In Response to Mr. Brookbank

[Count Rupert]

And so we come to the inevitable conclusion to this thread. You'll deal with the issue at your leisure, and an active player is banned from the game. Thanks for keeping us safe, IRON.

How is he banned from the game? He's free to start a new nation anytime he wishes. The whole premise of the game is players reactions to other players actions. His action of starting a new nation may certainly provoke a reaction he may not like, but it certainly doesn't prevent him from playing.

You're being somewhat hypocritic to suggest that this is somehow wrong while at the same time being in an alliance that tech raids. You're preventing unaligns and those in small alliances from playing the game as they would like. How is the situation with JB so different? Yet tech raiding is accepted by the CN community or at least condoned. So the community at large accepts that it's okay to prevent players from playing the game as they want. ZI/EZI lists may take this to a further extreme, but it's still the same concept already accepted by the community; it's okay to prevent players from playing as they want. It's only when not being allowed to play as one wants is a colorful character that is this hue and cry about how unfair it is.

[Virillus]

How is he banned from the game? He's free to start a new nation anytime he wishes.

[22:11] <Jonathan_Brookbank> I was curious as to what ZI list of yours I was on, and what the process for removal was.

[22:12] <Iamthey[iRON]> In IRON the term PZI and EZI are synonymous

[22:12] <Iamthey[iRON]> And the onlyway to get off is a majority vote of the council

[22:12] <Jonathan_Brookbank> So what do PZI and EZI mean to IRON?

[22:13] <Iamthey[iRON]> A PZI is a permenant ZI on all current and future characters of the individual

Unfortunatly, JB has an IP address.

[Ragashingo]

How is he banned from the game? He's free to start a new nation anytime he wishes. The whole premise of the game is players reactions to other players actions. His action of starting a new nation may certainly provoke a reaction he may not like, but it certainly doesn't prevent him from playing.

You're being somewhat hypocritic to suggest that this is somehow wrong while at the same time being in an alliance that tech raids. You're preventing unaligns and those in small alliances from playing the game as they would like. How is the situation with JB so different? Yet tech raiding is accepted by the CN community or at least condoned. So the community at large accepts that it's okay to prevent players from playing the game as they want. ZI/EZI lists may take this to a further extreme, but it's still the same concept already accepted by the community; it's okay to prevent players from playing as they want. It's only when not being allowed to play as one wants is a colorful character that is this hue and cry about how unfair it is.

Your entire tech raiding example is flawed. People that are tech raided are encouraged to join an alliance for protection. A *ZI player typically doesn't have that option. Think your example through next time.

[Kowalski]

Your entire tech raiding example is flawed. People that are tech raided are encouraged to join an alliance for protection. A *ZI player typically doesn't have that option. Think your example through next time.

But why should they have to be 'encouraged' to join an alliance for protection? They're being forced by the actions of others to go down a path they didn't want to in order to ensure the healthy growth of their nation. Of course they can choose not to and be raided. As CR says the EZI situation may more extreme but the principles are still the same.

[shahenshah]

Your entire tech raiding example is flawed. People that are tech raided are encouraged to join an alliance for protection. A *ZI player typically doesn't have that option. Think your example through next time.

He is free to join NSO or Blackstone collusion or his spokesperson. CZ joined NSO, did NSO get rolled? nopes.

A few points on JB.

1. He has come back at least once as a new character and was not bothered. It was later when he decided that he could not play as the new character that "Jonathan Brookbanks" was reborn. I therefore have a lot less sympathy for him than people who come back as a new character and only wish to play the game with a truly fresh start.

2. He has made a nuisance of himself not once, but repeatedly, luring people into talking with him in confidence and then log dumping whenever he decides the game isn't going his way. It's frankly hard to trust someone that does such a thing time and time again.

3. Context is indeed important. However, give his obvious love of drama...call me skeptical.

You forgot to add this person thinks NpO is ran by NPO and he thinks that seriously. :S

JB has been log-dumping, breaking trusts and squandering opportunities, really if someone isnt willing to help himself, why should anyone else bother.

