Chairman Cao Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) 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. You say that as if it's self-evident. It's not; it's your opinion. Dani's attack was on Mhawk and I hope he enjoys it. Edited May 8, 2009 by Chairman Cao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miley Cyrax Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 People only invest in the effort of EZI'ing people if they do something to betray they alliance or are cowardly war deserters. Do they deserve less? Dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morey 2k7 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 This is what you have to resort to alterego as a way to make Karma look bad? Make up your own new form of EZI that makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 FAN held NPO in a war for two years. Am I right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machiabelly Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 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. Yes, that could happen. And I realize that is why some people support EZI. I just feel that if someone rerolls and lives a clean life, then you should assume the are not going to wait a year and hit you. Sort of whether or not you feel it is better for guilty men to go free so innocent ones don't go to jail, or vice-versa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJ Scott Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Grudges are immoral, put this in your custom title if your down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossGarner Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Yes, that could happen. And I realize that is why some people support EZI. I just feel that if someone rerolls and lives a clean life, then you should assume the are not going to wait a year and hit you. Sort of whether or not you feel it is better for guilty men to go free so innocent ones don't go to jail, or vice-versa I can respect that viewpoint, there are many examples of such players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 The precedent Alterego attempts to create with the so-called "Reverse Zero Infrastructure" would allow for nations to do as they please, without accountability, provided that their defeated enemies are forced to make new identities to play the game afterward. If you take an action with your current nation, it is part of your history and you remain accountable for it as long as your nation exists and to the extent that your enemies, rerolls or otherwise, are willing and able to pursue you for those actions. Dani C attacking mhawk for the past actions of mhawk (not that there is any conclusive evidence to demonstrate that this occurred) is not the same as mhawk attacking Dani C for the past actions of Dani C's previous incarnation (not that there is any conclusive evidence to demonstrate that this occurred either). If mhawk wanted a clean slate where he was not accountable for the actions he took as mhawk, he'd have to reroll just like everyone else. It seems to me, however, that Alterego is far more concerned with the legality of Dani C's action than mhawk is himself. All that being said, holding onto personal prejudices and grudges, especially across rerolls, is indeed unhealthy, unproductive and more than deserving of a firm rebuke. However, I do not believe it violates any real or imagined IC/OOC barriers in the way that EZI does, given that the actions serving as motivation for the attack are those inextricably linked to an existing nation rather than a past incarnation that has since ceased to exist. Ultimately, the judge of that will be the community at large rather than the words of an outraged id. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinite Narwhal Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Reverse EZI? Wouldn't the opposite of forcing someone to leave the game be to force someone to stay in the game? I am putting you on my opposite EZI list. You are not allowed to the leave the game as long as you live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlev Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 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. Wrong. If the returning REZI nation was to force its vanquished foe into EZI then it would be hypocrisy. Coming back and fighting them is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Cash Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 The precedent Alterego attempts to create with the so-called "Reverse Zero Infrastructure" would allow for nations to do as they please, without accountability, provided that their defeated enemies are forced to make new identities to play the game afterward. incorrect. that is like suggesting a person is absolved of murder because the person they harmed no longer exists, which is obviously untrue. erasing a character is not the same thing as erasing history. i suppose a loophole would be if a player rerolled as a character who took extreme (ic) moral objection to the killing of that players previous character. in my mind that is acceptable... but if you want to say 'i hate you because you harmed me in my past life' you just admitted you did not create a new character. in order for proper role play of this loophole you always have to refer to your previous character in the third person. and as silly as it is, breaking rp in this particular way i believe would constitute a valid cause to resume hostilities, although the attackers should provide a chance for that character to retract and re-issue the statements in the third person. it almost seems trivial, but consider from an ic perspective the huge difference between 'i dont support you attacking x person' and 'i dont support you attacking me.' one is merely an ic opinion while the other is an ic admission that he is the same character with which hostilities exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) incorrect. that