Past lives, clean slates & reverse EZI.

[Alterego]

There is a common consensus that when your nation dies your sins/crimes/personality die with you. Not every alliance believes in this and continues to attack nations after they are reborn. This is commonly known as Eternal Zero Infrastructure or EZI.

One on the clearest positions that Karma alliances and alliances who are fighting on the same front have taken is one in opposition to EZI and in many cases PZI. While I agree with this I am not prepared to force this position on other alliances against their will. However that is not the reason I am here today. Today I would like to talk about reverse EZI.

Similar to EZI, where a nations leader is pursued through different nations REZI is when a nations leader continues to go after an alliance or carries a grudge from new nation to new nation. You cant condemn one without condemning the other, you cant support one without supporting the other.

Today I learned that one such REZI has taken place on the karma side. This action has the backing of the alliance that is being ghosted for the purpose of past life retribution. While this incident is only a single event the karma side is strewn with reborn nations who are fighting in this war with revenge as a primary motive. This is counter to tha anti-EZI groups ideal of letting people start anew, simply because its done in reverse against an alliance is no reason this issue should be accepted by those who genuinely oppose the practice.

The issue in question this time is the attack on Mhawk by Dani C. Dani C has chosen to get revenge for a past life. This action, single nation or not should be condemned by the same alliances who condemn EZI. Now that he has connected this nation to his last by ghosting an alliance to attack someone for a past life incident his new (present) nation should carry the crimes of his past or at least denounced the way EZI has been.

NOTE: I know reverse zero infrastructure doesn't result in ZI. In before the pedantic people, its just a name for the purpose of the argument.

[Gruthenia]

Hmm yes I agree somebody coerced into playing a new character should continue to fulfill this unilaterally decided obligation to continue as this new character into perpetuity even once the coercive element is removed.

[Alterego]

Hmm yes I agree somebody coerced into playing a new character should continue to fulfill this unilaterally decided obligation to continue as this new character into perpetuity even once the coercive element is removed.

So you support grudges or past life crimes being carried from one nation to the next only at nation level and not at alliance level? This attack shows EZI is necessary to stop further attacks in the future if all your enemy is waiting for is a chink in your armour to bring up past lives while at the same time alliances are being told past lives are past dont pursue them. This smashes that myth, these people will always be a threat.

[Rebel Virginia]

What are you on about this time? Dani C was OV gov I believe, and OV has plenty to have against mhawk. So, what?

[adhambek]

Forcing people from the game is bad no one except admin should have that power and certainly not some spotty pubescent twelve year old playing at being god emperor of whatever alliance thinks it’s rules this planet.

As far as this made up REZI I would consider it to be a minor transgression and poor form, but a far cry from forcing people from the game. This is a war game so they should fight it out, but neither player should be forced form the game.

[Alterego]

Forcing people from the game is bad no one except admin should have that power and certainly not some spotty pubescent twelve year old playing at being god emperor of whatever alliance thinks it’s rules this planet.

As far as this made up REZI I would consider it to be a minor transgression and poor form, but a far cry from forcing people from the game. This is a war game so they should fight it out, but neither player should be forced form the game.

A name change, as you can see he was not forced from the game.

[Thorgrum]

So you support grudges or past life crimes being carried from one nation to the next only at nation level and not at alliance level? This attack shows EZI is necessary to stop further attacks in the future if all your enemy is waiting for is a chink in your armour to bring up past lives while at the same time alliances are being told past lives are past dont pursue them. This smashes that myth, these people will always be a threat.

If a guy carries the grudge back into a new charecter and nation then the old parameters of the grudge exsist. If he was Zi'd in the past incarnation or PZI then so be it. EZI, in my view is based on an assumption that the person would come back with the same approach and hostilities. Your example is an exception and if its proven to be correct in any other cases, fine. If they are acting out based on old grudges then they get to reap that "karma" as well.

It just so happens that at this time, the person you exampled picked a most opportune time to travel down this path. If and when Mhawk and TPF come out of the war if they declare him Zi'd for this action I dont think a lot of people would have a problem with it. If they declare him EZI thats a problem because it assumes a future behavior, which might occur based on this example or it may not. I think the whole argument of EZI revolves around 2nd chances, maybe in some cases 3rd.

[potato]

I too would like to have a little background info about the Dani_C/mhawk situation.

