Probationary Zero Infrastructure (PrZI)

[Xiao Weng]

what the hell is all this nonsense

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Okay so we thought that the silver trainers were a bit outdated, so here's some blue ones, but these ones have lights on! WEEEWOOOWEEWOO!

Why do we resort to such extreme sentences? It's all or nothing when it comes to infra. Why not, half someones infrastructure or remove a specific percentage of someone's infra depending on the crime. Instead of deciding whether they get all infra removed once, or all infra removed for this character or all infra removed forever.

Of course, we can't be seen to be going soft can we, so lets cover an existing policy in glitter and call it something fancy.

Then again if I'm being optimistic about this to some degree, at least you are trying to change things and adapt and evolve the community. So thank you for that.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Johnny Apocalypse

[ModusOperandi]

Sorry, I really think that "ZI" is enough; I don't believe in PZI/EZI which really are the exact same thing.. coded veils with which the "have's" convince their opponents to abandon the game.

Once someone has been taken down to zero infrastructure, that should be enough; I've never understood the sado-masochism of preventing someone from playing because "you can" or because "he or she can't be trusted to play the game our way ZOMG".

I look forward to a day when a bunch of alliances band together and mutually agree that PZI hurts the game; ironically, many of the alliances that enforce PZI were once spared from it back in the day.

[Ragashingo]

With all due respect to those of you who are trying to emphasize "fairness" by challenging practices such as EZI, you fail to understand that the world is not yours to police, and that there is no global legislation governing Bob. Every alliance is entitled by its very sovereignty to establish its own practices and enforce them as they see fit. There may exist a vague consensus, but that is only the sum of more alliances reaching the same conclusions.

This renders your views irrelevant, and is the reason why such practices are able to exist unaltered in spite of the countless threads advocating their demise or proposing change.

We all understand this with regards to tech raiding, what makes EZI so special that it requires countless debate? If a member of an alliance gets tech raided, the alliance is left with the choice of action. If an alliance engages in reckless tech raiding, it's faced with the eventual consequences. If one of your members is found to be a re-roll on such a list, you are left with a choice.

Don't think it's fair? Then by all means, fight to defend your member either diplomatically, or ultimately by military force. In the end, you will find you're fighting against said alliance's policy of EZI, much in the same way an alliance would get rolled for its absurd tech raiding policy. If you lack the guts to back your view on this matter with concrete actions, you are just wasting your and our time for nothing with futile advocation and debate.

PZI or plain old ZI, what's wrong with them? Childish, yes, but this is a game, and a game has to have losers. Think it's a grave injustice? Fight against it. Nobody does, because in the end they don't care enough. Why the fuss then?

You will never obtain anything unless you are ready to back up your views with action.

In RL, the Geneva conventions are repeatedly broken by some of the very same entities that established them, yet nobody does anything about it. Tell me then, what good do they bring to the people who continue to die regardless of their existence?

Just because you don't think it is worth talking about doesn't make it so. It is the right of an alliance to enact whatever ZI policy it chooses, and it is my right (and the rights of others) to attempt to change their minds with talk. If you don't like discussion of issues you are free to leave.

Edited March 13, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Virillus]

With all due respect to those of you who are trying to emphasize "fairness" by challenging practices such as EZI, you fail to understand that the world is not yours to police, and that there is no global legislation governing Bob. Every alliance is entitled by its very sovereignty to establish its own practices and enforce them as they see fit. There may exist a vague consensus, but that is only the sum of more alliances reaching the same conclusions.

This renders your views irrelevant, and is the reason why such practices are able to exist unaltered in spite of the countless threads advocating their demise or proposing change.

We all understand this with regards to tech raiding, what makes EZI so special that it requires countless debate? If a member of an alliance gets tech raided, the alliance is left with the choice of action. If an alliance engages in reckless tech raiding, it's faced with the eventual consequences. If one of your members is found to be a re-roll on such a list, you are left with a choice.

Don't think it's fair? Then by all means, fight to defend your member either diplomatically, or ultimately by military force. In the end, you will find you're fighting against said alliance's policy of EZI, much in the same way an alliance would get rolled for its absurd tech raiding policy. If you lack the guts to back your view on this matter with concrete actions, you are just wasting your and our time for nothing with futile advocation and debate.