is like suggesting a person is absolved of murder because the person they harmed no longer exists, which is obviously untrue. erasing a character is not the same thing as erasing history. That was pretty much my point and why I felt the OP's precedent would be a poor one to make. i suppose a loophole would be if a player rerolled as a character who took extreme (ic) moral objection to the killing of that players previous character. in my mind that is acceptable... but if you want to say 'i hate you because you harmed me in my past life' you just admitted you did not create a new character. in order for proper role play of this loophole you always have to refer to your previous character in the third person. and as silly as it is, breaking rp in this particular way i believe would constitute a valid cause to resume hostilities, although the attackers should provide a chance for that character to retract and re-issue the statements in the third person. it almost seems trivial, but consider from an ic perspective the huge difference between 'i dont support you attacking x person' and 'i dont support you attacking me.' one is merely an ic opinion while the other is an ic admission that he is the same character with which hostilities exist. If you have no knowledge that a player claiming to seek revenge is a reroll, what would make you think that a nation avenging the death of their old identity was not simply a nation avenging the death of their old friend? Provided the ruler responsible for the past actions still exists, I see no IC/OOC line crossed if your friends pursue revenge in your stead or if your new identity pursues revenge over the one responsible for the death of your old identity. Your actions are tied to you for as long as your nation lasts, not for as long as your enemy's nation lasts. I still do not think it is particularly honorable or practical, but I don't believe it is subject to the same standards that make EZI wrong; the fact that EZI, at least in principle, requires the use of OOC information gathering. Edited May 8, 2009 by Penguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Rockatansky Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Unless he's actually fighting to take him down to Zero Infrastructure and hold him there even if mhawk re-rolls I really don't see how you can consider it either EZI/or PZI. A lot of people are fighting to get back into the game on their own terms. If that's what you're complaining about then I really don't know what to tell you. Well, I do know, but it would be inappropriate for this particular medium. That's really all there is left to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) If we are going to go into RP rules, you can destroy a nation, but you cant kill a leader. Same name, same character. Or Different name, grudge for the last nation destroyed for being its father or mother or gaurdian or protector. Edited May 9, 2009 by mykep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 How about we end the problem of caring grudges across rerolls by removing EZI altogether. That way, we dont have forced rerolls and thus no carried on grudges. If I was forced to delete my nation I would not forgive and forget either. Its such a harsh crime that you are being irrational for the person to just forget entirely and give the people who harmed them a perfectly clean slate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 to me, EZI is different than reroll wanting vengeance for a past life. for one, EZI is usually an alliance policy whereas the vengeance seeking reroll is alone. Thus, there is only so much damage a reroll can do (usually most rerolls are found out rather quickly) vs what an alliance could do. so unless the reroll managed to become the leader of a rather powerful or well-connected alliance, there is really nothing he/she can do to damage whomever he/she has a grudge against, unless for some reason it is against an unaligned nation (in which case, why the need for a reroll). that is a dramatic difference as the alliance can do EZI, whereas the lone reroll's damage can quickly be rebuilt through alliance aid. sorry but while it is in poor taste, to state the two are equal is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 First, it's fun to laugh at people who look at 'REZI', ignore the post, and just snark on the name. It also reminds me it's important to name things properly. (Note: those who look past the name and find logical inconsistencies are OK.) The best I could come up with for a term is 'eternal rogue', although 'rogue' is a bit biased in language. Second, to answer Mr Jung Il's post ... How about we end the problem of caring grudges across rerolls by removing EZI altogether. That way, we dont have forced rerolls and thus no carried on grudges. If I was forced to delete my nation I would not forgive and forget either. Its such a harsh crime that you are being irrational for the person to just forget entirely and give the people who harmed them a perfectly clean slate. As people keep insisting, deletion (or even surrendering in war) cannot be forced (although this does give me images of alliance leaders breaking into a home and wrestling a rogue's mouse to the 'Delete Nation' link, this is merely facetious). And that won't remove all grudges. Eternal zero-infrastructure is itself born out of a grudge held by the aggrieved alliance, and perception that no other means of dealing with the issue exist. Ideally (note qualifier), escalating forms of force would be used to come to some sort of agreement, but there are those who just won't stop. Someone mentioned that if a reroll doesn't reopen new grudges after a while, one should assume it's gone. I like the idea; I just keep thinking of someone who says 'If you don't attack me in a year, it's fine' suddenly getting cruise missiles on day 366. Paranoia is your friend, isn't it? On the whole, the idea of rerolls coming back for vengeance seems to feed into the concerns that people have, and they propose EZI as a solution to when they feel other less severe means don't work. If normal ZI doesn't get the point across, what other options does one have? Oh, and one more note: Mr Janova I think was the one who cited that writing style shouldn't be used. It's actually used by others in helping identify people, as it's rather difficult (but not impossible) to modify or fake. Note that I'm not saying it's a perfect fingerprint, just something that could point the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaianna Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Oh, forgot one more note. 