Rewards For Good Behavior

[Justinian the Mighty]

Lets see: The U.S. was SOLD Louisiana. Alaska was also sold to us. Other states who could have been independent if enough desire had been demonstrated.. like Hawaii.. aren't. And we have more far flung territories besides just the states that still haven't opted to be independent. Texas almost went independent, but thought better of it.. and still occasionally thinks about it.

Additionally, most states approached rejected joining the Dragon Empire without a sufficient cause for it. There were also additional candidates we were canvassing as potential members prior to the ban, but they also were waiting for the right time, which thanks to the ban, never came.

My point is most states/territories were not asked beforehand by the US government, or the European colonial governments to become part of the US/colony. We took them, sometimes we paid for them, sometimes we didn't.

Only thing I can say to that "Bull !@#$" if your throwing that out at the Dragon Empire its pure "Bull !@#$".

So everyone in the Dragon Empire didn't rp equally? Maybe I'm not using the right words. Everyone in the Dragon Empire was active, and shared the responsibilities, they didn’t make MV rp it all for them.

[Sir Keshav IV]

O and other claims that we just merged with no wrongs happening our nations should read about em Communal rights in India after the merge.

Also V The King's ideas are pretty sweet.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I agree. V's ideas are pretty hawt. ^..^

[Justinian the Mighty]

People seem to forget that the entire structure of our military and our war doctrines were actually being WRITTEN and have been documented in my factbook. They were WRITTEN by Vasili Markov. So lets see.. I had Megan Fox, aka Keshav, as my diplomat, myself as chair, Vasili as general, Oceana as minister of health until mergers were banned, Taiwan (Nebu/Ezekiel) as our intelligence minister.. and the list goes on with assignments based on role and they all had something to do and did something useful in the RP.

Zeek helped us with a CB against old Camberlain.

Keshav was all over the world as a diplomat for us.

Vasili wrote a field manual for the organization of our militaries...

What part of integrated roleplay and activity are you missing?

Wait strike that Mael, You forgot our Interior Minister who built amazing buildings and city planning etc.

Oh yeah! Nikonov.

Did we need any other reason? LOL.

Read and comprehend please. Nobody is saying the DE leaders didn’t do their jobs. I'm saying, and i can only speak for myself, is that there wasn't any realistic rp put in place before. As I said its very unlikely so many countries would give up sovereignty to such an organization, when they don’t have similar cultures. Realism sometimes has an effect on rp, and DE wasn’t realistic.

Thank you

[Tahsir]

Wow way to start veering off topic guys..

Back on topic.

no, burn the idea of mergers. Burn it with acid, acid that is on fire, and explosive.

Everyone that says "Yes if they are responsible" are only thinking about how they would make a responsible merger. Meaning they will never agree completely with each other.

Any rules you set for mergers will instantly be challenged by the first power hungry merger that forms, and the arguments will begin.

Any ways to break a merger will be instantly tried out to shatter any merger that gets an enemy because no one wants to with a gang $%&@.

Want to make mergers a slightly possible idea?

Make it so that the top nation is the ONLY stats. No mixed military, no extra tech. All those rpers are capped into only one nation's power. Nerf mergers so badly that they can't be abused. Then maybe I might think they are worth bringing back.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

There's not very much difference between Mergers and existing blocks except that governments become integrated and territorial boundaries fall away. You should consider that Tahsir. There'd be little difference between a Dragon Bloc and a Dragon Empire except the rp around being part of a unified nation instead of a bureaucratic tangle.

[Stefano Palmieri]

For it with Strict rules.

[Tahsir]

There's not very much difference between Mergers and existing blocks except that governments become integrated and territorial boundaries fall away. You should consider that Tahsir. There'd be little difference between a Dragon Bloc and a Dragon Empire except the rp around being part of a unified nation instead of a bureaucratic tangle.

Actually there is a big difference. We don't share military, we don't share technology, we don't share production. In fact the only thing, I know of, that the the dragon bloc shares is information, but that only goes into dragonisia. Really the bloc is just a MDAP with an intel clause on it.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Tahsir Re

[mykep]

To all of you who said "no" without offering a real argument against it, I would suggest either reading the actual proposals or coming up with a real argument. It seems the logical choice to make an argument and actually have a chance of having your point of view considered instead of blatantly saying "no" without any sort of persuasion or actual effort put into your decisions making them effectively worthless.

This is just a yes or no thread. There'll be another thread for you to suggest what the rules should be.

I believe that is what I was looking at. My mistake.

Well lets see. Triyun used 5 nations he recruited who did anything he said to boost his own nation. KM used it to boost his tech. Nova Roma used it to be...well...Nova Roma. Dragon empire was an exception, but why make an exception so everyone else can @#$%^ about it. There are SO many problems and people in RP decide to look for any loophole to boost themselves and thier nation. I dont want to have to vote on a new rule every week because someone in a merger decided to be an idiot with the system and find someway to be more of an idiot.