Edited March 23, 2009 by shahenshah

[Ragashingo]

But why should they have to be 'encouraged' to join an alliance for protection? They're being forced by the actions of others to go down a path they didn't want to in order to ensure the healthy growth of their nation. Of course they can choose not to and be raided. As CR says the EZI situation may more extreme but the principles are still the same.

No, it's not just a more extreme case of the same thing. Putting someone on a ZI list is meant to keep them from playing the game the way they want to for a long period of time. A tech raid has no such intentions.

[Ragashingo]

He is free to join NSO or Blackstone collusion or his spokesperson. CZ joined NSO, did NSO get rolled? nopes.

I do love the NSO's policy on ZI list nations. It sorta breaks down the whole isolation factor of a ZI list by allowing the player to at least join an alliance again. That said are you really going to argue that ZI lists are ok because you can no longer eliminate every option a player has?

[Corinan]

He is free to join NSO or Blackstone collusion or his spokesperson. CZ joined NSO, did NSO get rolled? nopes.

We're actually not accepting applications from nations on ZI anymore. It turned out to be more trouble than it was worth, unfortunately. Not with the nations on ZI, but with the people who were hunting them.

[Ragashingo]

We're actually not accepting applications from nations on ZI anymore. It turned out to be more trouble than it was worth, unfortunately. Not with the nations on ZI, but with the people who were hunting them.

Thats sad to hear but understandable. Some alliances just don't know when to let go...

[Coursca]

I go into retirement and I end up missing all the fun.

I simply can't resist all of the juicy bits...

/me dons his tinfoil hat

We all know that IRON is only nice to TOOL at the orders of NPO.

/tinfoil

How insightful of you. Why don't you also tell us the one about how TOP is going to betray Gramlins, while you're at it?

Because that's what they think in Continuum leadership.

That attitude is long gone, at least when I had left Q. If it came back since my retirement, please, almighty Sponge, do tell.

BamaBuc I just wanted to say that I still do not like you.

I am sure he is going to cry himself to sleep now.

No, I'm not saying that, although such things do happen. But either you're posting with that agenda or you are overly cynical.

Lovely false dichotomy you've got there.

Perhaps Bama is being genuine (and knowing Bama, I think this is the most plausible explanation.)

It's unfortunate that people who try to take the actions you just endorsed get ZI'd. Eternally.

Yes, everyone that has taken arms against IRON or Pacifica has seen eternal ZI.

We want you to stop preventing people from playing the game.

Maybe we want people to not do things to get themselves ZIed in the first place. Nobody ever thinks of the Global Despot's feelings.

Also, JB had tons of chances, as is elucidated upon by Heft in the below quote.

Indeed. JB got more chances than most, and did a better job of squandering them than most. He had power, he retained influence, and in the end he wrecked himself, without any help from others. He's not exactly the poster-child for mistreatment. I understand the anti-EZI crowd and their sentiments and at this point I don't think it's really worthwhile to hold more than one or two, maybe three people to those lists, but JB is not the martyr you are looking for.

Exactly. Also, I miss you.

[King Srqt]

EZI is nothing but griefing and any other community in any other game chases people that do it out or outright bans the practice. The whole thing is honestly pathetic.

[Count Rupert]

Your entire tech raiding example is flawed. People that are tech raided are encouraged to join an alliance for protection. A *ZI player typically doesn't have that option. Think your example through next time.

You missed the point; it wasn't an example or anology to JB's situation. It was to point out the hypocrisy. In both situations; JB and an unaligned nation, both players are subject to actions by other players that do not allow them to play as they want. The community accepts the premise that it's okay to prevent a player from playing as they want. It's the whole foundation of the game; the unfettered freedom of players to react to other players' actions whether one likes the reaction or not. Yet the same people that accept it's okay to not let people play the game like they want if they're unaligned, want to make some sort of exception when it involves EZI because it involves not letting a player play the game as they want. That's hypocritic.