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. Assuming that Mr C is telling his true intentions, this does render the 'E' part of the initial name moot. And I do remember that he (assuming on gender here--I thought the other way until I saw the 'he's showing up) was in Ordo Verde; I'm a little surprised at the alliancehop, too, but that's between him and Ordo Verde (and, well, Poison Clan too, for taking him in); that's outside of what I really need to know about, tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 On the whole, the idea of rerolls coming back for vengeance seems to feed into the concerns that people have, and they propose EZI as a solution to when they feel other less severe means don't work. If normal ZI doesn't get the point across, what other options does one have? Accepting the fact that ZIing someone is going to piss them off? Destroying a nation is going to piss the population off, so if you stop at ZI, then have every right to hate you. EZIing a nation is going to piss the leader off if he doesnt switch his name, so he has every right to hold a grudge. EZIing a nation with a new leader who still has a grudge can easily say its the old leader's son, or even a civilian from the last nation. ICly, you can justify a grudge in anyway you want. OOCly, well its OOC. A grudge is a grudge. Also, noone is looking at the RP concept of this, only the OOC outlook. Which is funny, considering I addressed it...three times now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sorum Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 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. But the poster made the idiotic post. So really, he's attacking both. My personal opinion is that Dani C is well within his rights to alliance-hop and hit Mhawk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I'll just clear up, we knew who all these guys were and didn't care. I don't care he has attacked me, I think its poor taste he did so while still at OV as gov, however it doesn't matter now. He wants a fight, I'll give it to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 It's just called a grudge. Why would you call it something that stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floatsam Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 EZI was born out of the desire to get revenge on those whom the affected party has a problem with. Get rid of EZI and this REZI becomes a non-issue. But for the sake of argument, there are very different distinctions between EZI and this REZI. EZI attempts to control the way someone plays this game. That is by definition, cheating, among other things. However, REZI can only be eliminated by controlling the minds of the player behind the name. If you believe that holding grudges along different identities is wrong, that is an opinion. If someone has a grudge, that is their opinion. It is not your prerogative to attack someone for their beliefs. Whether or not you think it is wrong is not relevant because you do not have the right to control how someone plays this game, let alone how someone is allowed to think. If we really want to extend this notion, criticizing someone for holding a grudge against you is a hypocrisy, and not unlike an Orwellian crimethink. As an aside, the only reason you have made this thread, as it seems to me, is to smear Karma by associating the name with fabricated semantics. But hey, this is war. You do what you have to do, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 But the poster made the idiotic post. So really, he's attacking both. There is nothing idiotic in asking the people who condemn alliances holding grudges against rerolls to equally condemn the rerolls who act in a similar fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Accepting the fact that ZIing someone is going to piss them off?Destroying a nation is going to piss the population off, so if you stop at ZI, then have every right to hate you. EZIing a nation is going to piss the leader off if he doesnt switch his name, so he has every right to hold a grudge. EZIing a nation with a new leader who still has a grudge can easily say its the old leader's son, or even a civilian from the last nation. ICly, you can justify a grudge in anyway you want. OOCly, well its OOC. A grudge is a grudge. Also, noone is looking at the RP concept of this, only the OOC outlook. Which is funny, considering I addressed it...three times now. Thank you, at least, for that. I agree with you completely. And I've never been against "EZI" absolutely. I have had people before who just kept coming back over and over again attacking us with nation after nation because we defended one of our own alliance member when he "raided" said alliance member, for an example. It was a fair bet on our part that his 6th nation was going to attack us just like the previous 5, so watching for it and even hitting preëmptively when we could made sense, no? So sometimes it makes sense OOC. Still effectively genocide IC, PZI is as well though, that could be played around if people could be arsed to care. But for the past year or so it seems more and more often there it is practiced as a mode of griefing, and there really is a big difference. 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.