A response to the E/PZI "menace"

[zigbigadorlou]

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the sun

What is the nature of punishment on our fair Digiterra? We see all around us actions that are preposterous, some that are terrible, some that are downright against the law. What, community, shall be our response to the evils that come upon us?

For every action, there must be a response. For every treaty, there is a o/ or a baww. For every president, there's someone to throw a shoe at him. For every spy, there's a crowd of people itching to fight to the bitter end to destroy every last bit of the traitor.

Naturally, there are many things that we, the players, dislike. As such, a punishment has to be determined. In the past, it has, at times, been a slap on the wrist, all the way up to vietFAN.

Our blessed moderators can only do so much. For what they cannot do, we must. How do we go about this? The only ways are to ban from out of game forums or to hurt their nations. As such, war, one that they do not enjoy, is really the only feasible means of punishment. If we wish to make a behaviour extinct, we must make the consequences as annoying as possible. As such, how do we do that?

To some, the behaviours will stop with a simple war. Those that fear war will abide by those who give it. Others fear ZI. ZI can kill a nation, and, for many, makes the game not worth playing. But for those who enjoy ZI, what can we do? If the behaviour persists, all we can do is up the sentence, even if it is simply a bluff, to PZI. Most would think twice if they knew that they would never be able to use the nation again as it is supposed to. As such, was vietFAN just? IIRC, Moo directly stated if the undesired behaviour would cease, PZI would end for them. Whether the behaviour was bad...Not me to say. But the response was logical. But what happens when you have those, such as the /b/tards, who continually spam prawn on everyone's boards and commit atrocities such as that? I am sure most would say they deserve EZI. Along with that, there are those that continually steal, get forgiven only to turn around and use their silver tongue again and trick everyone possible. Those that repent but are unrepentant, because they cannot be trusted with redemption, must also recieve EZI, no? If there was a chance for rehabilitation, it must be offered, but there are several who cannot handle playing the game which we must force out.

In conclusion, there is a time for everything under the sun. Whether it be eating cake or attacking the king, spying or killing spies, or even EZI and PZI. All have their place. We must simply ask for the wisdom to act appropriately when the event arises.

-zig

[Tom Litler]

The original quote you used is sort of flawed. You can't blame the man seeing as how he was purported to exist in the early beginnings of human civilization. His mistake is forgivable.

Nonetheless, you should know better that history has proven there to be no place or season for some things. I can name a few but I don't want to derail the topic.

[Cynic2]

I agree with you completely. EZI/PZI are options that should be available, but good judgment should be exercised in the few instances where it is warranted.

[Ragashingo]

Our blessed moderators can only do so much. For what they cannot do, we must. How do we go about this? The only ways are to ban from out of game forums or to hurt their nations. As such, war, one that they do not enjoy, is really the only feasible means of punishment. If we wish to make a behaviour extinct, we must make the consequences as annoying as possible. As such, how do we do that?

What questionable behavior are you talking about? Be specific. If you are specific then people in power will abuse that power for any reason they choose as has already happened.

To some, the behaviours will stop with a simple war. Those that fear war will abide by those who give it. Others fear ZI. ZI can kill a nation, and, for many, makes the game not worth playing. But for those who enjoy ZI, what can we do?

You can limit yourself to only giving out a maximum punishment (normal ZI for instance) then give it out as many times is necessary, instead of never letting someone play again.

If the behaviour persists, all we can do is up the sentence, even if it is simply a bluff, to PZI. Most would think twice if they knew that they would never be able to use the nation again as it is supposed to. As such, was vietFAN just?

No, it wasn't.

IIRC, Moo directly stated if the undesired behaviour would cease, PZI would end for them. Whether the behaviour was bad...Not me to say.

Wrong. It is for you to say. All of us have a voice, and all of us should speak up against bad behavior, and in support of good behavior. If you ignore the good bad issue then you have no right to had down any kind of punishment.