Granted, most of those on EZI lists are colorful characters and the drama is always a little better when it involves colorful characters which is why many want to see them kept around. It's usually doing something colorful that got them on the list in the first place. But there are many who have been or still are EZI lists playing the game. They've either worked to get themselves off the lists (Kaiser Martens is a recent good example) or have rerolled and truly been a new character and hence have gone undiscovered. JB in fact went a time as a re-roll undiscovered but wanted to be JB again or he could still be playing and this drama wouldn't exist.

What JB seems to want is to continue playing as JB, but have everyone forget who he was and what he did when he was JB, leader of nation X now that he's JB leader of nation Z. But JB is JB and it's hard to discern that there is any material difference in his being JB regards of what nation he leads. And that's where it gets murky. Some will make a distinction and some won't. Personally, I don't support the practice of EZI, I see a player having paid a pretty high price in the deleting on his nation and starting over. To extend punishment over to a new nation seems to be harsh and unnecssary; at least until such time as one does something to warrant it with the new nation. But I understand how some would still see JB as JB. It still comes down to the game being players reacting to other players. Right now that's an unfettered freedom limited only by what players agree to or can enforce. In otherwords, we in the game control that freedom. What seems to be wanted is for the game to dictate how other players react to JB and others on EZI lists. That's not in keeping with the way admin setup the game.

JB if he had a nation is certainly free to join an alliance. It's just given his status alliances are equally free to not accept him. And as I understand it, JB would be free to join the New Sith Order even with his EZI status.

[Ragashingo]

You missed the point; it wasn't an example or anology to JB's situation. It was to point out the hypocrisy. In both situations; JB and an unaligned nation, both players are subject to actions by other players that do not allow them to play as they want. The community accepts the premise that it's okay to prevent a player from playing as they want. It's the whole foundation of the game; the unfettered freedom of players to react to other players' actions whether one likes the reaction or not. Yet the same people that accept it's okay to not let people play the game like they want if they're unaligned, want to make some sort of exception when it involves EZI because it involves not letting a player play the game as they want. That's hypocritic.

And you're way oversimplifying.

EZI is generally the intention to:

1. Destroy the player's nation

2. Ridicule them on the public boards

3. Not let them join any major alliance, especially not ones they don't like

4. Track them by using any means necessary including writing style, posts on the boards and in IRC, and even things like IP addresses

A tech raid is nothing of the sort. It's a quick attack to gain a bit of tech. It's not personal.

Do you really not understand the difference?

Edited March 23, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Alicia]

And you're way oversimplifying.

EZI is generally the intention to:

1. Destroy the players nation

2. Ridicule them on the public boards

3. Not let them any major alliance, especially not one they don't like

4. Is personal.

A tech raid is nothing of the sort. Its a quick attack to gain a bit of tech. It's not personal.

Do you really not understand the difference?

19:27 @Ragashingo • Someone needs to quote me and tell me I fail at lists

You fail at lists.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Alicia

[Otto Verteidiger]

19:27 @Ragashingo • Someone needs to quote me and tell me I fail at lists

You fail at lists.

I'm John Kerry and I approve this fail.

[Chalaskan]

He was an interesting character regardless. Im sad to see him go. EZI is fail, imho.

[Ragashingo]

19:27 @Ragashingo • Someone needs to quote me and tell me I fail at lists

You fail at lists.

Apparently I do. All fixed now.

[Count Rupert]

And you're way oversimplifying.

EZI is generally the intention to:

1. Destroy the players nation

2. Ridicule them on the public boards

3. Not let them any major alliance, especially not one they don't like

4. Is personal.

A tech raid is nothing of the sort. Its a quick attack to gain a bit of tech. It's not personal.

Do you really not understand the difference?

Fundamentally it doesn't matter what the motives behind the actions are given the way the game is setup though; both deny a player from playing the game as they would like. You can argue that stealing a dollar is difference from stealing a million dollars but the basic underlying principle remains the same, it's stealing. What's usually different is the severity of the punishment. At least in the case of those on EZI lists, they did something to get placed on them unlike an unaligned nation who generally is just sitting there minding their own business when raiders come calling.

