In Response to Mr. Brookbank

[Nintenderek]

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

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.

First off, joining Blackstone or Vox is not the same gaming experience for everyone and not everyone enjoys it. He should be able to join any alliance he wants. Also, have you ever wondered why he started the log dumping? Because idiots wouldn't take him off PZI. The problem doesn't start with JB.

[Branimir]

Because idiots wouldn't take him off PZI. The problem doesn't start with JB.

Matter of perspective, because JB had to do something to the "idiots" to make them feel bad enough to enact this measure and continue to keep it. And no, it does not only equate to him being a founder of in game entity known as Vox as far as I am aware of it.

Now one can declare that he feels that going with their reasons they would not do the same, but its the "idiots" call and they feel JB done enough to them to keep acting this way.

Anyway, more on topic I would just like to commend Bama for linking to the written subject matter to which he is responding because previously indeed his response to it without the original piece was seriously lacking context.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Branimir

[jer]

Matter of prospective, because JB had to do something to the "idiots" to make them feel bad enough to enact this measure and continue to keep it. And no, it does not only equate to him being a founder of in game entity known as Vox as far as I am aware of it.

Now one can declare that he feels that going with their reasons they would not do the same, but its the "idiots" call and they feel JB done enough to them to keep acting this way.

What exactly has he done that warrants seven months of isolation?

It seems as though the "idiots" are offended rather easily and are rather trigger happy with their ZI sentencing (a practice which harms the game by turning players away), and with no-one apparently being willing to give a run-down of the terrible acts that JB has committed there is nothing to suggest that this is not the case. If you want to convince anyone that seven months on a ZI list is justified you really need to do more than just shrug your shoulders and saying 'he must've done something to annoy the "idiots"'.

[Branimir]

What exactly has he done that warrants seven months of isolation?

It seems as though the "idiots" are offended rather easily and are rather trigger happy with their ZI sentencing (a practice which harms the game by turning players away), and with no-one apparently being willing to give a run-down of the terrible acts that JB has committed there is nothing to suggest that this is not the case. If you want to convince anyone that seven months on a ZI list is justified you really need to do more than just shrug your shoulders and saying 'he must've done something to annoy the "idiots"'.

As it is mentioned in my post, indeed, people can say that they would not do the same in the "idiots" position. As you are now here.

Now I know that you are also basically asking me to elaborate the "idiots" position fully and their reasoning, but the problem here is that I am not one of those meaning, I have no power to put or put off EZI lists as such is the same in this case. I am not the right person to answer you.

[Goose]

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?

How incredibly delightful of you to ignore the actual content of my post and make a smarmy remark about my obviously sarcastic comment.

As to the issue of Jonathon Brookbank, from my understanding his crimes are ones of betraying trusts given and dumping logs. This happened at least twice. I perhaps am not the sharpest fellow to play the game, but would not the easiest solution to stopping him from dumping 'private' logs be to stop having private conversations with him? Perhaps I've missed something, but not talking to him would be the easiest way to protect yourself from his tendencies to log dump, not removing him from the game entirely. Unless, you feel that your actions have created such a bitter enemy that you must utterly remove him from the face of the planet (i.e. stop him from playing CN).

[Dochartaigh]

No:

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.

just wanted you to note when JB talked to iamthey. Apparently to IRON PZI=EZI. so yes, they do in fact have an EZI list, they just don't have the balls to call it that.

[ChairmanHal]

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.

This is EXACTLY the sort of response that disgusts me the most from the pro EZI crowd.

EZI tells a player that no matter what they do in the future, no matter how differently their new character lives his/her life (joins an alliance, becomes a positive role model, builds an impressive nation), nothing they have or accomplish matters and it can be taken away at a time and place of another player's convenience. You are therefore never free to play the game as it was intended to be played, again.

Were EZI used as a vigilante tool used maybe once by an alliance over a period of year to keep truly horrible players from creating nations that go nuke rogue on them at first opportunity over and over (something not banned by the rules of CN) you might even be able to make a case for it (note I said might). But it isn't. It's been used in the past for such horrendous crimes as being too mouthy to an alliance leader. Oh the horror!

You're being somewhat hypocritic to suggest that this is somehow wrong while at the same time being in an alliance that tech raids.

That's like suggesting that if I punch you in the stomach as you walk past me and steal your wallet, it's the same thing as if an Army sniper team stalks you and takes kill shots at you whenever you walk out your door.

No, not even remotely the same thing.

The simple solution to stop people from stealing your wallet is to join an alliance. There is no simple solution for the Army sniper team. Well there is always not playing at all...

Side note: Yes, it is possible to get relief from EZI if you are eloquent enough and if you are lucky enough. Most players simply don't care to spend the sometimes hours necessary to get off an EZI list and I frankly don't blame them. There are other things to do in life than trying to play a game where other players don't want you "in the fraternity".

[Electron Sponge]

I couldn't have said it better, ChairmanHal. I agree with everything you said.

