Bakunin's Dream Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 And why are they spying? Perhaps because they're PZI listed and have no choice but to fight you. That would be unfortunate (for us and for them), but you're negating the premise, which is that they were listed because of this kind of behavior, not the other way around. Re-posting this since you might have skipped it considering you're replying to a bunch of people. Sorry about that. There's no one way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModusOperandi Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Fair enough, wack the alliance. Take each member to ZI. But then let them up. I would of course rather see the use of the NSO's and MK's limited war concept though. o/ I would fully support this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Sorry about that. There's no one way. Would one of those ways be checking IPs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 That would be unfortunate (for us and for them), but you're negating the premise, which is that they were listed because of this kind of behavior, not the other way around. And you are ignoring the fact that they engage in this behavior because they are PZI listed and it is the only way they can fight back. Making people eternal enemies really doesn't leave them any other options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin's Dream Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Would one of those ways be checking IPs? On membership applications, possibly. Even then you probably need to do a little more to make sure you know what's going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin's Dream Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 And you are ignoring the fact that they engage in this behavior because they are PZI listed and it is the only way they can fight back. Making people eternal enemies really doesn't leave them any other options. I don't think that's a fact. The purpose of perma-ZI is to combat eternal enemies, not create them. If we do the latter to a greater extent than the former then we aren't doing a good job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 I don't think that's a fact. The purpose of perma-ZI is to combat eternal enemies, not create them. If we do the latter to a greater extent than the former then we aren't doing a good job. I'm not saying the people you originally PZI list were not enemies to begin with. Lord knows I was fighting you during the Polar incident. However, once you PZI them you take away their option to surrender, forcing them to keep on fighting. They will resort to techniques such as spying when they really would prefer to simply buy infra again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 On membership applications, possibly. Even then you probably need to do a little more to make sure you know what's going on. So that'd be a form of EZI then, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin's Dream Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) I'm not saying the people you originally PZI list were not enemies to begin with. Lord knows I was fighting you during the Polar incident. However, once you PZI them you take away their option to surrender, forcing them to keep on fighting. They will resort to techniques such as spying when they really would prefer to simply buy infra again. As I said, what it really comes down to is getting it right. If all you want to do is buy infra then we have no interest perma-ZI'ing you. If I could tell with 100% certainty who genuinely wants to surrender and who is just using it as a means to the same old ends life would be a lot easier for all parties involved. Indeed the fact that you can never be absolutely certain is a good reason to use restraint unless you're pretty damn sure (this is true of all forms of punishment but I could see an argument for being even more careful when considering something more severe). But it's no excuse for not using your best judgment. Edited April 15, 2009 by Bakunin's Dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) never liked JB, but it's nice to see him free also, it's funny how the only people aregueing are the ones who were once on said ZI lists (edit for clarification WC + RV arguing bakunin) Edited April 15, 2009 by CptGodzilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin's Dream Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) So that'd be a form of EZI then, correct? What do you mean? If they're being perma-ZI'd they're being perma-ZI'd. I'm just saying (since you asked) that if they were stupid enough to apply for NPO membership it would probably lead to us finding them out. Edited April 15, 2009 by Bakunin's Dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 also, it's funny how the only people aregueing are the ones who were once on said ZI lists (edit for clarification WC + RV arguing bakunin) Actually there are quite a few others who were never on ZI lists. Also, if you ever get placed on one yourself, you may just learn why it isn't as fun as you seem to think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 It is our sincere wish that Mr. Brookbank make good use of the chance given to him to rejoin the community at large. Also, it is important to note that Mr. Brookbank has been informed that any actions detremental to IRON or her allies will result in his return to our PZI list. So, IRON continues to employ the abhorrent practice of EZI in punishing political opponents. After all, IRON government has made it perfectly clear that PZI and EZI are synonymous. You do not deserve praise for this 'change' in policy. It is nothing more than a transparent attempt to garner a few points in the public arena. who cares A significant portion of the community, it appears. You might be familiar with them. They are the people Pacifica caved to in releasing Jonathan Brookbank from its ZI lists. Cool, good thing I'm not a "world policeman" or else I might be trying to meddle in their internal policies. Gee, that is odd. I could swear you were meddling with GATO's internal policies as we speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 What do you mean? If they're being perma-ZI'd they're being perma-ZI'd. I'm just saying (since you asked) that if they were stupid enough to apply for NPO membership it would probably lead to us finding them out. Just to clarify on what the common held terms are. PZI: The person will be kept at ZI their whole nation's existence. EZI: The person will be kept at ZI regardless of making a new nation/ruler So, which do you guys do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinKiac Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 How many times do they need to demonstrate that they have nothing but hostile intent no matter how many times they reroll before it is no longer prudent to give them the benefit of the doubt? Ummm..... why does it matter? So what, a single nation is opposed to you and will always be opposed to you, Im sure there is many nations such as this. Does that warrant "banning" them from playing the game? Exactly. This is a war game, and just because an enemy has zero infrastructure at this moment in time does not mean they are not still my enemy or they are not still a threat. I take my alliance's security seriously. How is it that an alliance