[Alterego]

I too would like to have a little background info about the Dani_C/mhawk situation.

"you're doing it wrong" is a reference to the incident that sparked the BAPS war when Mhawk was sanctioned.

[Gruthenia]

So you support grudges or past life crimes being carried from one nation to the next only at nation level and not at alliance level? This attack shows EZI is necessary to stop further attacks in the future if all your enemy is waiting for is a chink in your armour to bring up past lives while at the same time alliances are being told past lives are past dont pursue them. This smashes that myth, these people will always be a threat.

Or perhaps instead of spending disproportionate amounts of political capital for what amounts to swatting flies alliances could enact policies that would minimize the need to resort to force to neutralize individual nations. You're putting words in my mouth - I support the right of self-determination. If self-determination includes a national leader irrationally attacking another, so be it - he can begin believing himself another leader reincarnated, with consequences to be determined by those he attacked within the limit of their ability to enforce it, and within the limit of allowing that nation to remain in existence. Any policy with its stated goal to be the utter removal of a nation from existence is ultimately a threat to the well being of the planet as a whole.

[potato]

"you're doing it wrong" is a reference to the incident that sparked the BAPS war when Mhawk was sanctioned.

Didn't you say Dani_C was a reroll?

[Nobody Expects]

Didn't you say Dani_C was a reroll?

I guess the irony is Dani_C is availing of his clean slate with regard to being allowed to grow unhindered etc, yet still wishes to pursue a grudge that pre-dates his re-incarnation. Can he have his cake and eat it? Can I attack him for getting BAPS rolled, if he can attack MHawk for a grudge which dates from the same time?

BAPS has known Dani_C was a reroll since he rolled, we do not, nor have ever condoned or had a policy of EZI in BAPS, and as such we both kept our knowledge of who he was to ourselves and let him go forth in CN unfettered by his prior sins...........it seems he is incapable of sticking to his responsibilities in this regard.

[potato]

I guess the irony is Dani_C is availing of his clean slate with regard to being allowed to grow unhindered etc, yet still wishes to pursue a grudge that pre-dates his re-incarnation. Can he have his cake and eat it? Can I attack him for getting BAPS rolled, if he can attack MHawk for a grudge which dates from the same time?

BAPS has known Dani_C was a reroll since he rolled, we do not, nor have ever condoned or had a policy of EZI in BAPS, and as such we both kept our knowledge of who he was to ourselves and let him go forth in CN unfettered by his prior sins...........it seems he is incapable of sticking to his responsibilities in this regard.

So, let me get this straight, Dani_C (who may or not be a reroll, I don't really care) is in PC. PC and TPF are ar war. Dani_C attacks a member of TPF in his range. Dani_C probably joined PC to hit TPF. So what? It happens countless times in war. People join alliances to fight/defend their ideals (mhawk left TPF, Cata joined GATO ...).

Edited May 8, 2009 by potato

[Alterego]

So, let me get this straight, Dani_C (who may or not be a reroll, I don't really care) is in PC. PC and TPF are ar war. Dani_C attacks a member of TPF in his range. Dani_C probably joined PC to hit TPF. So what? It happens countless times in war. People join alliances to fight/defend their ideals (mhawk left TPF, Cata joined GATO ...).

Would you be saying "so what" if Dani c was being pounded by TPF? I dont think so. You would be giving out about people not being given a clean slate after their death and rebirth. Mhawk didnt jump into an alliance mid war to get revenge for something that happened to a previous nation. If this really was about the OV war he would be fighting NPO and not TPF.

[Doitzel]

Clean slates only happen when both parties who've written on the old one both agree to give it a toss. Without background information I cannot possibly comment on this specific case but something tells me there's more to it than you've given.

[Gruthenia]

So, let me get this straight, Dani_C (who may or not be a reroll, I don't really care) is in PC. PC and TPF are ar war. Dani_C attacks a member of TPF in his range. Dani_C probably joined PC to hit TPF. So what? It happens countless times in war. People join alliances to fight/defend their ideals (mhawk left TPF, Cata joined GATO ...).

Therefore EZI mhawk and Cataduanes because they have proven themselves to be threats to the safety and security of other alliances.

[Orkules]

Wow. I don't like to resort to name calling but you are an utter moron. Seriously, Alterego. Stop it. It's getting idiotic at this point.