The basis of disagreement isn't that EZI isn't extreme or unnecessary; it's the believe that somehow those on EZI need to be given a clean slate to play the game as they want. That's where I find it hypocritic. Why should they be free of the consequences of their actions just so they can play the game as they want when no one else gets to? Those raided aren't being given clean slates to play as they want, they'll be raided over and over again. Nor are any of the other players who have be adversely affected by other players' actions. Everyone is expected to live with the consequences of their actions and the reactions to those actions. It's unfortunate that EZI is such a severe form of punishment, but those on such lists are not banned from playing as has been alleged a number of times in this thread. They may have to play within limitations, but then so do those who want to go it alone unaligned. But they are free to play.

[Ragashingo]

Fundamentally it doesn't matter what the motives behind the actions are given the way the game is setup though; both deny a player from playing the game as they would like. You can argue that stealing a dollar is difference from stealing a million dollars but the basic underlying principle remains the same, it's stealing. What's usually different is the severity of the punishment. At least in the case of those on EZI lists, they did something to get placed on them unlike an unaligned nation who generally is just sitting there minding their own business when raiders come calling.

The basis of disagreement isn't that EZI isn't extreme or unnecessary; it's the believe that somehow those on EZI need to be given a clean slate to play the game as they want. That's where I find it hypocritic. Why should they be free of the consequences of their actions just so they can play the game as they want when no one else gets to? Those raided aren't being given clean slates to play as they want, they'll be raided over and over again. Nor are any of the other players who have be adversely affected by other players' actions. Everyone is expected to live with the consequences of their actions and the reactions to those actions. It's unfortunate that EZI is such a severe form of punishment, but those on such lists are not banned from playing as has been alleged a number of times in this thread. They may have to play within limitations, but then so do those who want to go it alone unaligned. But they are free to play.

You know, I wrote up a post responding to you point by point again, but I deleted it because none of it matters. The fact that you equate a tech raid with putting someone on a ZI list is sad and horribly intellectually dishonest.

If you honestly can't understand the difference between using in game tools to do pretty much exactly what this game was designed to do, and tracking someone across nations and actively trying to limit their enjoyment then you aren't worth responding to anymore.

Good night.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Ragashingo

[jerdge]

JB if he had a nation is certainly free to join an alliance. It's just given his status alliances are equally free to not accept him. And as I understand it, JB would be free to join the New Sith Order even with his EZI status.

No:

We're actually not accepting applications from nations on ZI anymore. It turned out to be more trouble than it was worth, unfortunately. Not with the nations on ZI, but with the people who were hunting them.

About the OP, I agree with his sentiments about IRON. I was recently told by FinsterBaby that IRON has no EZI list, thus I don't see how IRON can be held responsible for keeping Jonathan from playing CN.

I can understand that Jonathan wants to keep his name and play CN (I would feel the same in his shoes), but he could also play CN with another name and a new identity (and a new behaviour, of course), without being hunted by those that don't have and don't support EZI lists.

Almost everybody here is not playing with his/her real name^[1]: JB can certainly do the same^[2] (or at least, it's not IRON that is blocking him from doing that).

Anyway, not using one's real name on the Internet - especially the name+surname combo - is always a good rule of thumb.

I am against PZI also, by the way, but anyway I think that the claim that Jonathan should be able to keep his character and play "without restrictions" is very naive. It equals to claiming that everybody should be free to play without any in-game consequence for his IC actions... A silly concept that I couldn't seriously support.

Notes:

[1] You don't think that my real name is "jerdge", do you?...

[2] I understand that he was banned on CN:SE, but as it was just for not having a Nation I'd imagine that he can come back.

[shahenshah]

No, it's not just a more extreme case of the same thing. Putting someone on a ZI list is meant to keep them from playing the game the way they want to for a long period of time. A tech raid has no such intentions.