as large as the NPO or IRON feel threatened by a single nation at 0 infra? How long would it take for that nation to get anywhere near the size large enough to inflict even a noticeable amount of damage to either of your alliances? Seriously? My nation is over a year old and far from 0 infra, but I doubt i could even make a dent in your alliance strength, by any measure. How is it that a nation at 0 infra is such a threat? And if they do manage to get to a point that they can attack you, after being at 0 infra, and they somehow "hurt" you, isnt that your fault for being so bad at war that someone who was months or more behind you in development was able to hurt you? Come on, you guys are the 2 largest alliances in the game, are you really that scared of these people on your P/EZI lists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) Disregard this. Edited April 15, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin's Dream Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Just to clarify on what the common held terms are.PZI: The person will be kept at ZI their whole nation's existence. EZI: The person will be kept at ZI regardless of making a new nation/ruler So, which do you guys do? Perma-ZI means we're at war with you until we say we aren't at war with you anymore and making a new nation does not change this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karthikking Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) am i inb4 mogar if so inb4 mogar SO basically PZI is just as long as nation exists and EZI is as long as person plays CN. isn't EZI to harsh to be ever used Edited April 15, 2009 by karthikking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) Perma-ZI means we're at war with you until we say we aren't at war with you anymore and making a new nation does not change this. That's EZI. This is Moo edit: edited out at person's request Edited April 15, 2009 by WarriorConcept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) That's EZI.This is Moo Good response. Seems there is confusion. We all have different views on how the game is played, if you believe in EZI, just admit it, you make it worse by doing such and saying otherwise mate. Edited April 15, 2009 by Ejayrazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakunin's Dream Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) So, IRON continues to employ the abhorrent practice of EZI in punishing political opponents. After all, IRON government has made it perfectly clear that PZI and EZI are synonymous. You do not deserve praise for this 'change' in policy. It is nothing more than a transparent attempt to garner a few points in the public arena. A significant portion of the community, it appears. You might be familiar with them. They are the people Pacifica caved to in releasing Jonathan Brookbank from its ZI lists. Note to Raga: this is what I was talking about earlier. Gee, that is odd. I could swear you were meddling with GATO's internal policies as we speak. You see, there are these things called "wars" and they often end with things called "surrender terms." We're not the only alliance to ever use them, you know. (In fact I seem to remember you or someone in a similar position calling for the disbandment of a certain blue alliance as a condition of surrender a long time ago.) Ummm..... why does it matter? So what, a single nation is opposed to you and will always be opposed to you, Im sure there is many nations such as this. Does that warrant "banning" them from playing the game?How is it that an alliance as large as the NPO or IRON feel threatened by a single nation at 0 infra? How long would it take for that nation to get anywhere near the size large enough to inflict even a noticeable amount of damage to either of your alliances? Seriously? My nation is over a year old and far from 0 infra, but I doubt i could even make a dent in your alliance strength, by any measure. How is it that a nation at 0 infra is such a threat? And if they do manage to get to a point that they can attack you, after being at 0 infra, and they somehow "hurt" you, isnt that your fault for being so bad at war that someone who was months or more behind you in development was able to hurt you? Come on, you guys are the 2 largest alliances in the game, are you really that scared of these people on your P/EZI lists? You're talking about a single nation in a vacuum. What I ask myself is, what outcomes will result if we have a general policy that says such-and-such? You can always make the problem look small by focusing on isolated instances but that isn't the end of the story. Edited April 15, 2009 by Bakunin's Dream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 You see, there are these things called "wars" and they often end with things called "surrender terms." We're not the only alliance to ever use them, you know. (In fact I seem to remember you or someone in a similar position calling for the disbandment of a certain blue alliance as a condition of surrender a long time ago.) I'm curious, what other alliances have imposed Viceroys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) I'm curious, what other alliances have imposed Viceroys? http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Viceroyalty Tygaland of the New Pacific Order was appointed viceroy of National Alliance of Arctic Countries after Polar War One. Ivan Moldavi of the New Pacific Order was appointed viceroy of Organized Nations of Superiority after the NPO-ONOS War. Vladimir ofthe New Pacific Order was appointed viceroy of Alaskan Border Patrol after The Alaskan Folly. Z'ha'dum of the New Pacific Order was appointed viceroy of The Legion after the Legion Disbandment Crisis. Van Hoo III of Ragnarok was made viceroy of The Illuminati after the Illuminati War. MyWorld of the New Polar Order was made viceroy of the Black Defense Council after the staged BDC-BC War. Koona of the New Pacific Order was appointed viceroy of the Global Alliance and Treaty Organization after the GATO-1V War. Dilber of the New Pacific Order was appointed viceroy of the Black Defense Council after the NPO-BDC War. Probably not all inclusive. Edited April 15, 2009 by Bilrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptGodzilla Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 (edited) I'm curious, what other alliances have imposed Viceroys? Van Hoo III of Ragnarok was made viceroy of The Illuminati after the Illuminati War. MyWorld of the New Polar Order was made viceroy of the Black Defense Council after the staged BDC-BC War. (pulled from CN wiki) snap, beat to the punch by bilrow Edited April 15, 2009 by CptGodzilla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Do you think you would consider it a "clean slate," start a new life, and not keep doing what you're doing if you deleted your nation and created Doitzel2? I don't either. If you really, truly want to reroll and cease being our enemy we have no interest in keeping you down, and if we get it wrong it is only to our detriment. It's why we try to get it right, but unfortunately sometimes people lie and the process is not 100% certain. If you want that you should be doing mathematics, not politics. Did you really just say that EZI'ing someone who means you no harm hurts you more than it hurts them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.