In my eyes E-ZI is like a very targeted denial of service attack.

[jerdge]

just wanted you to note when JB talked to iamthey. Apparently to IRON PZI=EZI. so yes, they do in fact have an EZI list, they just don't have the balls to call it that.

This is not what FinsterBaby told me less than a week ago (and mind you: we were talking of Jonathan Brookbank). I'd consider rude to post here our conversation without his consent, but - considering that this forum is OOC and we're talking of the very serious issue of possible OOC offences - I will go so far as to say that I was asking to FB whether the lists including JB were «Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)», and FB said that IRON doesn't have E-ZI. I don't think we could be mistaken about what those words mean.

On the other hand, I can't comment on JB's log with Iamthey's words, as I didn't personally witness that conversation. Many explanations are possible, from FB using the wrong choice of words while talking with me, to Iamthey doing the same or just being incorrect, to IRON having changed its policy in the meanwhile, or even IRON not having a clear policy about their lists, etc.

I would dismiss as impossible the "I was drunk" explanation (my IRC logs aren't influenced by my alcoholemic level) and I also find the "IRON's doublespeak" explanation even less credible.

[Haflinger]

The simple solution to stop people from stealing your wallet is to join an alliance.

I hear this a lot, but when we live in a world where tech raiders DoW alliances with the casus belli that those alliances pose a threat to them because they defend their nations against tech raiders, I have to disagree with the logic.

[jer]

This is not what FinsterBaby told me less than a week ago (and mind you: we were talking of Jonathan Brookbank). I'd consider rude to post here our conversation without his consent, but - considering that this forum is OOC and we're talking of the very serious issue of possible OOC offences - I will go so far as to say that I was asking to FB whether the lists including JB were «Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)», and FB said that IRON doesn't have E-ZI. I don't think we could be mistaken about what those words mean.

There are a lot of assumptions here and I do think that you could be mistaken in your interpretations of those words. If all FB said was that IRON doesn't have anything they call EZI, then the possibility still remains that they have PZI and that their definition of PZI is the same as everyone else's definition of EZI (which would mean that under PZI IRON does chase people accross re-rolls). Did you question his definition of PZI?

[jerdge]

Did you question his definition of PZI?

I already said that:

I was asking to FB whether the lists including JB were «Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)», and FB said that IRON doesn't have E-ZI.

[Electron Sponge]

It doesn't matter what IRON calls it. They can say they don't have eternal ZI lists, they can call it happy fun ZI if they want. What they are doing in this instance is eternal ZI.

Just apply the duck test to it. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I would call it a duck.

[jer]

I already said that:

That's hardly a world class clarification though, is it? If he said IRON doesn't pursue accross re-rolls, that is clearer. All we can gather from his statement is that IRON doesn't have EZI... which we knew already. What we don't know is whether their definition of PZI includes chasing accross re-rolls (and is therefore EZI in all but name).

[Ejayrazz]

What did JB do to deserve such punishment? I am hearing many different stories - unless he DDoS attacked forums or told someone he will shove a shovel in their butt irl...well, this is nonsense. I like IRON and many other alliances which advocate EZI, however I do not agree with the concept.

I think CN needs to start functioning like a community in the sense where we distinguish OOC from IC. It is time the CN community unites in the sense where we all can agree we need each other for the game to continue and forcing someone out of the game without reasonable cause makes YOU the tyrant, not the victim. Only the community can fix this as a whole and until some people grow up and mature, we wont be able to do it. This is a classic example of OOC/IC which MANY seem not to grasp and it is why I despise IC because their IC ends up affecting their OOC.

[jerdge]

That's hardly a world class clarification though, is it? If he said IRON doesn't pursue accross re-rolls, that is clearer. All we can gather from his statement is that IRON doesn't have EZI... which we knew already. What we don't know is whether their definition of PZI includes chasing accross re-rolls (and is therefore EZI in all but name).

If I ask you "Is your ZI of thenextguy Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)", and you answer "We don't have E-ZI", what do you think you're meaning?

Besides, this discussion has become inappropriate enough as - of all people - I am certainly not qualified to explain IRON's policies. I mentioned what FinsterBaby told me just to explain that (IMHO) IRON isn't preventing JB from playing the game as it's meant to - and thus IRON is innocent of that charge placed against it.

That said, if you want a fully authored explanation of IRON's policies, please ask them.

[Ejayrazz]

Eh, so if JB changes his name he is let loose?

Edited March 23, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[jer]

If I ask you "Is your ZI of thenextguy Eternal (across re-rolls), or "only" Permanent (until he changes name)", and you answer "We don't have E-ZI", what do you think you're meaning?

Besides, this discussion has become inappropriate enough as - of all people - I am certainly not qualified to explain IRON's policies. I mentioned what FinsterBaby told me just to explain that (IMHO) IRON isn't preventing JB from playing the game as it's meant to - and thus IRON is innocent of that charge placed against it.