PZI or plain old ZI, what's wrong with them? Childish, yes, but this is a game, and a game has to have losers. Think it's a grave injustice? Fight against it. Nobody does, because in the end they don't care enough. Why the fuss then?

You will never obtain anything unless you are ready to back up your views with action.

In RL, the Geneva conventions are repeatedly broken by some of the very same entities that established them, yet nobody does anything about it. Tell me then, what good do they bring to the people who continue to die regardless of their existence?

Personally, I like talking about things. It's fun, and it passes the time when I should be doing my papers;)

[crushtania]

A promising compromise.

[Londo Mollari]

Lol at all the people who say that ZI = players acting as mods. ZI (and continuing to attack after ZI) is a completely in game mechanism. It does not prevent players from playing the game by any means, it simply means that the ZIed character (or the ZIed player, in the case of EZI) have earned the enmity of an alliance and will not be gaining much power in game to harm his enemies.

It's rather stupid of people to believe that they can do whatever they want without regard for others and somehow have this magical get out of jail free card at ZI. Going rogue at random (i.e. not for IC reasons but for OOC boredom/quitting) on someone shows absolutely no respect for another player (not just his character). Because such an attack is indeed made by a player on another player, I fully support punishing such an act with PZI or EZI, and only let off of either form of ZI if the wronged party is convinced that the rogue has reformed and, as a player, gained respect for the other players.

Going "rogue" for IC reasons should never be punished by EZI provided that the "rogue" admits defeat of his IC character (i.e. he won't come back on you again for the same reasons) and rerolls in good faith (perhaps even under the same name as a rebirth). The reason I use quotes is that I don't feel that it's possible to go "rogue" for IC reasons, and I wouldn't label someone who made such attacks as such. If a nation wronged you in the past, or if an alliance destroyed yours in the past, and you attack them to get revenge, this is only natural. I also believe that surrender terms should always be offered in such cases to a nation, just as they would be to an alliance, so that it would only be a PZI (or perhaps even only ZI) if that is what the attacker makes it.

As far as using OOC methods to achieve IC ends (spying, forum-hacking, DDOS attacks, etc...) it really varies. I don't think EZI is out of line for hacking someone's forum, but it probably would be for a DDOS attack or spying.

As far as the PrZI.... seems kind of silly. If you think people should be let off let them off. If they wrong you again, attack them again and don't let them off again.

[hizzy]

Lol at all the people who say that ZI = players acting as mods. ZI (and continuing to attack after ZI) is a completely in game mechanism. It does not prevent players from playing the game by any means, it simply means that the ZIed character (or the ZIed player, in the case of EZI) have earned the enmity of an alliance and will not be gaining much power in game to harm his enemies.

^In this paragraph you advocate anything within the mechanics of the game.

It's rather stupid of people to believe that they can do whatever they want without regard for others and somehow have this magical get out of jail free card at ZI. Going rogue at random (i.e. not for IC reasons but for OOC boredom/quitting) on someone shows absolutely no respect for another player (not just his character). Because such an attack is indeed made by a player on another player, I fully support punishing such an act with PZI or EZI, and only let off of either form of ZI if the wronged party is convinced that the rogue has reformed and, as a player, gained respect for the other players.

^In this paragraph you denounce players who have done nothing outside of the game mechanics, chalk it up to "absolutely no respect for the player (that they're attacking)", and completely ignore the fact that you just advocated chasing players across rerolls 7 seconds earlier.

What is this web that you're spinning?

[delendum]

Just because you don't think it is worth talking about doesn't make it so. It is the right of an alliance to enact whatever ZI policy it chooses, and it is my right (and the rights of others) to attempt to change their minds with talk. If you don't like discussion of issues you are free to leave.

I wasn't challenging your right to talk about it, I was trying to point out that talk alone won't solve the problem - a proven fact given that this is by no means a new topic of discussion. I personally don't believe you can change the right people's minds by constantly bringing it up, you're actually more likely to nag them to a point where they'll keep it up just to piss you off.

It's also my right to attempt to change your approach, or at least to point out its naivety.

Personally, I like talking about things. It's fun, and it passes the time when I should be doing my papers;)

So do I, hence why I'm here

[Epiphanus]

lol, oh the irony.