I had to fight two of these things, and each merge found any excuse to be more retarded.

No, unless you only want your nation to look prettier on the world map, but at that point its just annoying for the map makers.

[mykep]

Make it so that the top nation is the ONLY stats. No mixed military, no extra tech. All those rpers are capped into only one nation's power. Nerf mergers so badly that they can't be abused. Then maybe I might think they are worth bringing back.

No. If thats going to be the rule I'll have 6 of the top nations with over 100k RP and I'll merge with them. From that point, they will make an internal policy change every other week that is a sentence long. I will then use thier stats as a loophole.

Edited May 8, 2009 by mykep

[King Kevz]

No for mergers. Why? Because they are not needed just like I feel tech shares shouldn't be needed but that is something different. Now mergers make no sense as whilst a group of nations might agree on ideas, policies and such they most likely will not merge together unless forced to or if the cultures and people are almost exactly the same. Also could someone please describe to me one RL merger please.

[Subtleknifewielder]

No for mergers. Why? Because they are not needed just like I feel tech shares shouldn't be needed but that is something different. Now mergers make no sense as whilst a group of nations might agree on ideas, policies and such they most likely will not merge together unless forced to or if the cultures and people are almost exactly the same. Also could someone please describe to me one RL merger please.

The United Arab Republic, though admittedly that only lasted for three years, it did not immediately break up--and the only reason it broke up was a coup in Syria.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder

[mykep]

The United Arab Republic, though admittedly that only lasted for three years, it did not immediately break up--and the only reason it broke up was a coup in Syria.

Lets leave them that way...short lived. Its over. Lets see if some people worm thier way through another loophole through a different method.

[Botha]

No.

1 in-game nation = 1 RP nation

[number1supermariofan]

Not at all

[Markus Wilding]

This is for CNRP mario...

[Subtleknifewielder]

This is for CNRP mario...

This. it has nothing to do with the rest of Cybernations.

[Tahsir]

No. If thats going to be the rule I'll have 6 of the top nations with over 100k RP and I'll merge with them. From that point, they will make an internal policy change every other week that is a sentence long. I will then use thier stats as a loophole.

Why would the 6 top nations merge together if that rule was in effect?

It would mean of 6 times the military they have only the military power of what the strongest nation had. Same with the tech.

It means ONLY ONE nation has the stats for the ENTIRE merge. The other merged nations are effectively removed, and only add RP value. Their militaries are gone, their defenses, their infrastructure, their techonolgy are all gone.

For example lets say there are 7 nations. 5 are extremely weak, and 2 strong, but exactly the same power, nations. One day 6 nations merge. 5 weak ones and one of the strong. What is left is a merger that is the same strength as the other strong country because the top nation was the same level previously. The weak nations only gave the merger some land, and the ability to have someone RP a department. Their collective power is now nerfed out of mergers.

Blows the idea of "gaining power with a merger" out of the water.

For a NUMBERS example. Say there are three nations. Their troop numbers before merger are 10k, 100k, and 200k. They merge. The merger's military troop numbers is 200k. Not 310k.

Meaning that multiple nations are now only as strong as one nation. But they can have multiple rpers for that one bloated, fat, and weak merger.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Tahsir Re

[JerreyRough]

What we need, is at least some gain from a merge; the rules that you guys are suggesting, even if you are trying not to, are an attempt to stop such RP's from happening. There should be some gain instead; after all, each member would require to be quite active, most likely more than they are used to. I became part of the Dragon Bloc for a bit, but then decided that the amount of effort wasn't worth my time due to real life activities taking up all but some of my schedule.

Besides, you can just do a bunch of treaties to the point that they are effectivly "merged", but have more benefits.

So basically, give a merge some gain rather than being weaker, but require averege-CNRP-player activity & quality/effort (maybe even more so). I.e. not me .

EDIT: Grammar!

Edited May 9, 2009 by JerreyRough

[mykep]

Why would the 6 top nations merge together if that rule was in effect?

It would mean of 6 times the military they have only the military power of what the strongest nation had. Same with the tech.

It means ONLY ONE nation has the stats for the ENTIRE merge. The other merged nations are effectively removed, and only add RP value. Their militaries are gone, their defenses, their infrastructure, their techonolgy are all gone.

For example lets say there are 7 nations. 5 are extremely weak, and 2 strong, but exactly the same power, nations. One day 6 nations merge. 5 weak ones and one of the strong. What is left is a merger that is the same strength as the other strong country because the top nation was the same level previously. The weak nations only gave the merger some land, and the ability to have someone RP a department. Their collective power is now nerfed out of mergers.

Blows the idea of "gaining power with a merger" out of the water.

For a NUMBERS example. Say there are three nations. Their troop numbers before merger are 10k, 100k, and 200k. They merge. The merger's military troop numbers is 200k. Not 310k.

