This seems to be a codification of that sentiment. As well as making sure that anyone who takes the nation in isn't surprised to see the tanks rolling in.

I can see this as a step above a single zero-infrastructure item.

And are you really going to tell me that an alliance is going to roll over when what they think is a bogus reason to attack is presented?

Theres' a lot of heat directed at people who are angry enough to invoke a zero-infrastructure sentence on someone, but please remember that they are, actually, real people with real feelings. It's gotten 'cool' lately to just mock anyone treaty linked to the New Pacific Order as pixel-chasers and thugs.

And 'play the game the way I want to' in an inherently player vs player game is really looking for trouble, since then you run afoul of people who want to play the game as a huge troop of police. Especially when they see X as something that ruins the game overall, regardless of what X is. I'm not defending, but 'the way I want to' isn't really a defence of play styles. Unless you admit it's OK to play like a huge troop of police if you and your 2,000 friends want to.

Oh, and to the earlier commenter who suggested that the powers that be act against those who practice eternal zero-infrastructure? The most recent statement from said powers was it's a consequence of things and he wasn't planning to come down on it. There's a thread somewhere with it.

Bottom line, the various forms of ZI are used now because that's what's allowed in-game. If you don't like the idea, then find something else that can really say 'Stop it, we are tired of you doing X' and stick. Please.

And for those who want to say 'grow a thicker skin'..well, ZI victims should grow a thicker skin if that's how you want to debate it. Try something more constructive, please.

[ironchef]

I have to apologies for my gross neglect of this thread. I will try to keep up with questions as best I can. B)

PZI and EZI are ridiculous. It's players stepping into the role of moderators.

As to your proposal, it essentially makes one a slave of the alliance they've wronged. It would be better to die than live that way.

There are some members of PB that do live that way. In peace mode because they are on Pzi or Ezi. This is an alternative to that. They can grow their nation, join an alliance, and as long as they do not commit the crimes they did in the past they have nothing to worry about. I know if I was on a Pzi or Ezi list and was given the opportunity to be on probation I would take it.

I think you should spend a few months with an alliance over your shoulder watching your every move making sure you don't get accepted to certain alliances and making sure you don't hold certain positions before coming up with this kind of crap.

All this is is a way to take a crime that once constituted a few weeks of war and keeping it a sentence that will hang over the person's head forever. You state that people change, and then spell out another policy which will prevent people from being able to change and rejoin the game properly unless you decide they can. This is no improvement at all, just more of the same abuses of power with a different hat on.

I thank you for taking the time to share your opinion of this idea with me Random. In response to the part I have put in bold. All this is is a way to take a crime that once constituted a Pzi or Ezi and make it a sentence that will let them rejoin an alliance and grow their nation.

This is like a PZI but allowing you to raid the person when convenient and not have to go to the effort of actually keeping them down. It is also asking for major diplomatic incidents when you want to re-ZI the person and their current alliance tells you to get lost (paper signed under duress can reasonably be determined not to be a binding treaty).

Why would they be under duress? All they are doing is taking in a member that has been on a Pzi or Ezi list to give them another chance. They would do this knowing full well if said member repeats the same crimes he was convicted of again he will be attacked. It’s an honor issue; the two alliances involved would have to be on the same page with dealing with this member for it to work.

I have a question. Is this in any way related to the NSO situation? They have a number of ZI/PZI listed nations carrying their AA and this appears to me to be a way to alleviate that situation.

Currently we have ZI/PZI nations allowed within the NSO but unable to grow or be aided. With this new policy would those nations in the NSO on ZI/PZI lists be granted probation?

It just occurred to me that this proposal came at a time when ZI/PZI nations and alliance membership has come to be a major issue albeit a localised one.

Well Tyga, I would like to claim this idea came as a way to give new members of NSO the opportunity to grow their nations like any of us. But it’s been something rattling around in my head for about a month now. I may be getting soft in my old age

If you made it so PrZI had a time limit on it I'd agree to it. Meaning you are on PrZI for a period of so many months prior to being a free man etc.