But what happens when you have those, such as the /b/tards, who continually spam prawn on everyone's boards and commit atrocities such as that? I am sure most would say they deserve EZI.

At that point it is not within the game and thus is not your fight. Mods are around to punish people like that, they don't need your help.

Along with that, there are those that continually steal, get forgiven only to turn around and use their silver tongue again and trick everyone possible. Those that repent but are unrepentant, because they cannot be trusted with redemption, must also recieve EZI, no? If there was a chance for rehabilitation, it must be offered, but there are several who cannot handle playing the game which we must force out.

WRONG! You have no right to force someone out just because they are your enemy and wish to remain your enemy. It is not up to you to decide who can and cannot be offered forgiveness. Different people have different objectives and some of those objectives you might not like. They have as much right to be here as you do as long as they don't break the rules.

In conclusion, there is a time for everything under the sun. Whether it be eating cake or attacking the king, spying or killing spies, or even EZI and PZI. All have their place. We must simply ask for the wisdom to act appropriately when the event arises.

-zig

Yes, wisdom is good. And I hope you gain more of it before you are ever in a position to decide on the use of P/E ZIs.

[Cynic2]

You have no right to force someone out just because they are your enemy and wish to remain your enemy. It is not up to you to decide who can and cannot be offered forgiveness. Different people have different objectives and some of those objectives you might not like. They have as much right to be here as you do as long as they don't break the rules.

If a person is your enemy you have every right to constantly declare war upon them. If you are the one who is keeping them at Zero Infrastructure indefinitely then unless the community at large rejects your reasons for doing so it certainly is up to you. It is impossible to force someone out of the game because nations cannot be destroyed, only constantly warred upon. If a person chooses to leave the game because they cannot handle constant warfare then perhaps they should have evaluated the risks before they did whatever got them in the crosshairs.

How about when there are wars the victors should have to aid the defeated so that people don't quit the game due to their nations being ravaged by war? Actions have consequences and if people cannot accept those consequences then they should have he common sense not to act in a way that crosses those in power.

[Ragashingo]

If a person is your enemy you have every right to constantly declare war upon them. If you are the one who is keeping them at Zero Infrastructure indefinitely then unless the community at large rejects your reasons for doing so it certainly is up to you.

I agree, you do have a right to attack your enemies. I don't argue against that. I argue for the responsible use of power.

It is impossible to force someone out of the game because nations cannot be destroyed, only constantly warred upon. If a person chooses to leave the game because they cannot handle constant warfare then perhaps they should have evaluated the risks before they did whatever got them in the crosshairs.

Are you really going to be so ignorant to pretend that constant warfare has no effect on someone's ability to have fun playing the game? Are you going to pretend that people won't leave if something isn't fun? Don't forget that most people under ZI are not allowed to join an alliance so they are both denied normal gameplay, and are denied the ability to join a alliance community.

Besides you were the one who said that some people must be forced out for their actions. Which is it, can they be forced out or can't they?

How about when there are wars the victors should have to aid the defeated so that people don't quit the game due to their nations being ravaged by war? Actions have consequences and if people cannot accept those consequences then they should have he common sense not to act in a way that crosses those in power.

The aid idea is dumb, as it would indeed reduce the consequence of war. I think war itself if a big enough consequence as it can set someone back months or even years at this point.

Also the people in power are not more special than those not in power. They don't somehow have the right to abuse power because they have more of it. Crossing them should not be any worse a crime than crossing anyone else.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Rebel Virginia]

What were you talking about? If you were suggesting that simply abiding to the rules let forth by the powers that be and you'll be fine, wrong. Let me use the NPO-GATO war for example. NPO said stay out of peace mode, be respectful, don't use nukes, and you'll get off easy. GATO did all of that, and they still got screwed. How can you follow rules if those who set them refuse to follow them? Bah.

[zigbigadorlou]

The original quote you used is sort of flawed. You can't blame the man seeing as how he was purported to exist in the early beginnings of human civilization. His mistake is forgivable.