[Electron Sponge]

When the hegemony is overthrown I'll advocate that the GGA triumvirate is only put on Probationary Zero Infrastructure. I am very benevolent.

[Epiphanus]

Should be worth mentioning (sorry if it has been already in this thread) more red tape on getting off PZI lists isn't much of an incentive. Especially if an alliance decides, well I don't like him even though he's on PrZI, so I'm just going to ZI him for the fun of it. Great... PrZI's nation just got owned because his alliance can't help him.

[Kryievla]

As someone who does not care for EZI or PZI, I am supportive of this. It is a compromise that allows a way to let folks continue playing the game, while those same alliances that normally practice ezi/pzi can feel that they are not compromising their own alliance safety.

This policy (or something similar maybe, I like a couple thoughts I saw here, such as setting a time limit, maybe doing without the papers, instead having alliances keep track of it themselves), is something that I can get behind.

[Londo Mollari]

^In this paragraph you denounce players who have done nothing outside of the game mechanics, chalk it up to "absolutely no respect for the player (that they're attacking)", and completely ignore the fact that you just advocated chasing players across rerolls 7 seconds earlier.

What is this web that you're spinning?

Not at all. I support any action within the game mechanics for in character reasons. Say some nation that I tech raided in the past decides to get a MP and attack and nuke me, and tells me why he's doing it. Well, I wouldn't be too happy, but I'd understand his reasoning, and he wouldn't be PZIed unless he chose to keep fighting and not accept the surrender terms that Athens would hand down. (same goes for any of our members, I just helped start off the ZI/PZI/whatever of a nuke rogue who hit one of our members for OOC reasons).

[Buds The Man]

PZI and EZI have no place in the game period. You take them too ZI and let them go. Probation is nothing more than shackling a players leg. If you do something to anger us well recommence the ZI and no one will aid you. I just think it leaves to many loop holes. Goose probably put it best once teh nataion has returned to a reasonable size they could be hit again for anything.

Also with out a time limit on the probabtion it would just continue to suck the fun out of the game.

[Galapagos]

To be honest, the very idea of players acting as administrators rubs me the wrong way.

We have to keep in mind that this is a game, and some lines should be drawn in the interest of the player base.

[Ragashingo]

Lol at all the people who say that ZI = players acting as mods. ZI (and continuing to attack after ZI) is a completely in game mechanism. It does not prevent players from playing the game by any means, it simply means that the ZIed character (or the ZIed player, in the case of EZI) have earned the enmity of an alliance and will not be gaining much power in game to harm his enemies.

xZIs often affect more that the player they are levied on. Alliances of hundreds have been beaten into the ground and then been placed under extremely harsh and long lasting terms for accepting, sometimes unknowingly, a single xZIed person. It essentially tells that person that they can't join ANY community in this game unless they decide to change their name and pretend to be someone else forever without ever slipping and revealing who they previously were.

It's rather stupid of people to believe that they can do whatever they want without regard for others and somehow have this magical get out of jail free card at ZI. Going rogue at random (i.e. not for IC reasons but for OOC boredom/quitting) on someone shows absolutely no respect for another player (not just his character). Because such an attack is indeed made by a player on another player, I fully support punishing such an act with PZI or EZI, and only let off of either form of ZI if the wronged party is convinced that the rogue has reformed and, as a player, gained respect for the other players.

Holding a player's nation down permanently or eternally shows even less respect in my opinion. It's saying that you, someone who is playing the game the way you want to, have chosen to deny that ability to another player. Have some respect for your fellow players and let them play after you have taught them a lesson.

Going "rogue" for IC reasons should never be punished by EZI provided that the "rogue" admits defeat of his IC character (i.e. he won't come back on you again for the same reasons) and rerolls in good faith (perhaps even under the same name as a rebirth). The reason I use quotes is that I don't feel that it's possible to go "rogue" for IC reasons, and I wouldn't label someone who made such attacks as such. If a nation wronged you in the past, or if an alliance destroyed yours in the past, and you attack them to get revenge, this is only natural. I also believe that surrender terms should always be offered in such cases to a nation, just as they would be to an alliance, so that it would only be a PZI (or perhaps even only ZI) if that is what the attacker makes it.

I think we more or less agree here except for the part where you draw a line in the sand and more or less say: "Actions up to here are ok, but past here and we won't ever let you up."