So 800 people are not allowed to play the game the way they want to, compared to '1' person. And that also in reaction of the actions of that '1' person. How fair. We are not allowed to keep our interests in mind, but 1 person is, the person who is hell bent on squandering any and every chance that is offered to him. How can a conflict end when the person who started the conflict is unwilling to remove those irritants which caused the conflict in first place. His latest post as again revealed that he cannot be trusted with anything, his post again has revealed his unfriendly intentions. 800 people have as much right to defend themselves as that 1 person. You are asking us that we withdraw our right, right that is common for all in Bob, we have not asked anyone or even JB to withdraw his right, he is allowed to play the game anyway he seeks just like we're allowed to play the game anyway we wish but of course keeping it within the game rules.

Please, if you want to fight a moral case regarding ZI, at least don't choose the worst possible candidate to stand behind. Raga I remember you as a much more thoughtful person from your days in office of GATO. I understand your biasness against IRON because of your troubles with NPO in GATO. But I do hope you view things as objectively as you claimed while defending your case against NPO. Doing otherwise only shows more and more that NPO was right.

Edited March 23, 2009 by shahenshah

[jer]

So 800 people are not allowed to play the game the way they want to, compared to '1' person. And that also in reaction of the actions of that '1' person. How fair. We are not allowed to keep our interests in mind, but 1 person is, the person who is hell bent on squandering any and every chance that is offered to him. How can a conflict end when the person who started the conflict is unwilling to remove those irritants which caused the conflict in first place. His latest post as again revealed that he cannot be trusted with anything, his post again has revealed his unfriendly intentions. 800 people have as much right to defend themselves as that 1 person. You are asking us that we withdraw our right, right that is common for all in Bob, we have not asked anyone or even JB to withdraw his right, he is allowed to play the game anyway he seeks just like we're allowed to play the game anyway we wish but of course keeping it within the game rules.

There is no way every member of an alliance that dolls out EZIs is approving. I'd wager to say that most of them don't even know or understand the extent of EZI, it's impact or the superfluous reasons with which EZIs are justified. I'm not saying that this is because the relevant information is being hidden, I'm just suggesting that they probably don't care. They don't care about the one nation under attack and they don't care about the health of the game as a whole. But not caring is not the same as condoning or supporting, so you really cannot say that 800 people support your actions. It's a small group of people giving out this crap, everyone knows who they are. Please don't try to pin responsibility on a mass membership who sadly probably couldn't care less.

And again you're arguing that this *one person* is a major threat to you and your *hoards of followers*. It's pure scaremongering designed to justify keeping people on ZI for disgusting lengths of time and it's absolutely ludicrous and irrational.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Haflinger]

And you're way oversimplifying.

EZI is generally the intention to:

1. Destroy the player's nation

2. Ridicule them on the public boards

3. Not let them join any major alliance, especially not ones they don't like

4. Track them by using any means necessary including writing style, posts on the boards and in IRC, and even things like IP addresses

A tech raid is nothing of the sort. It's a quick attack to gain a bit of tech. It's not personal.

Do you really not understand the difference?

Yes, and ZIing and sanctioning someone because he sent a message to your team senator is perfectly fine and won't dissuade anyone from playing this game.

Right?

Perhaps I over-generalize, and all tech raiders don't engage in that kind of behaviour. But from this corner it certainly seems that some of them do, and until they stop doing it, the rest of the raiders in this game stand to benefit from the terror inspired by their actions.

[Bob Janova]

So 800 people are not allowed to play the game the way they want to, compared to '1' person. And that also in reaction of the actions of that '1' person.

:lol:

Okay I wasn't going to get into this, I've burnt myself out in EZI threads too often in the past. But come on. That's just ridiculous. Taking JB off your hit list does not affect the ability of IRON members to play the game the way they want to. I'm sure there is more to your community than the weekly 'Slots On JB Lottery' . Considering JB doesn't even have a nation now, it has no impact on anyone. He can play the political game against you from on ZI or off, anyway.

[auto98]

Not sure IC or OOC really matters "we want you dead" is not a death threat.