Past lives, clean slates & reverse EZI.

[Drostan]

It's a game. I think the threat of potentially perma-ZI actually makes it way more interesting. It's like trying to take death out of life. Our actions mean nothing if there aren't serious consequences. I don't care a whole lot one way or another but I personally think there are things I would choose to punish with Perma-ZI or even ETERNAL ZI!!!@#

If I ever start an alliance I fully intend to ZI anyone who violates their word.

[AVFC1]

Reverse EZI? That's the dumbest thing I have heard in a while.

How is trying to force somebody out of the game equivalent to someone coming back to get a bit of revenge?

[agafaba]

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.

People are not punished for motives but for actions.

[AirMe]

Here's an interesting thought experiment.

Suppose noWedge returned and plotted revenge against some of the people who he felt drove him from the game; e.g. pezstar, chefjoe, Toga, mhawk and Sponge.

Would this be justified?

You and I both know there is more to the noWedge issue than just in game actions. This isn't even a fair comparison.

[Sal Paradise]

So in Reverse Eternal Zero Infrastructure do you gain infrastructure forever?

Where exactly does the 'Eternal Zero Infrastructure' come into play? No single nation on their own could keep another under EZI. If Dani C somehow managed to get others to maintain an assault on mhawk then it would simply become a case of EZI. The 'Reverse' adds no meaning to the case except to highlight hysterical idiocy.

Where's the evidence that this guy is even a reroll of nation that has a grudge with Mhawk? "You're doing it wrong" is a very common expression.

[AirMe]

Also, how is this situation REZI? Dani joined PC and attacked Mhawk, a member of an alliance that PC is at war with. Plus this is 1 war. If you can prove that Dani is going to attack mhawk over and over and over again, then you can claim what you are claiming. But at this point in time this is just 2 combatants going at it on the battlefield.

This is no different than it would if I joined.....say Athens, to attack Zhadum for being a jerk. This stuff happens all the time. There is no double standards and it's part of war.

Your OP is, at this point, a stretch unless you can produce some kind of evidence that Dani is going to pursue this past 1 round of wars.

Edited May 8, 2009 by AirMe

[Kevin Cash]

i 100% agree that is a person creates a new character, it is their obligation to actually pick up a new character and completely throw away their past personal history. driving a character from the game is alright, it happens all the time in other role-playing games (characters dying in d&d comes immediately to mind, and like cn, d&d is arguably a long-term game). people who find it impossible to let up past grudges when rerolling into a new character, regardless of the name, take this game far too seriously. yes, they have a right to create their own character, but others have a right to punish that character if they perceive it as a threat. the worst case, what i think the op elude to, however is when people intentionally reroll to harm their enemies behind an unknown identity, for example to spy. these people break all concepts of role playing, and are among the few people who i would consider it acceptable to place on this theoretical 'ezi' (with them, ddos'ers and /b/ombers among others, though those are considerably worse individuals).

conversely, it is the responsibility of the party enforcing the pzi reroll of the character, that if the person rerolls into a new character and does throw away their personal past with regards to the gameplay, that they also throw away any associations with that former character; they should be free from any and all terms and stipulations, and their new name must be on no blacklists, etc. this is in keeping the spirit of good role play.

of course, we rarely see either in this world, probably because of how delicate the emotions of most people are. its easy to pretend youre not upset over the internet, but it is obvious a lot of people take this game far too seriously. people use the mods as a weapon, they talk about ic things like pzi as if they are an ooc event, they show pure ooc hatred to other human beings who play this game, the list goes on. if you do any of those things... you need to step back, calm yourself, and realize that cn is just a game. hell, its barely any different from d&d, only the numbers are stored and calculated on a website rather than paper. if you wouldn't hate the guy sitting next to you for attacking your elf wizard with his orc warlord, why to you take it so personally when somebody attacks you in a pretend internet game?

[Haflinger]

How is trying to force somebody out of the game equivalent to someone coming back to get a bit of revenge?

Depends on the end-purpose of the revenge, I suppose. Supposing someone came back to try and drive someone else out of the game, seems like exactly the same thing.

[neneko]

The whole foundation of this tread is ridiculous. Nobody says that you're not allowed to keep grudges even if you reroll. Mind control is not one of the karma goals. The point was that when a nation rerolls the previous wars didn't happend to that nation so they're not sufficient reason to attack the new nation. If the alliance that have a grudge towards this nation get a valid reason to attack it they can take it. Same thing other way around. If you reroll just to go rogue on a alliance you're going to get crushed by it again. That doesn't mean people aren't allowed to keep grudges if they want but they still need a valid reason to attack or they'll just end up hurting their own nation again.

[crazymatty]

attack the post not the poster.

Your post sucks.

[uaciaut]

Meh, unlike all your other posts you did actually try to make some sense with this one AE. See AirMe's posts for a pretty well-rounded idea about what's flawed in this thing you're trying to call REZI.

[Bossk]

Depends on the end-purpose of the revenge, I suppose. Supposing someone came back to try and drive someone else out of the game, seems like exactly the same thing.

Yes because a lone rogue nation totally has the power to push someone else out of the game.

You have to admit there's a pretty big power differential between a nation on a EZI list and the alliance enforcing said EZI list.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Bossk

[mhawk]

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.

This goes back to tim teebow, bobery, tumin, and the baps war. The easiest way to look at their involvement is the read the wki. Essentially the three fought a round of wars and deleted. A short while later one of the guys approached and we worked out a rep deal (for the sanctions and few dozen nukes taken). Back in Jan, IRON approached me about another one of the guys, I thought its stupid to hold grudges and just told iron he had no issue with any related to me. I was informed of who Dani_C was quite awhile ago and figured its been long enough it didn't need to be mentioned. However when the war started I noticed he had started spying on me from OV, he got caught a few times so I asked if he was still in ov or if they were at war with us. He claims he left ov and joined pc... whatever.

