EZI and it's use

[ShinRa]

I’ll make this short,

I am merely expressing a simple question here to the general public and towards members of Karma. I am not representing any alliance in this matter, and I am completely against the use of EZI in wars.

And yet, I have this to ask: Should EZI be used one last time?

Condemning alliance leaders who both created and willingly used this tactic to EZI themselves would be poetic justice wouldn’t it?

For the very last individuals to ever be sentenced to EZI (or PZI if your prefer) be those who used this tactic in a bid for power to take control and maintain dominion over alliances via the ‘banning’ of those who would most directly oppose them.

Those I have spoken to have been directly against this tactic’s use, and understandably so. Continued use of EZI would make Karma be just as bad as those they fight, but just once? to remove a major threat from Bob which ruled supreme over countless nations for several years, destroying any and every chance there was for a balance of power between alliances?

If EZI is not used then who is to say that they will not simply fall back upon it and use it against those who fought them in this war?

Karma has the duty to protect others against forces such as the Hegemony and to make sure that others such as the NPO never gain the power they had only until a few short months ago. Why should Karma protect against such a threat, when that threat's core elements can so easily be removed.

Should EZI be used, is so then who exactly against?

Or if not, why should it not be used?

Final note: This is assuming of course, that this tactic is not already being used.

Edited May 16, 2009 by ShinRa

[Micheal Malone]

Sadly I fear this is going to be a fairly even vote. You will have those who were wronged in the past feeling it to be just punishment; common members, and some even common "criminals" if you will. Then you'll have the leaders who are attempting to make a stand for their values and what they feel is wrong. Many of those who will try to employ anything BUT the method stated above.

If one were to base the final decision upon the number of threads created about whether or not Karma will do "the right thing" or the "right thing to do", one would be just as confused after making the tally.

[britwarlord]

No one should have the power to EZI someone.

Edited May 16, 2009 by britwarlord

[mhawk]

I’ll make this short,

I am merely expressing a simple question here to the general public and towards members of Karma. I am not representing any alliance in this matter, and I am completely against the use of EZI in wars.

And yet, I have this to ask: Should EZI be used one last time?

Condemning alliance leaders who both created and willingly used this tactic to EZI themselves would be poetic justice wouldn’t it?

For the very last individuals to ever be sentenced to EZI (or PZI if your prefer) be those who used this tactic in a bid for power to take control and maintain dominion over alliances via the ‘banning’ of those who would most directly oppose them.

Those I have spoken to have been directly against this tactic’s use, and understandably so. Continued use of EZI would make Karma be just as bad as those they fight, but just once? to remove a major threat from Bob which ruled supreme over countless nations for several years, destroying any and every chance there was for a balance of power between alliances?

If EZI is not used then who is to say that they will not simply fall back upon it and use it against those who fought them in this war?

Karma has the duty to protect others against forces such as the Hegemony and to make sure that others such as the NPO never gain the power they had only until a few short months ago. Why should Karma protect against such a threat, when that threat's core elements can so easily be removed.

Should EZI be used, is so then who exactly against?

Or if not, why should it not be used?

Final note: This is assuming of course, that this tactic is not already being used.

I for one find great amusement and irony in your "final solution" to the hegemonic menace.

[Timeline]

EZI/PZI (to me its all the same) is an attack on the OOC not on the IC, once you stop someone playing cybernations you are no longer attacking the IC your attacking the OOC, yes some people should not be playing this game, how ever you leave that up to the Admin and his staff, no one, not NPO nor Karma has the right to stop people from playing this game.

Some people will say, that if you attack someone ooc, on irc or the forums, then you should be EZI/PZI, well by doing so your attacking them OOC as well, and two wrongs does not make it right.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Timeline

[Daeryon]

Yep, it doesn't take long.

"Hey, we're in power!"

"Hey, let's do the same things we've been complaining about!"

Good plan.

[Solidus117]

I for one find great amusement and irony in your "final solution" to the hegemonic menace.

I'm starting to love you mhawk.

[VIdiot the Great]

EZI plain sucks.

It should never be used due to IC reasons, and frankly, anything constituting OOC reasons ought to be reported to the proper authorities.

It's a game. When people 'lose' they shouldn't be prevented from playing again.

Expect my vehement vocal objection if it used again. I didn't like it when it was used by the so called hegemony, and I won't like it any better if used on any of them.

Regards,

VI

[Sir Keshav IV]

Naw, it should never have been used in the first place.

[o-dog]

I hope the OP is ironic.

[Iamrecognized]

EZI, no. I personally have no issue with PZI though. Think about it... lets look at an IRL example... Hitler's Germany. It was, essentially, ZI'd. Then rebuilt. But there is one crucial difference; no Hitler. But if Hitler was some immortal being that could simply collect taxses from his bunker and never be destroyed, would the allies have eventually said "Okay, lets stop and let him rebuild." No of course not. Due to the fac that a leader cannot be "killed" in CN makes PZI somewhat necessary. Why should your IC self be allowed to do whatever he/she wants and expect to eventually be able to come back? Some people may warrent removal. But, if they want to make a new persona, and come back as a new leader, then they should be able to.