As far as using OOC methods to achieve IC ends (spying, forum-hacking, DDOS attacks, etc...) it really varies. I don't think EZI is out of line for hacking someone's forum, but it probably would be for a DDOS attack or spying.

I don't think ZI or any of the xZIs should be used for OOC activities such as hacking, DOSing, etc. At that point it becomes a legal / mods question of whether a player should continue playing the game and it should not be for other players to decide. The one exception that I make to this is spying. Spying (not hacking then spying or anything like that) is a part of the culture of these kinds of games and I don't think the mods or legal issues should come into play with it. So in my opinion spying can and should be a reason for wars, and ZIs, but I still don't support any of the xZIs for spying.

As far as the PrZI.... seems kind of silly. If you think people should be let off let them off. If they wrong you again, attack them again and don't let them off again.

Darn, you almost had it up until the "... and don't let them off again" part.

Edited March 14, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Ragashingo]

I wasn't challenging your right to talk about it, I was trying to point out that talk alone won't solve the problem - a proven fact given that this is by no means a new topic of discussion. I personally don't believe you can change the right people's minds by constantly bringing it up, you're actually more likely to nag them to a point where they'll keep it up just to piss you off.

You're right, talk alone without action does nothing. But I would point out that just recently we saw some action on this front from the New Sith Order. They decided to accept players on xZI lists into their alliance. That removes half of my complaints against xZI, the part where players are denied the ability to safely join a community. So far they are the only ones (of note?) that are doing this, but it has to start somewhere.

It's also my right to attempt to change your approach, or at least to point out its naivety.

Indeed.

(Though I disagree on the naivety part )

Edited March 14, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Londo Mollari]

xZIs often affect more that the player they are levied on. Alliances of hundreds have been beaten into the ground and then been placed under extremely harsh and long lasting terms for accepting, sometimes unknowingly, a single xZIed person. It essentially tells that person that they can't join ANY community in this game unless they decide to change their name and pretend to be someone else forever without ever slipping and revealing who they previously were.

I can only comment on my own use of ZI as an alliance leader, really... and all I can say is that I can't see this happening. For one thing, some measure of diplomacy should be exercised by any decently civilized alliance, which Athens is. Blaming a tool because some people misuse it reeks of RL liberal nanny statism, which disgusts me.

Holding a player's nation down permanently or eternally shows even less respect in my opinion. It's saying that you, someone who is playing the game the way you want to, have chosen to deny that ability to another player. Have some respect for your fellow players and let them play after you have taught them a lesson.

For me, PZI means "we will continue to attack you until you start making amends for how you wronged us". In a lot of cases genuine regret or at least admittance of wrongdoing is all that is needed to get off such a list. If someone harms us and refuses to admit wrongdoing, refuses to apologize, refuses to negotiate a peace settlement for himself that is acceptable to us, then yes, we will continue attacking him for as long as we have the physical capability to do so, because he is still our enemy. When someone ceases to be an enemy the need for punishment has passed and the time for him to make amends has arrived. We strive to hold ourselves to a standard of justice over revenge, and decent behavior over petty tyranny. I am not an evil man.

I think we more or less agree here except for the part where you draw a line in the sand and more or less say: "Actions up to here are ok, but past here and we won't ever let you up.

If you read what I say more carefully, there is always a way out, no matter what an individual has done. I demand, however, that individuals do bear the consequences of their actions. It makes for a more civilized and decent world when people fear to do evil because of the law. The Law of Admin is only a framework within much vile behavior can occur - as I am sure you would agree. If wrongs are committed against us, we will see that they do not go unrequited, but I cannot imagine any wrong for which there is no hope of redemption.

As to the legal aspect, it would be essentially impossible to prosecute someone for offsite forum hacking, nor does CN moderation hold any kind of jurisdiction there, so the only way to hold individuals accountable for their actions is in game.

Darn, you almost had it up until the "... and don't let them off again" part.