Nonetheless, you should know better that history has proven there to be no place or season for some things. I can name a few but I don't want to derail the topic.

Mentioning such things would be relevant. If you debase my premise, the entirety of the idea is flawed. However, I do not believe it to be the case.

I'm sure you would bring up the holocaust or some such atrocity. You must see that all actions are permissible, but some are not appropriate. There is a time to kill and a time to die, but it is not appropriate to do those things in all cases. Also, sex is not a horrible action in and of itself, but I doubt you'd find anyone who supports $%&@. Everything has its place.

What questionable behavior are you talking about? Be specific. If you are specific then people in power will abuse that power for any reason they choose as has already happened.

Wrong. It is for you to say. All of us have a voice, and all of us should speak up against bad behavior, and in support of good behavior. If you ignore the good bad issue then you have no right to had down any kind of punishment.

At that point it is not within the game and thus is not your fight. Mods are around to punish people like that, they don't need your help.

WRONG! You have no right to force someone out just because they are your enemy and wish to remain your enemy. It is not up to you to decide who can and cannot be offered forgiveness. Different people have different objectives and some of those objectives you might not like. They have as much right to be here as you do as long as they don't break the rules.

1: I did not write this to say "EZI SPONGE LAWLZOMG", I wrote this to point out that there are cases that EZI would be permissible. I gave the example of the /b/tards, not who spammed THESE forums, but who spammed OTHER forums. Any out of game crimes like that are outside the realms of the Mods, along with any IC or OOC problems like stealing aid. The mods will only step in when there's rule infractions. Its up to us to do further.

2:I never intended to say "I don't like you, PZI". They are forced out because they are a burden to the entire game, not just because we feel like it.

If a person is your enemy you have every right to constantly declare war upon them.

It is impossible to force someone out of the game because nations cannot be destroyed, only constantly warred upon. If a person chooses to leave the game because they cannot handle constant warfare then perhaps they should have evaluated the risks before they did whatever got them in the crosshairs.

Thus is the nature of punishment. They do an action and you provide just incentive for them to stop. If they continue to resist, you might as well say "PZI" or "EZI" even if you don't mean it seeing as a lesser punishment doesn't work. They are more likely to stop if you tell them they can't play the game normally ever again.

[zigbigadorlou]

What were you talking about? If you were suggesting that simply abiding to the rules let forth by the powers that be and you'll be fine, wrong. Let me use the NPO-GATO war for example. NPO said stay out of peace mode, be respectful, don't use nukes, and you'll get off easy. GATO did all of that, and they still got screwed. How can you follow rules if those who set them refuse to follow them? Bah.

You would use a historical example that doesn't really apply because you don't like my ideas

In any case, one, this has nothing to do with peace terms or NPO etc., two, this has nothing to do with whether might makes right, and three, if there was JUST CAUSE it may have been appropriate, but as you arbitrarily decided, there is not just cause. AKA, this example would be a case of abuse, not legitimate use.

[Ragashingo]

1: I did not write this to say "EZI SPONGE LAWLZOMG", I wrote this to point out that there are cases that EZI would be permissible. I gave the example of the /b/tards, not who spammed THESE forums, but who spammed OTHER forums. Any out of game crimes like that are outside the realms of the Mods, along with any IC or OOC problems like stealing aid. The mods will only step in when there's rule infractions. Its up to us to do further.

Ok, how many times did they spam? Was in an infinite amount of times? If not then how can you justify an infinite response? I can't think any action that has yet been committed that deserves constant warfare against a nation, or worse, the tracking of a player from nation to nation to punish him for a crime committed in the past.

Of course it is up to us to defend our alliances and our political agendas, but you forget the other side of it. It is also up to us to make sure the game remains playable and fair in all the cases that the Mods cannot touch.

2:I never intended to say "I don't like you, PZI". They are forced out because they are a burden to the entire game, not just because we feel like it.