[raptorix]

EZI, no. I personally have no issue with PZI though. Think about it... lets look at an IRL example... Hitler's Germany. It was, essentially, ZI'd. Then rebuilt. But there is one crucial difference; no Hitler. But if Hitler was some immortal being that could simply collect taxses from his bunker and never be destroyed, would the allies have eventually said "Okay, lets stop and let him rebuild." No of course not. Due to the fac that a leader cannot be "killed" in CN makes PZI somewhat necessary. Why should your IC self be allowed to do whatever he/she wants and expect to eventually be able to come back? Some people may warrent removal. But, if they want to make a new persona, and come back as a new leader, then they should be able to.

Weehehehe so Hitler did reroll

[Rush Sykes]

EZI, no. I personally have no issue with PZI though. Think about it... lets look at an IRL example... Hitler's Germany. It was, essentially, ZI'd. Then rebuilt. But there is one crucial difference; no Hitler. But if Hitler was some immortal being that could simply collect taxses from his bunker and never be destroyed, would the allies have eventually said "Okay, lets stop and let him rebuild." No of course not. Due to the fac that a leader cannot be "killed" in CN makes PZI somewhat necessary. Why should your IC self be allowed to do whatever he/she wants and expect to eventually be able to come back? Some people may warrent removal. But, if they want to make a new persona, and come back as a new leader, then they should be able to.

While that point is valid, I find the logic behind it to be completelty flawed. As an in-character forum, this discussion should be about the PZI of a sovereign nation, not a single individual entity. Every single unit of infra killed in a P-ZI situation(an attack against an IC leader of a nation), kills innocent civilians within that nation. And to declare that every single time new citizens move into this state, they too, will be killed....is (IC) barbaric, and in any world setting could, and should, be considered criminal. Is war necessarry? Yes. Many, MANY times. OOC:(Admin should, in my opinion, allow....say every 30, 60 or 90 days..something like that....a nation to change its ruler name should they so choose, to "represent" a possible regime change and allow the OOC persona to change reflective the "revolutionary" ideals of what the new regime represents. If the OOC player want to remain viable and able to play this game, then he, too, would be forced to change.)

Just my 2 cents.

BAH..Edit...I dunno why I was thinking I was in World Affairs. Ignore my "As an in-character forum" statement....God someone remind me to drink caffeine before I post.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Rush Sykes

[Doitzel]

Yep, it doesn't take long.

"Hey, we're in power!"

"Hey, let's do the same things we've been complaining about!"

Good plan.

Vox Populi is hardly "in power", champ, and we still on the whole do not approve of EZI under any circumstances. ShinRa is entitled to his opinions, though, as much as I disagree with them.

[jer]

I for one find great amusement and irony in your "final solution" to the hegemonic menace.

One man's irony is another man's poetic justice.

--

There is no doubt that it would provide immense satisfaction to many people to see the perpetrators of EZI EZI'd themselves, but it would also require one to be lowered down to their level - the level which put morality in the gutter in favour of victory at all costs, the level which in recent times has been so rightly derided by the public, and the level which has now been fought out of power. This war was conceived on the moral high-ground of standing up against bullies and generally being of superior moral fibre to those deposed, that high-ground should not be sacrificed for the sake of revenge (no matter how satisfying the revenge would be in the short-term).

[Iamrecognized]

While that point is valid, I find the logic behind it to be completelty flawed. As an in-character forum, this discussion should be about the PZI of a sovereign nation, not a single individual entity. Every single unit of infra killed in a P-ZI situation(an attack against an IC leader of a nation), kills innocent civilians within that nation. And to declare that every single time new citizens move into this state, they too, will be killed....is (IC) barbaric, and in any world setting could, and should, be considered criminal. Is war necessarry? Yes. Many, MANY times. OOC:(Admin should, in my opinion, allow....say every 30, 60 or 90 days..something like that....a nation to change its ruler name should they so choose, to "represent" a possible regime change and allow the OOC persona to change reflective the "revolutionary" ideals of what the new regime represents. If the OOC player want to remain viable and able to play this game, then he, too, would be forced to change.)

Just my 2 cents.

BAH..Edit...I dunno why I was thinking I was in World Affairs. Ignore my "As an in-character forum" statement....God someone remind me to drink caffeine before I post.

Except that, in this game, nations do not really function like nations. Alliances are nations. Nations are people... sorta of. So when you PZI a nation you are essentially killing or imprissioning a leader. PZI on an alliance would be like what you said. But alliances are allowed to (quite frequently) get new leaders and rebuild.

[Rush Sykes]

Except that, in this game, nations do not really function like nations. Alliances are nations. Nations are people... sorta of. So when you PZI a nation you are essentially killing or imprissioning a leader. PZI on an alliance would be like what you said. But alliances are allowed to (quite frequently) get new leaders and rebuild.

In that case then...does this make independent nations akin to homeless people?

