The EZICO

[Elderago]

I shall sign reasion being what jerge said below

Edited April 6, 2009 by sircrimson

[Iamrecognized]

You know, I find it a little funny that you post that thing, and then follow it up with "I Object." Almost sounds like you are disagreeing with your proposal.

I do agree, for the most part, with this idea, but I cannot sign. I do believe that any RL person should be able to return to the game as a new player, and start with a fresh slate, no matter what in game action they took (nuke rouges, treason). Even spying on another alliance is not, in my opinion, grounds for EZI. ZI, for sure I consider acceptable, and maybe, based on the extent of the actions of the nation involved, PZI. My objection... errr... to the objection... is that there are some totally OOC events that warrant an OOC action such as EZI. For instance, a person who were to in some way steal donated money used in order to host the forums of an alliance, in my opinion, is not something related to their in game ruler, as things like in game attacks and even espionage is. Or the case of someone who formerly hosted an alliance's boards threatening or carrying out a release, not just of game related material, but personal information, such as passwords and other data, has committed something that deserves an OOC response. In this case, they deserve to be blocked from the game. This is not something the ruler did, but something the player did.

Whether or not these issues have happened is inconsequential. The fact that it is possible is enough to, in my opinion, leave the door open to EZI as a punishment to such acts.

I'll be honest. The spying by Vox has made for some entertainment. Their spying on our forums however, warrants these nations to be destroyed. However, if they want to restart the game as a new ruler, I have no problem with that at all, assuming that they did not use out of game (and I consider spying on an alliance by pretending to join it or leaking information from it legitimately and in game action) tactics.

[jerdge]

[ooc] Warning: due to the nature of the quoted post this is a mostly ooc post. [/ooc]

You know, I find it a little funny that you post that thing, and then follow it up with "I Object." Almost sounds like you are disagreeing with your proposal.

Eheh, true...

My objection... errr... to the objection... is that there are some totally OOC events that warrant an OOC action such as EZI. For instance, a person who were to in some way steal donated money used in order to host the forums of an alliance, in my opinion, is not something related to their in game ruler, as things like in game attacks and even espionage is. Or the case of someone who formerly hosted an alliance's boards threatening or carrying out a release, not just of game related material, but personal information, such as passwords and other data, has committed something that deserves an OOC response.

Those OOC actions would be wrong and would warrant an OOC retaliation (assuming/hoping that we all live within a legal system). Using IC means against them would instead be quite laughable.

In this case, they deserve to be blocked from the game. This is not something the ruler did, but something the player did.

I think that blocking people from the game is a power that should be reserved to the Admin and to the Mods only.

With regard to your previous examples, I imagine that a documented discussion with the Mod Team would end in bad players being banned, without the need for mobs of players to engage in questionable actions (that can't be checked by any authority and that would seriously risk to be lacking in transparency and fairness).

Edited April 6, 2009 by jerdge

[o-dog]

I object.

[valkyrie9002]

I Object

[menwearpink135]

I object.

[White Chocolate]

I object to EZI. And if such thing as "reincarnation" did exist, the last thing I'd want as an alliance leader is to have some "reincarnated" enemy leading who knows what country and doing who knows what to try and get revenge. I'd rather any enemy (especially large enough to earn such a sentence) remain known to me. That way I at least have some idea where he or she is and what he or she is doing.

[Paradigm]

I object - and also dont care if they do use the same ruler or nation name.

[Vasili Markov]

It just so happens that the crimes I would consider EZIing someone fore happen to be identical to those that will earn a perma-ban from the game.

Thus EZI is a redundant punishment.

I have stated this many times in the past but it bears repeating here as well.

[Pharaoh Bradshaw]

I object.

/s/

Pharaoh Bradshaw

Marquis of Foriegn Affairs of the Black Order Of Knights

[Uralica]

I sign this document.

My signature is still on the ZIPP from when I was in CCC (look for "KingJarkko"), so I think people know where I stand on this.

/s/

Jarkko Hannu Salomäki

TOOL Inquisitor, Council

Tribal Chief of Heimovaltio Uralikan (The Tribal State of Uralica)

Mayor of Syktyvkar

Also Hello

Edited April 28, 2009 by Uralica

[jerdge]

(OOC, for the Mods: as this is meant to be a permanent multilateral international "treaty" that anybody can sign any time, I respectfully request that it is exempted from being locked for "gravedigs", since its "activity" can't be reduced to having had some recent post.

In case it is instead locked, I ask whether a new issue of the same document - to allow other rulers an opportunity to publicly sign it - would be considered a "repeat topic".)

Edited April 28, 2009 by jerdge

[bobboman]

I object

[Alterego]

Mantaining that other Nation Rulers they have been enemies with can anyway be fought again with full legitimacy, should they rise to power in a new Nation.

This should also include something about nation rulers that rise to power in a new nation and fight their former enemy again,if you want it to be fair and balanced.

[Orkules]

This should also include something about nation rulers that rise to power in a new nation and fight their former enemy again,if you want it to be fair and balanced.

What does this even mean? Do you mean if they attack an old enemy they can be attacked? Well duh. That's what happens whenever anyone attacks anyone, they can be attacked for it.

[Alterego]

What does this even mean? Do you mean if they attack an old enemy they can be attacked? Well duh. That's what happens whenever anyone attacks anyone, they can be attacked for it.

Your repeated condescending posts across the OWF are a credit to you. You want an answer? ask a question without trying to be insulting.

[rsoxbronco1]

Your repeated condescending posts across the OWF are a credit to you. You want an answer? ask a question without trying to be insulting.

Intelligent questions will be asked when intelligent answers can be expected.

Otherwise it's just a waste of time.

[Orkules]

Your repeated condescending posts across the OWF are a credit to you. You want an answer? ask a question without trying to be insulting.

Apologies. I shall address you as you so wish to be addressed. Don't make me regret it please.

Please explain exactly what you meant by the quoted remark. Was it as I described or did you mean something else?

[jerdge]

Mantaining that other Nation Rulers they have been enemies with can anyway be fought again with full legitimacy, should they rise to power in a new Nation.

This should also include something about nation rulers that rise to power in a new nation and fight their former enemy again,if you want it to be fair and balanced.

It would help if you could specifiy what kind of "something" you have in mind.

In case it's something (!) along the line "rulers that rise to power in a new nation and fight their former enemy again can be fought back with full legitimacy", that's exactly one of those cases the sentence you quoted is about.

[loannes]

I object,

[thenb]

EZI should not be practiced. It is not the responsibility of an alliance to determine who can or cannot play the game.

I believe the CN admin should ban the practice.