Firestorm that would be up to the alliances involved. This is just an alternative to what we have now

[Dochartaigh]

meh. ZI should be the only punishment used. PrZI, PZI, or EZI should never be used. in the case of DDoS or any such, that is what the mods and admin are for or your ISP/Forum tech people.

PrZI is just a different form of PZI as you force the nation to have to go to a foreign alliance to make decisions for him/her.

[Penguin]

Why do we need to institutionalize freedom? Would it not be easier to simply relinquish all claims on a nation when they assume their new identity? The only reason for the processing seems to be to encourage rerolls to reveal themselves instead of going into hiding so that a closer watch and tighter leash can be kept on them. That being said, I'm glad that new and unexpected voices are at least coming closer to the conclusion that many of us have reached a while ago; rerolls ought to have a fresh start.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Penguin

[Qaianna]

I've seen folks talk about rerolls here, but I don't think that's the point.

This seems like a way to let someone off with a 'Don't anger us again', WITHOUT the rerolling and the trashing of wonders (as well as losing neat native resources, like lead) involved.

Assuming the accused really doesn't want anything more to do with the alliance wronged, they just pack up, move along, let their new friends know they have some baggage, everything's aboveboard, and as long as the accused doesn't do something ZI-worthy, they get let off--and without having to scrap the nation. How's this bad?

And remember, the idea is something to replace permanent and eternal ZI with. Think of it as something else in the big bag of options.

[Feanor Noldorin]

I've got an awesome idea, what about keeping ZI and PZI for only the worst crimes, like when it was originally handed out, so we don't have to have some complex system of signing off and whatnot that most of us won't pay attention to anyways.

Pretty much.

[Ragashingo]

I've seen folks talk about rerolls here, but I don't think that's the point.

This seems like a way to let someone off with a 'Don't anger us again', WITHOUT the rerolling and the trashing of wonders (as well as losing neat native resources, like lead) involved.

Assuming the accused really doesn't want anything more to do with the alliance wronged, they just pack up, move along, let their new friends know they have some baggage, everything's aboveboard, and as long as the accused doesn't do something ZI-worthy, they get let off--and without having to scrap the nation. How's this bad?

And remember, the idea is something to replace permanent and eternal ZI with. Think of it as something else in the big bag of options.

You could more easily do the "don't anger us again" by saying "don't anger us again" to the nation and then letting it go free. If they anger you again you ZI them again.

And so what if it is another tool in that bag of options. All the options in that bag, including this new one, are horrible.

[Qaianna]

You could more easily do the "don't anger us again" by saying "don't anger us again" to the nation and then letting it go free. If they anger you again you ZI them again.

And so what if it is another tool in that bag of options. All the options in that bag, including this new one, are horrible.

And if that worked in all cases, what a wonderful world it would be. Sadly, it doesn't.

I did actually think of a real flaw in this, though. This may give a new alliance less incentive to 'assist' in rehabilitating someone. Say that Sample Nation angers an alliance to this state, then joins New Alliance Two. The new alliance may decide to step aside and let their new member get bombed flat rather than subtly remind him that as he goes, so goes their alliance. 'You're hanging out in our clubhouse..mind not throwing rocks at the cops now?' Granted, I don't know if anyone would do that, either, or if it's any different.

I think the 'papers' part might be a bit formal, given some thought. However, seriously, if you don't like what's in the bag, come up with something better. If the model you're suggesting were so great..wouldn't it be the dominant one?

And how do you propose leaders banish the emotion in them that makes them wary about someone who's wronged them before?

[Virillus]

No form of ZI other than regular ZI is at all justifiable. This idea only creates another form of control in a game community already heavy with player oppression.

This idea is much better.

I'm going to agree with my esteemed colleague on this one.

[jerdge]

I apologize for not having the time to read beyond the first page (sorry).

Ironchef, congratulations for your change of mind about PZI and EZI.

Your idea is quite complicated, and it would eventually start to wear thin the day the new alliance of the Nation on PrZI will think that the original reason for ZI, or the new one (or both) are bullcrap.

