Past lives, clean slates & reverse EZI.

[Sal Paradise]

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.

Yeah, there is.

You obviously don't understand what EZI is and why so many people have a problem with it. It's not called Eternal Grudge. It's called Eternal Zero Infrastructure. Yes, it's holding a grudge across rerolls, but that's not the problem. The problem is it's forcing players out of the game. Mhawk is by no means in danger of being driven from game or forever denied the ability to build his nation because of this. If this guy somehow gets in a position where he can do this to mhawk and does, we'd all be coming to mhawk's defense. If he came out and said keeping mhawk at EZI was his goal, then he's worthy of condemnation, despite him not actually having the power to do so. But for now, he's just a guy with a bone to pick. Kinda like you.

If you're going to post a thread about this insignificant incident, then you obviously have something against EZI, right? So where are you posting threads condemning the behaviour of the hegemony over the past two years? No where, because that's not what you're doing here. You have a political agenda and you don't give a damn about the community of this game. Because that's what we've been trying to improve all along. It's not our side we're championing here. It's the community; the community that wants to play the game without being kicked down forever for looking funny at a man that pretends he's a cow.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Sal Paradise

[mhawk]

If he came out and said keeping mhawk at EZI was his goal

Not a force on bob can keep me at zi.

[Orkules]

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.

Did I say that? No. I said if he came back and tried to take revenge on people (and likely retake power as part of that knowing him) then a lot of people would have a vested interest in seeing him fail. I would only support action against him AFTER he took action first.

[Orkules]

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.

Well yes, just ignore all our points shooting apart your argument and focus on this.

If the reroll tries to perma/eternal-ZI those that did it to him, that's one thing. If he just comes back and attacks them? I really don't care. At that point he's another nation attacking somebody. The person he's attacking, and his alliance, are free to deal with them as they see fit (given former treatment, probably perma/eternal-ZI thus extending the cycle ever further rather than working the problem out).

You know what the obvious solution is? Remove perma/eternal-ZI. No forced rerolls. No new accounts coming for revenge later on and none of this silliness. This kind of thing is only remotely an issue while those policies are in effect, and then only to those who implement them. Guess what that is? Karma. Ain't it a !@#$%*?

[hizzy]

Maybe this has been touched on but...

If someone rerolls and attacks your alliance again... ZI him again, nobody's gonna give a !@#$. Why does this need a discussion?

[Orkules]

Maybe this has been touched on but...

If someone rerolls and attacks your alliance again... ZI him again, nobody's gonna give a !@#$. Why does this need a discussion?

Because Alterego has run out of semi-decent ideas he try to use to make Karma look bad (though he has not done a good job on any front so far) and is now resorting to a completely insane issue that never existed.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Maybe this has been touched on but...

If someone rerolls and attacks your alliance again... ZI him again, nobody's gonna give a !@#$. Why does this need a discussion?

heh, but then life would be so simple, would it not? We are CN, we dont do simple. Its sort of who we are.

[Doitzel]

Yeah, there is.

You obviously don't understand what EZI is and why so many people have a problem with it. It's not called Eternal Grudge. It's called Eternal Zero Infrastructure. Yes, it's holding a grudge across rerolls, but that's not the problem. The problem is it's forcing players out of the game. Mhawk is by no means in danger of being driven from game or forever denied the ability to build his nation because of this. If this guy somehow gets in a position where he can do this to mhawk and does, we'd all be coming to mhawk's defense. If he came out and said keeping mhawk at EZI was his goal, then he's worthy of condemnation, despite him not actually having the power to do so. But for now, he's just a guy with a bone to pick. Kinda like you.

If you're going to post a thread about this insignificant incident, then you obviously have something against EZI, right? So where are you posting threads condemning the behaviour of the hegemony over the past two years? No where, because that's not what you're doing here. You have a political agenda and you don't give a damn about the community of this game. Because that's what we've been trying to improve all along. It's not our side we're championing here. It's the community; the community that wants to play the game without being kicked down forever for looking funny at a man that pretends he's a cow.