I could, with a bit of effort, set up my nation such that I would be able to do several billion dollars worth of damage (probably even bill-locking huge and old nations and causing them to delete), while taking only a few hundred million in damages myself even from a ZI, and rebuild from my warchest to do it all over again in 2-3 months (if let go after ZI). I can understand forgiving a rogue once if he works to earn redemption for his crimes... but the game mechanics are designed such that a malevolent and savvy player can destroy years of other people's work while only losing a few months of his own. Suppose you found it in your heart to forgive a person for such crimes, even though the game mechanics make it impossible for him to make amends for such an action. Will you forgive him a second time if he does it again? If you would, then you certainly do not belong in alliance leadership, unless all of your members are fine with repeatedly forgiving someone who has driven THEIR friends and comrades out of the game and not taking steps to prevent this from recurring.

[ironchef]

When the hegemony is overthrown I'll advocate that the GGA triumvirate is only put on Probationary Zero Infrastructure. I am very benevolent.

I'm sure the GGA triumvirate would think this very benevolent Sponge . I also think there are people out there in peace mode that would be happy to be put on PrZI for a time frame determined by the alliances involved.

As for you that have said this is a bad idea because Pzi and Ezi should not be use at all. I would say to you, I wish this was the case. However they are used and for some this would be an alternative.

Yes it’s not perfect. Yes it may bring with it some issues and yes it’s not the best alternative to what we have now but it’s something. If anything I’m happy it’s got people talking about the issue in a constructive way and I hope to see the comments kept as such. No need to make pot shots at any one alliance or group of alliances in this thread. This is an intelligent discussion and it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to see all the people in here talking like this. Keep the ideas coming.

[Timeline]

You join an allaince for two reason, the main one of the two is protection, what's the point of doing so if some allaince who hold "PoP" over you can attack at will, do not come at me with, we will only attack with good reason, I have seen global wars started for no dam reason.

This idea will just give the powers that be a reason to attack or to get more technology.

if someone NUKES you and you ZI them, surely that alone covers the punishment, OOC attacks should be reported to the game mods.

also with PZI and EZI you are trying to control who plays the game, if they re-roll and you attack them that within its self is an OOC attack.

i wish people in CN would all use the same rule book, to many people here seem to change the rules to fit them.

[SoxNation]

You join an allaince for two reason, the main one of the two is protection, what's the point of doing so if some allaince who hold "PoP" over you can attack at will, do not come at me with, we will only attack with good reason, I have seen global wars started for no dam reason.

This idea will just give the powers that be a reason to attack or to get more technology.

if someone NUKES you and you ZI them, surely that alone covers the punishment, OOC attacks should be reported to the game mods.

also with PZI and EZI you are trying to control who plays the game, if they re-roll and you attack them that within its self is an OOC attack.

i wish people in CN would all use the same rule book, to many people here seem to change the rules to fit them.

completely agreed and Admin needs to fix the situation re PZI and EZI, he has given over control of his game to the players, who are forcing his customers to leave the game. A very bad business model IMHO.

[Epiphanus]

I'm sure the GGA triumvirate would think this very benevolent Sponge . I also think there are people out there in peace mode that would be happy to be put on PrZI for a time frame determined by the alliances involved.

As for you that have said this is a bad idea because Pzi and Ezi should not be use at all. I would say to you, I wish this was the case. However they are used and for some this would be an alternative.

Yes it’s not perfect. Yes it may bring with it some issues and yes it’s not the best alternative to what we have now but it’s something. If anything I’m happy it’s got people talking about the issue in a constructive way and I hope to see the comments kept as such. No need to make pot shots at any one alliance or group of alliances in this thread. This is an intelligent discussion and it makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to see all the people in here talking like this. Keep the ideas coming.

I don't have a problem with any alliance, but the fact that the former GGA Triumvir, now a .gov member of Valhalla, who once used a no-CB on an alliance because they aided a reroll saying the bolded sentence above in the context that it is said in makes me chuckle just a bit. 6 months too late my friends.

[Chickenzilla]

Hey Pip, the funny thing is, after about...what is it? 7? 8? months, they never had a reason for me being on their perma ZI list.

[TailsK]

Well, I've given this a bit of thought, and I can't say that I'm a fan of the idea. If someone is ZIed, ZI them and be done with it. Don't create another system of record keeping that results in a player being put on a leash. At least with a PZI or EZI, the nation involved knows exactly where they stand. People make mistakes, and some people repeat them. I think it's unfair that you would say that this person no longer has the right to be defended if they want to play the game.