EZI is about driving people from the game while PZI is about simply punishing them by forcing the delete of their current nation and all upgrades contained within it. Nothing about rerolling forces you to adopt a new character. Hell I've seen people reroll with identical names after being forced to delete. It's the reroll itself that was the point.

And even if you did have to change the character you can't change the person beyond it (though I get the feeling your dumb enough to assume either we won't realize that and will feel bad or that it's possible). I will always hold a grudge against the people who wronged me, I can't change that. I'm sorry, but I don't just recreate my nation and forget everything that happened to me.

Not to mention that half of NPO's moves through GWIII were about getting revenge against every single alliance that wronged them during GWI. Huh. Who's side of this war are they on again? Oh right. Yours.

[Alterego]

Therefore EZI mhawk and Cataduanes because they have proven themselves to be threats to the safety and security of other alliances.

I dont know about Cataduanes but I can safely say mhawk was not pursuing a past life vendetta. This is not about changing alliances it is about leaving your previous life behind. It is the same arguement used against EZI, new nation = clean slate. It has to work both ways, there can be no double standard in this argument if you oppose EZI or PZI.

[Orkules]

Would you be saying "so what" if Dani c was being pounded by TPF? I dont think so. You would be giving out about people not being given a clean slate after their death and rebirth. Mhawk didnt jump into an alliance mid war to get revenge for something that happened to a previous nation. If this really was about the OV war he would be fighting NPO and not TPF.

I honestly don't know what this post means? Do you mean would we be upset if the situation was completely different and TPF chased down and attacked a lone nation? Cause the circumstances of these two scenarios are completely and utterly different and really can't be compared.

[Alterego]

Wow. I don't like to resort to name calling but you are an utter moron. Seriously, Alterego. Stop it. It's getting idiotic at this point.

Every time I question the ethics of your side in this war this is what I get. If you dont agree with my statement just say so, attack the post not the poster.

[Orkules]

Every time I question the ethics of your side in this war this is what I get. If you dont agree with my statement just say so, attack the post not the poster.

The rest of my post was me explaining how you so incredibly missed the mark in my eyes. I only called you a moron because every time you post it seems that the world does a collective facepalm.

[Alterego]

The rest of my post was me explaining how you so incredibly missed the mark in my eyes. I only called you a moron because every time you post it seems that the world does a collective facepalm.

If your side respects the decision of rerolled nations to go after people because of incidents that occurred in their past life then they should respect the decision of alliances to go after the reroll too. Your side doesent, it tolerates one but not the other. Perhaps its merely because you are at war with TPF, it doesnt change the double standard. You cant have both and not expect to be criticised about it.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Alterego

[Orkules]

If your side respects the decision of rerolled nations to go after people because of incidents that occurred in their past life then they should respect the decision of alliances to go after the reroll too. Your side doesent, it tolerates one but not the other. Perhaps its merely because you are at war with TPF, it doesnt change the double standard. You cant have both and not expect to be criticised about it.

You once again fail to see the differences.

In the case of EZI the player is driven from the game or suffers eternal war. I think you are trying to justify the use of this here, but I'm not entirely sure how.

In the case of PZI, the sentence is forcing a member to delete the nation he worked so hard to create. After that he is given the chance to change his ways. If he chooses to seek revenge or continue on the path that led to this sentence then they will punish him again.

I fully support punishing a player. Fighting him to ZI is fully acceptable to me. Don't make him delete though. After that, let him go. If he pulls the same crap or seeks revenge, do it again. It's a rather simple and reasonable policy don't you think? Nobody is driven from the game and those who let grudges go may go in peace.

[Alterego]

If a guy carries the grudge back into a new charecter and nation then the old parameters of the grudge exsist. If he was Zi'd in the past incarnation or PZI then so be it. EZI, in my view is based on an assumption that the person would come back with the same approach and hostilities. Your example is an exception and if its proven to be correct in any other cases, fine. If they are acting out based on old grudges then they get to reap that "karma" as well.

It just so happens that at this time, the person you exampled picked a most opportune time to travel down this path. If and when Mhawk and TPF come out of the war if they declare him Zi'd for this action I dont think a lot of people would have a problem with it. If they declare him EZI thats a problem because it assumes a future behavior, which might occur based on this example or it may not. I think the whole argument of EZI revolves around 2nd chances, maybe in some cases 3rd.

Missed this earlier. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[Thorgrum]

Missed this earlier. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Your welcome