Man, I really love you.

Not a force on bob can keep me at zi.

Nor me, apparently, as I haven't been there yet, but it's the attempts that count. For instance, if this force that's attempting to keep you there attacks the friends that try to aid you to keep them at ZI, too -- dat's baaaaaad.

[Kevin Cash]

the fact that EZI, at least in principle, requires the use of OOC information gathering.

that breed of ezi i find unacceptable, but one is hard pressed to find more than a handful of instances, and most are ddosers, /b/ombers, and other assorted ooc crooked folks, which i have no problem with ip tracking those unsavory individuals.

most of the cases that are thrown under the ezi label are in fact merely pzi cases where a reroll admits, basically, that he is not playing a new character but his old character under a new name, which is the rp equivalent of an exiled politician going by an alias... my opinion is that if they are undertaking such a course that they should not advertise who they are. the level of proof required for the continuation of hostilities is pretty much whatever the community will tolerate.

it is my opinion that ip tracing and other ooc methods used to retaliate against exclusively ic offenses is wrong in all cases, but again, i reiterate my belief that this has rarely actually happened, if ever. people are quick to give the most incriminating response and tend to ignore their ic actions when making such accusations, which grossly over-inflates the actual number.

i want to point out that i am looking at this from an ooc perspective, and any responses should exclude any ic opinions on the practice of pzi; this is entirely looking at it from the perspective of proper discourse in gameplay. ic objections should be brought up via ic methods and in ic forums, not in this ooc forum.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Kevin Cash

[Vilien]

it is my opinion that ip tracing and other ooc methods used to retaliate against exclusively ic offenses is wrong in all cases, but again, i reiterate my belief that this has rarely actually happened, if ever. people are quick to give the most incriminating response and tend to ignore their ic actions when making such accusations, which grossly over-inflates the actual number.

The fact that you believe this does not make it true. And it certainly is not.

[Alterego]

Well yes, just ignore all our points shooting apart your argument and focus on this.

If the reroll tries to perma/eternal-ZI those that did it to him, that's one thing. If he just comes back and attacks them? I really don't care. At that point he's another nation attacking somebody. The person he's attacking, and his alliance, are free to deal with them as they see fit (given former treatment, probably perma/eternal-ZI thus extending the cycle ever further rather than working the problem out).

You know what the obvious solution is? Remove perma/eternal-ZI. No forced rerolls. No new accounts coming for revenge later on and none of this silliness. This kind of thing is only remotely an issue while those policies are in effect, and then only to those who implement them. Guess what that is? Karma. Ain't it a !@#$%*?

EZI is just the term used when an alliance decides to go after someone even if they reroll under a new name. This does not stop anyone from playing, you cant be forced to reroll, there are many nations, yourself included who weren't forced to stop playing, that argument is false. You are clearly not on your way to ZI again and before the war you were not under attack from anyone. So the myth that people have to leave and never come back or that they are stuck at ZI for all time are false. The only threat of EZI is when a reroll is discovered/gives himself up, his new alliance abandons him and attacked again, its clear EZI is just a name for holding a grudge across nations. It is impossible to keep some at zero infrastructure eternally and I see no difference between one grudge and the other.

Nor me, apparently, as I haven't been there yet, but it's the attempts that count. For instance, if this force that's attempting to keep you there attacks the friends that try to aid you to keep them at ZI, too -- dat's baaaaaad.

Give me a break, we all heard Dilber give you a way out on the radio, you clearly had a chance of peace and turned it down.

You guys seem quite happy to overlook incidents like this and others, thats your choice. The grudges that are formed now could come back to haunt you at a later date. Saying there is no G in EZI so it has nothing to do with a grudge is not true. The policy is defined by holding people accountable even after death, just like the D.C attack.