Who is a burden to the entire game? Those that spam your boards? Those that do things you don't like? The spammers are a burden to you, not the entire game. Those that do thing you don't like, but that are within the rules, provide the conflict that makes this game fun. Either way they don't deserve anything higher than a normal ZI.

To sum up: There is no case where EZI is permissible.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Ragashingo

[Rebel Virginia]

You would use a historical example that doesn't really apply because you don't like my ideas

In any case, one, this has nothing to do with peace terms or NPO etc., two, this has nothing to do with whether might makes right, and three, if there was JUST CAUSE it may have been appropriate, but as you arbitrarily decided, there is not just cause. AKA, this example would be a case of abuse, not legitimate use.

I never said this was about NPO either. I merely used an example of how EZI was abused by those who have the power to enforce such a concept, and as a matter of fact, the example was perfectly valid. I'll give you a moment to wrap your mind around it.

Now, as for EZI, how is it ever justified? You stated in your essay that it is so that players have the ability to ban other players, who have not broken the ToS but for one reason or another you dislike. Tell me, what gives you that right?

Furthermore, how is forcing people out of this game in any way good for it? Imagine if people such as Doitzel or Sponge were forced out (granted they did fail but imagine for a moment that they succeeded to force them out). How much fun would this community be without 'trouble makers'? All you would have is a bunch of people agreeing with each other, as voicing a differing opinion is grounds for forced expulsion from this game, in addition to buying 10 infra a day. Not much fun, and we had it before about this time last year. When the NPO's abuses were at a highpoint, and virtually uncontested by all but a few.

Your type of mindset will bring us back to those days.

[Kindom of Goon]

Our blessed moderators can only do so much. For what they cannot do, we must. How do we go about this? The only ways are to ban from out of game forums or to hurt their nations. As such, war, one that they do not enjoy, is really the only feasible means of punishment. If we wish to make a behaviour extinct, we must make the consequences as annoying as possible. As such, how do we do that?

This is a game, not anything that actually matters. If everyone followed your logic Roger Federer would have murdered Nadal by now.

How about playing the game and using some talent to stop people from doing things rather than acting like a petulant 5yr old and crying 'you can't play' the moment they do something you don't like?

[Master-Debater]

PZI has a place.

EZI does not.

As soon as a person re-rolls, Even if it is with the same name, then they should be allowed to go free.

EZI is quite possibly the most harmful thing to ever happen to this game. It has forced good people out and was used to keep alliances in permanant states of war for a year or more. It has no place and never again will have a place in CN.

[Hymenbreach]

I think, because I'm giving people the credit for some intelligence, that there must be some intent to lump together those 'political' troublemakers mentioned above who should not be ezi'd with the blatant miscreants who make life difficult for others beyond the pale for no good purpose and continue that behaviour under a new guise.

Of course, you say, pzi that djork's nations until he learns... but that's not much different from ezi, is it?

To clarify:

Political pains/failures at diplomacy = pzi (or at least long term zi)

Miscreants/Nazis = EZI

Edit: Furthermore, because someone used a hammer to stove papa's head in, doesn't mean you never use an hammer to drive a nail home again.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Hymenbreach

[Ragashingo]

Political pains/failures at diplomacy = pzi (or at least long term zi)

Miscreants/Nazis = EZI

No and no.

You should not PZI or EZI someone because they hold a different viewpoint from you.

[Cynic2]

I agree, you do have a right to attack your enemies. I don't argue against that. I argue for the responsible use of power.

Are you really going to be so ignorant to pretend that constant warfare has no effect on someone's ability to have fun playing the game? Are you going to pretend that people won't leave if something isn't fun? Don't forget that most people under ZI are not allowed to join an alliance so they are both denied normal gameplay, and are denied the ability to join a alliance community.

Besides you were the one who said that some people must be forced out for their actions. Which is it, can they be forced out or can't they?

The aid idea is dumb, as it would indeed reduce the consequence of war. I think war itself if a big enough consequence as it can set someone back months or even years at this point.