The point of the story is I don't really care if he wants to hit me. He probably feels some great vindication, I see it as him just getting involved in the same old goofball antics. He isn't on a tpf pzi/ezi list because we dont have one. Best luck to him, I'm kind of surprised someone hated me enough to resign their gov position as minister of war, during the largest war cn has seen

[mhawk]

Mhawk would probably be attacking Dani C right now(if he found out who he was with his previous nation) and if he refused to pay BS reps. I was put on Mhawk's list aswell. I made a new nation with a new name and 9 months after I was originally put on their list I had to pay 1000 tech to him and 1000 to Chefjoe to get off it. They would have attacked me if I didn't pay them those reps. I'm guessing they would have done the same to Dani(well maybe not right now due to the position they are in, but a few weeks ago they would have), since we were both put on these lists during the BAPS war.

Anyways, Dani is in PC now and PC is at war with TPF, so I don't really see the problem.

Actually we knew who he and tumin were, they were not pursued or attacked.

[RossGarner]

Sure. We'd also be justified in making damn sure he failed given the things he's done to us.

So if you suspect a person is returning to the game to try and destroy you, you are within your rights to destroy them?

This seems like a very good argument for EZI, rather than against it.

[California King]

Actually we knew who he and tumin were, they were not pursued or attacked.

K. Then, why did I have to pay 2k tech reps with my new nation after all that time passed and they didn't have to pay anything? I thought you didn't have a pzi/ezi list. Yeah yeah, I nuked and sanctioned you but last I checked you attacked me first without provocation.

w/e

Edited May 8, 2009 by California King

[Machiabelly]

So if you suspect a person is returning to the game to try and destroy you, you are within your rights to destroy them?

This seems like a very good argument for EZI, rather than against it.

No, EZI means you are assuming he will hold grudges so you kill him before he has a chance. I beleive that is wrong. If someone comes back with a reroll and goes after the same people he went after before, and does the same crap...then attacking him again is justified, IMHO.

They are two very different things.

[mhawk]

K. Then, why did I have to pay 2k tech reps with my new nation after all that time passed and they didn't have to pay anything? I thought you didn't have a pzi/ezi list. Yeah yeah, I nuked and sanctioned you but last I checked you attacked me first without provocation.

w/e

Seems to me you were a rogue senator caught spying? I wasn't going to give out your identity, but feel free to go on about how horrible it is I didn't pursue your colleagues.

[Dani C]

His actions against OV were very significant if anyone noticed. Significant enough to make me join PC to take action.

What I'm confused about is why one round of wars is equivalent to EZI. I've never stated that I want to continue anything against him after this round of war, because I don't. In fact, a major reason I'm at war with him is because I remember he was a solid fighter, and I wanted to be able to enjoy a good fight once again.

Now that all the dirty laundry has been aired, I'm glad it's finally out there. I can move on without having to constantly look over my shoulder to see if I'm going to be suddenly extorted for 2000 tech over something that took place well over a year ago.

[mhawk]

His actions against OV were very significant if anyone noticed. Significant enough to make me join PC to take action.

What I'm confused about is why one round of wars is equivalent to EZI. I've never stated that I want to continue anything against him after this round of war, because I don't. In fact, a major reason I'm at war with him is because I remember he was a solid fighter, and I wanted to be able to enjoy a good fight once again.

Now that all the dirty laundry has been aired, I'm glad it's finally out there. I can move on without having to constantly look over my shoulder to see if I'm going to be suddenly extorted for 2000 tech over something that took place well over a year ago.

Just curious, my questioning of your alliancemate was enough to make you resign from your duties during time of war to get in a round of war?

Edited May 8, 2009 by mhawk

[Dani C]

Just curious, my questioning of your alliancemate was enough to make you resign from your duties during time of war to get in a round of war?

Don't even try to minimize what you did. You badgered them incessantly, throwing around threats and the like. "Questioning" is a horrid way of putting it.

[RossGarner]

No, EZI means you are assuming he will hold grudges so you kill him before he has a chance. I beleive that is wrong. If someone comes back with a reroll and goes after the same people he went after before, and does the same crap...then attacking him again is justified, IMHO.

They are two very different things.

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I think though this is complicated by the fact that people seeking revenge will wait longer periods of time to take it, and will use their new membership in an alliance to protect themselves from a legitimate response.

[California King]

Seems to me you were a rogue senator caught spying? I wasn't going to give out your identity, but feel free to go on about how horrible it is I didn't pursue your colleagues.

Not really a "rogue senator", I never intended on attacking anyone but then you attacked me even though I did nothing to you so I defended myself. Also, I would like to apologise to BAPS for what I did to you and thank you for not telling anyone when you found out about my reroll. You guys are cool. Mhawk, thanks for not pursuing my friends.

I'm going to leave this thread now.

Edited May 8, 2009 by California King

[Haflinger]

Yes because a lone rogue nation totally has the power to push someone else out of the game.

You have to admit there's a pretty big power differential between a nation on a EZI list and the alliance enforcing said EZI list.

Ehh.

Most alliances are run by a relatively small group of people. If you really want to get revenge on someone, infiltration is probably the best bet.

[Aeternos Astramora]

Every new nation should have a clean slate. If that new nation does something like attack mhawk, mhawk and his alliance are perfectly welcomed to ZI this new nation. What's the big deal?