[Orkules]

EZI is just the term used when an alliance decides to go after someone even if they reroll under a new name. This does not stop anyone from playing, you cant be forced to reroll, there are many nations, yourself included who weren't forced to stop playing, that argument is false. You are clearly not on your way to ZI again and before the war you were not under attack from anyone. So the myth that people have to leave and never come back or that they are stuck at ZI for all time are false. The only threat of EZI is when a reroll is discovered/gives himself up, his new alliance abandons him and attacked again, its clear EZI is just a name for holding a grudge across nations. It is impossible to keep some at zero infrastructure eternally and I see no difference between one grudge and the other.

No, they can't make us delete. They can, however, make life intolerable for us to play this game. They can make it so that knowing our true identity is dangerous to our friends. They can make it so that our mere presence puts the alliances we love in danger.

Yes I was not attacked as a reroll, this was only thanks to a deal that was made shortly after my perma (really eternal)-ZI. This was a deal that was always hung over my head and that could have been quite easily revoked, an act that would have had but two possible endings: Either my friends and allies abandon me to my fate or they fall with me. This is the true power of EZI. It's not necessarily the true act of trying to keep you at ZI permanently (though that obviously blows too), it's the danger to our friends, our family that our mere existence creates.

Though they can't force us to go, it is their intent. It's about driving players away. Yes, many are too damn stubborn to quit and for that they become a danger to anyone not consigned to the same fate. It is about carrying over grudges, but not by the rerolling player.

I also still fail to see how proving that they can't make us quit or reroll and that it's about keeping a grudge proves your point. It merely reinforces a lot of what we've always said. And I maintain, the problems caused by perma-ZI are only a problem to those who exercise it's use. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for them.

[Chimaera]

Technically, if a new ruler exists, there's no such thing as prior grudges, and so if you're assuming clean slates and IC personalities, this argument doesn't actually exist in a valid form.

[Doitzel]

Give me a break, we all heard Dilber give you a way out on the radio, you clearly had a chance of peace and turned it down.

You guys seem quite happy to overlook incidents like this and others, thats your choice. The grudges that are formed now could come back to haunt you at a later date. Saying there is no G in EZI so it has nothing to do with a grudge is not true. The policy is defined by holding people accountable even after death, just like the D.C attack.

LOL

It's not EZI if they're just trying to extort money out of you! Give me a break. I wasn't even remarking on that, but on the near-impossibility of ZI'ing a nation these days.

[Orkules]

Technically, if a new ruler exists, there's no such thing as prior grudges, and so if you're assuming clean slates and IC personalities, this argument doesn't actually exist in a valid form.

This, however, ignores all logic due to the OOC personality that drives the IC one. The same person is still behind it and he almost certainly will remember what was done to him and by who. You can't expect him to act like he doesn't.

[Firestorm]

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.

Ummm.. No... People have been tossed on the ol' EZI list and hounded across the internet for some pretty stupid crap. I know I'm on one for something that amounts to nonsense, and I was chucked on one way back before there was even a thing known as EZI.

Personally, I don't hold any grudge against the alliance that has me on EZI. I do understand Dani C's actions all to very well. Good for him and I hope he gets the satisfaction he is looking for from all of this.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Firestorm

[Timeline]

nvm

Edited May 9, 2009 by Timeline

[Qaianna]

This, however, ignores all logic due to the OOC personality that drives the IC one. The same person is still behind it and he almost certainly will remember what was done to him and by who. You can't expect him to act like he doesn't.

..um, how does this not apply to an alliance leader who sentences someone to EZI? To not is expecting a player to not remember what was done to him or her, and by whom. Once they find out however ... boom.

Often it seems like the main difference is not the principle, but the power levels involved--what's an allowable grudge for a single nation is not permitted if that particular ruler happens to, say, run an alliance full of friends who may agree with him or her about how much of a jerk a reroll was prior to rerolling, and (in their opinion) likely would be afterward. This I don't quite agree with, and it seems is Alterego's main point, that if alliances aren't allowed to hold a grudge across an individual nation's reroll, that nation should be held to the same standard.