Also the people in power are not more special than those not in power. They don't somehow have the right to abuse power because they have more of it. Crossing them should not be any worse a crime than crossing anyone else.

1. I'm all for responsibility when in a position of power too, so we agree on this.

2. My point of view is that if the player acts in such a way that they are in a constant state of warfare as a result of their actions then it is not my nor anyone else's concern. If a player doesn't want to be in a constant state of warfare then they shouldn't create a situation where they end up on a target list. I can point to many rulers who are alliance leadership who opposed those in power and were never sentenced to EZI or PZI. Perhaps the reason why they were not is because they were intelligent enough not to partake in espionage, ripping alliances off, or any of the other bad things that would land them on that list. I am not going to pretend to care if people who commit actions and have to deal with harsh consequences are having fun with it or not. Rulers can take to the battlefield and help them fight if they are being attacked unjustly, and if everyone treasures their infrastructure so much that they won't help then who does that reflect badly on?

Also there's this thing called peace mode if a player who deserves war wants a break from it.

3. Reread my post, nowhere in there did I say that players should be "forced out". My actual words were

EZI/PZI are options that should be available, but good judgment should be exercised in the few instances where it is warranted.

I said that the alliance leaders or even individuals should have the option available.

4. I was using sarcasm when I suggested that.

5. Generally a person in a position of power is more able to wreck your nation than someone who is in a weaker position than you. If I were to sentence your nation to PZI how would I possibly be able to enforce it? Whereas the leader of a superpower alliance would be able to actually carry it out. Keeping these facts in mind would you be more concerned with crossing me, or the superpower alliance leader? I know which I would be walking on eggshells with. My point was not to say that crossing those in power was somehow more of a crime than crossing those who are not, but merely that crossing those in power is more dangerous because they have the power to act against you.

[shahenshah]

Another attempt to rebrand and integrate the past and repeat it? No.

[kingzog]

I would comment at length but Ragashingo and Rebel Virginia seem to have done an admirable job of demolishing the OP's flimsy arguments.

Also, Hymenbreach, if you're serious then you are precisely the kind of person who has driven people away from the game.

If you PZI/EZI someone for a political mistake in the game, you are admitting that you ultimately have no power against them.

I don't know how you wish to define "miscreant" but if you are referring to criminal activities then there are people who take such things quite seriously. They're called the Police.

Finally, as to targeting those whose views you find objectionable others have adopted far more "radical" approaches. But they get to play the game to this day, despite supporting the worst kind of scumbaggery one could possibly associate with an online game. You seem like you'd be pretty comfortable in their ranks.

You want to know what would really make PZI/EZI unnecessary? If people would just grow the hell up.

Edited May 24, 2009 by kingzog

[Ragashingo]

2. My point of view is that if the player acts in such a way that they are in a constant state of warfare as a result of their actions then it is not my nor anyone else's concern. If a player doesn't want to be in a constant state of warfare then they shouldn't create a situation where they end up on a target list. I can point to many rulers who are alliance leadership who opposed those in power and were never sentenced to EZI or PZI. Perhaps the reason why they were not is because they were intelligent enough not to partake in espionage, ripping alliances off, or any of the other bad things that would land them on that list. I am not going to pretend to care if people who commit actions and have to deal with harsh consequences are having fun with it or not. Rulers can take to the battlefield and help them fight if they are being attacked unjustly, and if everyone treasures their infrastructure so much that they won't help then who does that reflect badly on?

How many people have to be subjected to something wrong before you decide to be against it? Sure not every leader got that kind of treatment, but to me even one is far too many. Besides spying, stealing a few million, etc are not worth ruining the experience of any player.

Also there's this thing called peace mode if a player who deserves war wants a break from it.

There's a thing called staggering. It is used to prevent peace mode.

3. Reread my post, nowhere in there did I say that players should be "forced out". My actual words were

Yep, my mistake. I was afraid I'd mixed some quote up but didn't have time to check through it all. Sorry.