Meaning that multiple nations are now only as strong as one nation. But they can have multiple rpers for that one bloated, fat, and weak merger.

My troop count is 400k right now. I decide to use this system and have ONE large nation join. Lets say the top guy of my alliance. On my order, he makes me leader and makes a post every other week.

My new troop count is 1.6 million.

Still fair?

[mykep]

What we need, is at least some gain from a merge; the rules that you guys are suggesting, even if you are trying not to, are an attempt to stop such RP's from happening. There should be some gain instead; after all, each member would require to be quite active, most likely more than they are used to. I became part of the Dragon Bloc for a bit, but then decided that the amount of effort wasn't worth my time due to real life activities taking up all but some of my schedule.

Besides, you can just do a bunch of treaties to the point that they are effectivly "merged", but have more benefits.

So basically, give a merge some gain rather than being weaker, but require averege-CNRP-player activity & quality/effort (maybe even more so). I.e. not me .

EDIT: Grammar!

how about we dont have them at all since there should be no reason to have them in the first place?

Mergers were created to be a loophole in the game with Nova Roma. It continued with KMs and then Triyuns. Then we had the European War Coaltion. I had to have my allies merge with me just to compete with it. Its a flaw in the game system. It should stay removed.

[JerreyRough]

how about we dont have them at all since there should be no reason to have them in the first place?

Mergers were created to be a loophole in the game with Nova Roma. It continued with KMs and then Triyuns. Then we had the European War Coaltion. I had to have my allies merge with me just to compete with it. Its a flaw in the game system. It should stay removed.

Its a different style of roleplay. It isn't necessary evil, only those who want to cheat. I certainly don't want to. It would ruin the game for me because, like other games, when you cheat the game isn't as much fun. There are those who like to cheat however; I call them immature !@#$%^&* (I sense a warn for me D: ).

Mergers will not ruin RP. We have 3 damn GM's! We have the moderators if it gets bad! I know that common sense does not exist in the mainsteam world, but that is why we have moderators and GM's. Mergers are fun, if you have the time for them.

[Tahsir]

My troop count is 400k right now. I decide to use this system and have ONE large nation join. Lets say the top guy of my alliance. On my order, he makes me leader and makes a post every other week.

My new troop count is 1.6 million.

Still fair?

Does that guy have 1.6 million troops? or 1.2 million troops? Make mergers so they don't matter. I mean you could still have your top alliance guy join and get a MDAP without all that land sharing and keep your autonomy.

The idea that if he has 1.6 million troops and you have 4k troops gives you 2 million troops just gives us the old problem of giant unbeatable mergers forming that then kick the world around without controls. OOC arguments abound.

Unless you make it completely pointless to have mergers even be done, I won't agree to them ever being in the RP again. You might wonder why I want to see almost completely useless mergers and it is quite simply.

Learn to RP, not say "I have 200 to 1 odds in troops, tech, and nukes. You lose"

[mykep]

Its a different style of roleplay. It isn't necessary evil, only those who want to cheat. I certainly don't want to. It would ruin the game for me because, like other games, when you cheat the game isn't as much fun. There are those who like to cheat however; I call them immature !@#$%^&* (I sense a warn for me D: ).

Mergers will not ruin RP. We have 3 damn GM's! We have the moderators if it gets bad! I know that common sense does not exist in the mainsteam world, but that is why we have moderators and GM's. Mergers are fun, if you have the time for them.

That style of roleplay isnt in the game, so it shouldnt be here. No matter what, people will be able to cheat this system. Mergers ruined it before and I'm pretty content without them. I'd rather everyone RP thier own soldiers and thier own nation.

Does that guy have 1.6 million troops? or 1.2 million troops? Make mergers so they don't matter. I mean you could still have your top alliance guy join and get a MDAP without all that land sharing and keep your autonomy.

The idea that if he has 1.6 million troops and you have 4k troops gives you 2 million troops just gives us the old problem of giant unbeatable mergers forming that then kick the world around without controls. OOC arguments abound.

Unless you make it completely pointless to have mergers even be done, I won't agree to them ever being in the RP again. You might wonder why I want to see almost completely useless mergers and it is quite simply.

Learn to RP, not say "I have 200 to 1 odds in troops, tech, and nukes. You lose"

He has 1.6 million troops, and having him in my nation (or literally me in his) all I have to do is ask him to post a policy for the nation I am controlling with his stats every so often and I become 4x my own size. Its a hell of a lot easier RPing one giant nation then having a friend come in and RPing two.

[JerreyRough]

That style of roleplay isnt in the game, so it shouldnt be here. No matter what, people will be able to cheat this system. Mergers ruined it before and I'm pretty content without them. I'd rather everyone RP thier own soldiers and thier own nation.

Yes, but there wern't strick rules then! If we have better rules and better moderation this time around then there won't be cheaters. It seems that I cannot affect your opinion, so I concede to you. This will be my last post on the subject.