And seriously, I keep hearing the idea of 'abolishing' permanent and eternal ZI. This ignores one concern: that of the leader who, as someone cited earlier, has seen a particular ''player'' (regardless of which nation or nations that player has used) keep doing offensive things. After a while, that player will, rightly or not, start assuming that whoever it is will just repeat the same thing. Or that they still have some revenge issues from prior to the deletion, feeling that deletion isn't enough. Or the cruise missiles are just a way of saying 'We need to talk NOW'.

There's a lot of high talk about consequences on the bigger alliances that eternally war someone; what about consequences on those who feel it's their right to do everything they can to annoy/damage/hurt those alliances, even across rerolls? Someone invoked the concept of karma ... but it's not a one-way thing, guys.

Again, people say to abolish PZI and EZI. I keep asking for what would REPLACE them. The last posts I saw only say to remove those as ways of communicating to someone, but there aren't any replacements for what to do when ZI just doesn't get the point across.

[Orkules]

Not true at all.

The individual ruler is completely incapable of driving a player from the game, especially if he's in an alliance. You simply can't enforce perma-ZI alone. The ruler of an alliance however can drive players from the game, it's been done before. And yes I know you can't make them quit, but you can sure make it much more appealing than to continue playing.

The difference is scale. A massive, gaping, hole of a difference in scale.

[mhawk]

Man, I really love you.

Nor me, apparently, as I haven't been there yet, but it's the attempts that count. For instance, if this force that's attempting to keep you there attacks the friends that try to aid you to keep them at ZI, too -- dat's baaaaaad.

What are you talking about?

[Doitzel]

What are you talking about?

EZI doesn't mean much if they target your nation and only your nation, does it? You can do whatever you want, basically, if it's just you who's being targeted. It's when other people are brought into the picture -- alliances that harbour you, people who talk to you, etc. -- that things get sticky. Though if you're asking why I was pointing out that distinction, I honestly can't remember anymore.

[Kevin Cash]

The fact that you believe this does not make it true. And it certainly is not.

nor does the fact that you believe the opposite make it such that the opposite is true.

thats the funny thing about opinions, isnt it? except i didnt assert mine as a fact, while you did.

pull up a list of all individuals that have been put on 'ezi.' please note this is not zi, pzi, or attacking rerolls who are the same damn character. if you do not have such a list, then you are merely stating your opinion and not a fact.

[Luis Quezada]

sin/crimes :lol:

[mykep]

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.

I love you and miss talking with you about Aqua. Can we set up a date?

nor does the fact that you believe the opposite make it such that the opposite is true.

thats the funny thing about opinions, isnt it? except i didnt assert mine as a fact, while you did.

pull up a list of all individuals that have been put on 'ezi.' please note this is not zi, pzi, or attacking rerolls who are the same damn character. if you do not have such a list, then you are merely stating your opinion and not a fact.

Its not an opinion. There have been a huge amount. Lists are so big that some AAs have hard time keeping track of them.

An OWF ZI list would require moderators running it with AA representatives buging them every time they needed someone edited in or out.

Also, why does your idiocy in every topic simply draw every poster to respond to you? Do you think that being proven wrong in every opinion and argument you present will tell you something?

[Kevin Cash]

I love you and miss talking with you about Aqua. Can we set up a date?

Its not an opinion. There have been a huge amount. Lists are so big that some AAs have hard time keeping track of them.

An OWF ZI list would require moderators running it with AA representatives buging them every time they needed someone edited in or out.

Also, why does your idiocy in every topic simply draw every poster to respond to you? Do you think that being proven wrong in every opinion and argument you present will tell you something?

making claims without supporting evidence is not 'proving me wrong'

if these lists are as extensive as you claim, it should be a piece of cake to quickly assemble a convincing list of people who are or were on ezi. why wot you do it? it's a rather simple task, if you are right, to make me eat my words. its almost illogical to not do so, unless you are in fact claiming as fact your opinions which you cannot back up with evidence. since there is no way to prove they dont exist, the burden of proof is on you. and as much a ive seen your kind bicker about ezi i have never once seen more than a few scarce cases.

if its as common as you claim, prove it, otherwise i am calling your bluff.