My point was not to say that crossing those in power was somehow more of a crime than crossing those who are not, but merely that crossing those in power is more dangerous because they have the power to act against you.

Sure, people in higher positions have more power to crush you, but as we've both already agreed, they should limit themselves and use that power responsibly.

[zigbigadorlou]

Ok, how many times did they spam? Was in an infinite amount of times? If not then how can you justify an infinite response? I can't think any action that has yet been committed that deserves constant warfare against a nation, or worse, the tracking of a player from nation to nation to punish him for a crime committed in the past.

Of course it is up to us to defend our alliances and our political agendas, but you forget the other side of it. It is also up to us to make sure the game remains playable and fair in all the cases that the Mods cannot touch.

Who is a burden to the entire game? Those that spam your boards? Those that do things you don't like? The spammers are a burden to you, not the entire game. Those that do thing you don't like, but that are within the rules, provide the conflict that makes this game fun. Either way they don't deserve anything higher than a normal ZI.

To sum up: There is no case where EZI is permissible.

I'm sorry hippie, but there has actually been just cause for PZI (at very least). And in any case, I did not write this to apply directly to reality, but as a general statement. Its not really for me to decide what the punishments ought to be. I am simply providing a guideline and saying "hey look, even EZI has its place. GB2 MK, karmaniacs".

If they are a legit burden to you and your alliance (and I mean BURDEN), PZI makes sense. Those that learn not from observation need operant conditioning. If there is continued burden, there is continued warfare. If ZI doesn't make them flinch, one must say PZI.

Going along with this, really, the only reason why I did not go nuke rogue on the NPO is because of the threat of PZI. During the time that I easily could have, I was sentenced to ZI. I wanted to keep my nukes though. As such, I did not use them simply because of the fear of PZI. How much more with aid stealers or donation thieves.

EZI, as I said, would be reserved for those that really the police can't really touch, but still have done terrible things outside of the game. For example, those that hack or spam pron on offsite forums. Note: this isn't just posting pron, its spamming it. As in making multiple accounts constantly to keep it flowing in.

I never said this was about NPO either. I merely used an example of how EZI was abused by those who have the power to enforce such a concept, and as a matter of fact, the example was perfectly valid. I'll give you a moment to wrap your mind around it.

Furthermore, how is forcing people out of this game in any way good for it? Imagine if people such as Doitzel or Sponge were forced out (granted they did fail but imagine for a moment that they succeeded to force them out). How much fun would this community be without 'trouble makers'? All you would have is a bunch of people agreeing with each other, as voicing a differing opinion is grounds for forced expulsion from this game, in addition to buying 10 infra a day. Not much fun, and we had it before about this time last year. When the NPO's abuses were at a highpoint, and virtually uncontested by all but a few..

1. First, your example didn't mention EZI and I forgot that was a part of it (its been a while). Secondly, as I stated, your example would be of ABUSE, not USE. All actions have their place so long as they are not ABUSED.

2. As I said, this isn't just "ZOMG-EZISPONGE!!!1one". This is extreme situations. What is this game without trouble makers? For one, it'd be without me. That's my purpose here. To start trouble. Hell, if I had my way, spies would get a slap on the wrist and a kick in the pants. Spying makes the game interesting and therefore ought to be encouraged. That's a different thread though.

How about playing the game and using some talent to stop people from doing things rather than acting like a petulant 5yr old and crying 'you can't play' the moment they do something you don't like?

Who ever said we were 5 year olds? 5 year olds don't understand the complexities of morality etc. They would not be able to grasp appropriatism as I present it. They would say "EZI BAD!" as many have, not seeing the good it could cause.

Furthermore, WHO EVER SAID ANYONE WOULD USE IT THE MOMENT WE DON'T LIKE THEM? NOT I.

I said it is permissible IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES as a means to punish atrocities that are untouchable by the moderators. GET IT STRAIGHT.