In truth, you are right, the line between nation simulation and gang simulation(for lack of a better comparative) has been irreperably blurred in the game. But my point about the innocent perpetual killing of civilian just because of where they reside, stands. And within the framework of a game that is intended to simulate an alternate world geopolitical universe, I find the use of PZI to be inherently criminal.

[Bob Janova]

VFABIC

Also, no. EZI is bad, it doesn't suddenly become good because you're using it or because some people 'deserve' it. Some characters possibly deserve PZI*, but under no circumstances will I support an EZI on Hegemony leaders.

*: yeah, I said possibly. I can't think of anyone I would support a PZI on though, before that's taken out of context as 'zomg Bob supports PZI he's as bad as them'

[Deadshot]

The one issue I am tired of hearing about is how hegemony destroyed the balance and fairness of the game. I thought the point of a game was to essentially win it. Since this one has no ending, winning entails standing at the top for however long or short that time may be. Their should be no fairness in a political/war simulator. Both sides can and will use every means to come out on top. Are some of these practices questionable? Of course. Such as EZI. No one should ever be denied the right to play a free online simulator. However if that is a tactic that the next batch of world powers decides to use, prepare to suffer the eventual downfall.

Of course I am not assuming ShiRa is speaking on behalf of his alliance, merely asking a question. So don't read that last part as a slight on his alliance. It wasn't. Hegemony instituted viceroys, EZI and many other facets in order to retain power. We are seeing what will eventually happen to anyone else who wishes to pick up the torch.

[Doitzel]

One man's irony is another man's poetic justice.

--

There is no doubt that it would provide immense satisfaction to many people to see the perpetrators of EZI EZI'd themselves, but it would also require one to be lowered down to their level - the level which put morality in the gutter in favour of victory at all costs, the level which in recent times has been so rightly derided by the public, and the level which has now been fought out of power. This war was conceived on the moral high-ground of standing up against bullies and generally being of superior moral fibre to those deposed, that high-ground should not be sacrificed for the sake of revenge (no matter how satisfying the revenge would be in the short-term).

Maybe he just wants to make them comfortable by keeping them in their own moral paradigm. Might makes right!

Except that, in this game, nations do not really function like nations. Alliances are nations. Nations are people... sorta of. So when you PZI a nation you are essentially killing or imprissioning a leader. PZI on an alliance would be like what you said. But alliances are allowed to (quite frequently) get new leaders and rebuild.

So it's okay to kill a lot of people individually but if you kill them in a group that's bad? Hmm.

How about people should be allowed to play whatever character they wish? I've put a lot of work into mine over three years and I'm not going to let anyone kill it off because of some grudge. Really the debate over PZI and EZI is not so much about those, as they are impossible -- nothing is permanent in this game -- but over cruelly excessive punishment. Probably every single case of PZI ever has been just that.

[Doitzel]

The one issue I am tired of hearing about is how hegemony destroyed the balance and fairness of the game. I thought the point of a game was to essentially win it. Since this one has no ending, winning entails standing at the top for however long or short that time may be. Their should be no fairness in a political/war simulator. Both sides can and will use every means to come out on top. Are some of these practices questionable? Of course. Such as EZI. No one should ever be denied the right to play a free online simulator. However if that is a tactic that the next batch of world powers decides to use, prepare to suffer the eventual downfall.

And here I thought the point of the game was to have fun. Who would play Poker if they knew who was going to win every time because the deck was rigged?

[Gurney Halleck]

And here I thought the point of the game was to have fun. Who would play Poker if they knew who was going to win every time because the deck was rigged?

Many would play that game as long as they were the one who had the chip pile growing wildly.

[Vilien]

No one deserves EZI or PZI. Your desire for vengeance is misplaced.

[Augustus Autumn]

Punishing a wrong-doing with a wrong-doing simply generates hypocrisy and the desire for revenge. Best not to do this.

[jer]

The one issue I am tired of hearing about is how hegemony destroyed the balance and fairness of the game. I thought the point of a game was to essentially win it. Since this one has no ending, winning entails standing at the top for however long or short that time may be. Their should be no fairness in a political/war simulator. Both sides can and will use every means to come out on top. Are some of these practices questionable? Of course. Such as EZI. No one should ever be denied the right to play a free online simulator. However if that is a tactic that the next batch of world powers decides to use, prepare to suffer the eventual downfall.

Wow, this is so full of contradiction that I don't know where to start. You say that it's just a game and that the hegemony was right to do everything in their power to win, and then go on to say that EZI is now a 'questionable' practice which should never be used and that if anyone in power who is not you tries to use it there should be consequences.

I think your post can be summed up as 'it was okay for us to do it when we were in power, but now that we're the little guys we'd rather it was canned'. I wonder why that could be, hmm? There are people who have always been against EZI and have every right to extol how rotten it is, you on the other hand, as a perpetrator of such atrocities, have no basis to do this. Your only interest is in saving your own $@!.

Edited May 16, 2009 by Aimee Mann