That said, if you want a fully authored explanation of IRON's policies, please ask them.

If you asked me personally then "I don't use E-ZI" would mean "I don't use E-ZI" because for clarity I follow the accepted definitions of CN - I want people to understand what I'm referring to when I say E-ZI so that appropriate conclusions can be drawn from my actions, which is why I don't create my own definitions. This situation is akin to IRON eating a banana, except they call it an apple. When people ask how IRON is enjoying their banana they promptly say that they're against the principle of bananas and only eat apples before proudly taking the next bite of the curvy yellow fruit.

IRON, unlike me, does not follow the accepted definitions, and look what happens? Confusion over their policies and their actions. This suits them just fine as they can swan around saying 'we don't have anything called EZI in IRON! We're good little boys'... all the while fulfilling everyone's definition of EZI quietly in the background under a different name.

As for you explaining their policies, I didn't ask you to, you just started doing it. Meh.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Aimee Mann

[Electron Sponge]

Eh, so if JB changes his name he is let loose?

That's not what FinsterBaby told him.

[Ejayrazz]

That's not what FinsterBaby told him.

EZI.

kk. Thanks.

[jerdge]

This situation is akin to IRON eating a banana, except they call it an apple.

No, the situation is akin to me asking "are you eating one of these?"

They say "yes", and then you claim they're eating bananas.

Anyway, I'm off this madness...

[Heft]

just wanted you to note when JB talked to iamthey. Apparently to IRON PZI=EZI. so yes, they do in fact have an EZI list, they just don't have the balls to call it that.

IRON had a PZI/ZI list before people started acting like "EZI" meant something new, and still does. IRON has never been a very active enforcer of that list, and it's generally been the case that if someone actually does start playing as a new character and doesn't bother IRON they're left unharassed and eventually formally removed. So, at least when talking about IRON, all this talk of "chasing" and "actively denying" or whatnot is at least a bit overblown. The list has never been that big (maybe 10 at most), and almost half of the names still on it are probably old GOONS leaders (404, banned member, etc). At least, that's been my experience. Also, I don't recall ever seeing IRON come hunting down some dude's IP Address because, honestly, we had more important stuff to worry about.

So, just as JB is at best a dubious case for the anti-PZI/EZI crowd, IRON is hardly the monster villain that some of you seem to assume.

As for trying to pigeonhole IRON policies in a nice little acronym, that's generally always been slightly difficult with IRON because IRON has always avoided legalistic expressions that would obligate it to a specific course of action (i.e, "well, you're on our EZI list, therefore we have to...." or "you're only PZI, so we have to...."). Instead, the alliance likes to be able to judge each individual situation on its own merits and make a decision that fits the case, rather than fits the popular terminology.

[Galapagos]

I'm surprised there aren't any rules in the ToS about cyber stalking IP's to keep players from enjoying the game. If anything it just detracts the community and game as a whole, so I'm not sure why admin wouldn't just ban these practices for the sake of keeping his game alive.

If they actually were doing this, I would be disappointed.

But, seeing JB is posting through friends from his banned account, I get the feeling he isn't willing to start over anyway.

[shahenshah]

: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.

He is playing the political game anyway, so that doesn't matter. He is free to make a nation and do whatever he wants with it. As much as we are free to have a nation and do however we like to play the game, which includes hunting down enemies in self-defense regardless of their size. It is not our fault that our size is bigger than his, since when did conflicts become equal in Cybernations? Every side tries to ensure the conflict is not equal and tilted on its favor, thats the rationale, some fail, some don't. Dont criticize us for others failures. It is funny to hear you advocate equal 'sizes', I'm sure you don't represent the views of your alliance, but the actions of that betray your thoughts .

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.

What scaremongering? All I am saying is people in IRON have as much free will to play the game in anyway they like as JB. Playing the 'size' card is just a clever way to disguise the situation. We defend every member equally, whether he has 1 NS or 100,000 NS, equally if trouble comes from a source with 0 NS or 100,000 NS, it will be dealt with regardless the size. You cannot possibly expect us not retaliate, be it 1 person or 1000, principle of self defense is a principle regardless of enemy's success or failures to muster enough pixels. Enemy must be smart enough to realize the numbers before he/she initiates hostilities. We are in an alliance, not a charity service for Bob, minor or major threat, threat is a threat and every member of IRON has equal right of defense.

Also we have seen how even 'single' nations can create alot of trouble for big alliances, You are obviously oblivious to what I am talking about otherwise you would not have said what you said.

And its not like he's not given a way out, he has squandered that option several times and every time he does it, he makes things worse. Again, don't criticise us for the failures of others. If he is unwilling to compromise and continue the conflict, why should we compromise. Does he has more rights than anyone else? I don't think so.

Edited March 23, 2009 by shahenshah

[Bob Janova]

Since you didn't even begin to address the points of mine you quoted, I'm going to take that as a concession.