[Ragashingo]

I'm sorry hippie, but there has actually been just cause for PZI (at very least)

Perhaps you meant hippo? Anyway, no there hasn't been a just cause for PZI.

And in any case, I did not write this to apply directly to reality, but as a general statement.

Most of us around here live in reality. If you aren't writing in relation to it then you may as well not write at all.

Going along with this, really, the only reason why I did not go nuke rogue on the NPO is because of the threat of PZI. During the time that I easily could have, I was sentenced to ZI. I wanted to keep my nukes though. As such, I did not use them simply because of the fear of PZI. How much more with aid stealers or donation thieves.

I've never understood the huge amount of hate nuke rogues generate. Nukes are just really powerful cruise missiles and have never been worth the amount of punishment some deal out for having their alliance nuked. As for aid thieves. Thats even less damaging than nuking, why should the response be worse?

All actions have their place so long as they are not ABUSED.

PZI and EZI is an abuse of the war system.

[kingzog]

I said it is permissible IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES as a means to punish atrocities that are untouchable by the moderators. GET IT STRAIGHT.

"Atrocities"? Really?

I'm unaware of any CN player who has burned down a village or blown up a hospital.

As I said earlier, in extreme circumstances there are people who can take action where game Mods cannot. They're called the police.

[Hymenbreach]

Also, Hymenbreach, if you're serious then you are precisely the kind of person who has driven people away from the game.

If you PZI/EZI someone for a political mistake in the game, you are admitting that you ultimately have no power against them.

You want to know what would really make PZI/EZI unnecessary? If people would just grow the hell up.

Going to have to clarify again. After this, it's a blackboard and chalk.

Firstly, I'm against EZI as any kind of in game/character 'punishment'. Why do I support a period of ZI (hardly permanant though, what would be the incentive to improve)? Because it's a tool of correction. Do I wish we could all live in peace and harmony and dance hand in hand amongst the poppies? Of course, but in a diplomatic simulator, one of the tools is ostracization and the best indicator that someone is being ostracized is their being zi'd for a period of time. I know, I know, you'd prefer a naughty step or some such.

As for EZI (again, I ask you to notice that I've moved away from the field of politics now) this is for that kind of personality that has no interest in allowing others to enjoy the game, but is not doing anything immediately actionable by the moderators (or the police). Of course, EZI should only last as long as the behaviour, so if they reroll and don't continue their miscreance, they should be welcomed back.

I won't be painted as some awful bully prevented decent players from enjoying the game. EZI should be a rarely used tool.

[zigbigadorlou]

Going to have to clarify again. After this, it's a blackboard and chalk.

Firstly, I'm against EZI as any kind of in game/character 'punishment'. Why do I support a period of ZI (hardly permanant though, what would be the incentive to improve)? Because it's a tool of correction. Do I wish we could all live in peace and harmony and dance hand in hand amongst the poppies? Of course, but in a diplomatic simulator, one of the tools is ostracization and the best indicator that someone is being ostracized is their being zi'd for a period of time. I know, I know, you'd prefer a naughty step or some such.

As for EZI (again, I ask you to notice that I've moved away from the field of politics now) this is for that kind of personality that has no interest in allowing others to enjoy the game, but is not doing anything immediately actionable by the moderators (or the police). Of course, EZI should only last as long as the behaviour, so if they reroll and don't continue their miscreance, they should be welcomed back.

I won't be painted as some awful bully prevented decent players from enjoying the game. EZI should be a rarely used tool.

Perfectly iterated. Thank you.

In spite of your terrible name.

[Cynic2]

How many people have to be subjected to something wrong before you decide to be against it? Sure not every leader got that kind of treatment, but to me even one is far too many. Besides spying, stealing a few million, etc are not worth ruining the experience of any player.

This part of your post is all that I shall respond to because the rest are irrefutable points.

I only need to see one person subjected to unjust treatment and I will speak out against that treatment and help them if I am able. Counterpoint: How many times should a person be able to get away with shady activities before an alliance says "enough is enough" and commences to constantly attack them?