In fact, the main problem with this concept of yours is sovereignty, and I'm afraid that your choice of words denounces that you probably didn't think enough about that. There are no "crimes" in CN (the only crimes that happen related to CN, actually happen in RL), and there are thus no "offenders", and no universally recognized institutions that can keep and mantain you "Papers of Probation" (with a minimum of credibility).

You wrote that «The new alliance will have to sign off stating that they understand this new member is open to attacks if they violate their probation», but who will decide whether that new member actually violated his probation? Here your theory - otherwise commendable in several ways - wrecks.

Mind you: the issue of what actually happened, and who can legitimately assess what happened, isn't a theoretical problem, that doesn't touch us... Just think at the never ended disagreement over who was in charge of applying and enforcing the FAN-NPO Surrender Terms that came after the first VietFAN. Or - in our days - the debate about what Jarheads were actually planning.

The fact that there's currently a military hegemony that can (more or less) impose its will is another thing that doesn't actually solve the problem of lack of a source of legitimacy in CN politics.

Ironchef, you need to invent a global legal institution before you can try to implement a global legality. Otherwise we can always resort to bilateral or multilateral accords, but these will last only as long as there will be the political will, the power and (sometimes) the personal relationship that gave birth to them.

Conlcuding, anyway, I commend you for the effort of creativity displayed with your work. Keep this kind of things coming!

[Unko Kalaikz]

P/EZI was always kind of retarded anyway if you think about it. In cases of competent players who actually constitute a threat, they can just reroll and pose a threat out of your sight, and with good reason too since you're the one continuing the war with them. If they are stupid, there really is no reason to hold them down like that is there?

Personally, if I were the head of a major alliance, I would squash my enemy and then let him go... keep an eye on him, perhaps recruit him or use him in some fashion or another. P/EZI is an easy way to solve the problem, but it's hardly effective, plus some of them get loud and squeeky on these forums.

[hizzy]

This is pretty pointless.

Paperwork for probation? What the hell? If someone gets ZI'd, and then joins another alliance afterwards, then he's in the clear anyways. If he does something AGAIN to earn a ZI, then his home alliance will either agree, or defend him. The paperwork is just pointless because in either situation the bottom line is "do BOTH parties agree with the ZI". If not, there will be an issue.

[A Soviet Attack]

ZI with pointless paperwork? Sounds good to me. At least it's better than PZI/EZI.

[New Reverie]

haven't bothered to read the other posts, and i'm sure it has been asked/suggested, but why a life long probation. I think a probationary period is a great idea, but lifelong?

I'd rather support the creation of a set of mandates for suggested punishments for various crimes in CN. I think a combination of ZI followed by a reasonable cost amount of reparations during which the offending nation be on probation would be a much better system.

For Example:

Spying(not using spies in game): ZI followed by payments of 1M for each week spied

What reasons do people get ZI'd for anyway? I know there are a couple alliances out there that are pretty ZI happy, but I hardly recall any good reason for ZI'ing someone. Most the reasons I see tend to be trumped up and appear more associated with boredom/personal vendettas, ie ZI because we felt like it.

[New Reverie]

Also, needs better acronym.

You should come up with a form of ZI with the acronym PONZI and form it into some sort of ZI pyramid scheme.

[shahenshah]

I have another idea: ZI someone once if you must and then allow everyone to move on.

Really, all your idea does is legitimises prolonged punishment and excessive control over nations who have only committed basic IC crimes (nuke roguery and spying), and are therefore not deserving of over-the-top punishment in the first place.

In your opinion..what are excessive and moderate IC crimes?

[jer]

In your opinion..what are excessive and moderate IC crimes?

There aren't any excessive IC crimes because it is just a game. If you see something like nuclear rogueing as a dispicable, disgraceful act that requires the perpetrators to be taught long-standing lessons then you're taking it too seriously and should probably go on hiatus for a while to get some perspective back.

[Starcraftmazter]

This is the most stupid idea ever. This is a game - get over it. You are trying to take things so seriously, it is nothing short of depressing, and a complete detriment to new players.

I also totally disagree with your stance on OOC and your failed assumptions which go along with it. All OOC attacks are a simple matter of opinion, and nobody's opinion should have authority over anyone else's. Ever.

Edited March 11, 2009 by Starcraftmazter