A response to the E/PZI "menace"

[Ragashingo]

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?

As long as what he does is within the rules of the game? An unlimited number of times. If we put some dumb limit on the number of times we could screw up then we'd all be PZIed eventually.

[Cynic2]

As long as what he does is within the rules of the game? An unlimited number of times. If we put some dumb limit on the number of times we could screw up then we'd all be PZIed eventually.

Chances are if a person continues to commit the same "crime" over and over again they won't stop just because they get ZI'd. They'll just take the time to rebuild and commit the same offense. I'm for people who make a mistake getting a second chance, but those who commit their acts with malicious intent for irrational reasons deserve what they get in my opinion.

I'm not saying that minor offenses should mean automatic PZI, however I still maintain that there are instances where it is justified. Rulers should have the option available because it falls within the rules of the game. It is up to the rest of the community to take a stand when they abuse that option.

[Hymenbreach]

Perfectly iterated. Thank you.

In spite of your terrible name.

Thank you.

Isn't it? They won't let me change it. If it helps, a hymen is any kind of barrier, not necessarily 'that' one.

[Ragashingo]

Chances are if a person continues to commit the same "crime" over and over again they won't stop just because they get ZI'd. They'll just take the time to rebuild and commit the same offense. I'm for people who make a mistake getting a second chance, but those who commit their acts with malicious intent for irrational reasons deserve what they get in my opinion.

You mean someone might play the game? Sorry, but building a nation and using it to attack is not even close to be a reason to PZI someone. I can understand (yet not agree with) the want to use PZI on someone who hurls vile insults, or betrays an alliance, etc. But I think it is lunacy to mount a continual attack on someone just because they rebuilt and attacked you or your alliance again.

I'm not saying that minor offenses should mean automatic PZI, however I still maintain that there are instances where it is justified. Rulers should have the option available because it falls within the rules of the game. It is up to the rest of the community to take a stand when they abuse that option.

I still maintain that any use of PZI, with the possible exception for hackers (not spies as a spy is completely different) is unjustifiable. There should be no X number of forgives and you're out type policy, and all of us should keep the welfare of the community in mind enough that we allow everyone to participate unless they break a rule and are banned.

[Cynic2]

You mean someone might play the game? Sorry, but building a nation and using it to attack is not even close to be a reason to PZI someone. I can understand (yet not agree with) the want to use PZI on someone who hurls vile insults, or betrays an alliance, etc. But I think it is lunacy to mount a continual attack on someone just because they rebuilt and attacked you or your alliance again.

We're arguing different points here I think... I believe that I was being clear enough when I stated that "those who commit their acts with malicious intent for irrational reasons deserve what they get". I am failing to see your logic here, because on the one hand you say that you have no problem with alliances ZI'ing a nation yet now you call it "lunacy". What do you propose, that a player should get ZI'd if he attacks an alliance, but then have his or her attacks welcomed and be given a parade should they rebuild and attack the alliance again?

I still maintain that any use of PZI, with the possible exception for hackers (not spies as a spy is completely different) is unjustifiable. There should be no X number of forgives and you're out type policy, and all of us should keep the welfare of the community in mind enough that we allow everyone to participate unless they break a rule and are banned.

And I still maintain that in a game where there will always be those who will sink to whatever lows are necessary to get ahead that the threat of PZI serves as a useful deterrent even if alliances never have to use it.

[Tom Litler]

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.

Your statements are so subjective, you're like a caricature of some archetype representative of ignorance.

"Miscreants" and "nazis" are two epithets that depend on the eyes of their beholder from which to draw their meanings.

What if I decided that the way you play the game makes it less enjoyable for myself? You'd be right here on the other side of the fence singing the tune as Karma.

Just be quiet.

[Ragashingo]

We're arguing different points here I think... I believe that I was being clear enough when I stated that "those who commit their acts with malicious intent for irrational reasons deserve what they get". I am failing to see your logic here, because on the one hand you say that you have no problem with alliances ZI'ing a nation yet now you call it "lunacy". What do you propose, that a player should get ZI'd if he attacks an alliance, but then have his or her attacks welcomed and be given a parade should they rebuild and attack the alliance again?

I stated clearly that it is lunacy to do constant attacks. Thats PZI and EZI, which are both different from a normal ZIing.

And I still maintain that in a game where there will always be those who will sink to whatever lows are necessary to get ahead that the threat of PZI serves as a useful deterrent even if alliances never have to use it.

Any low that requires that someone not be allowed to play the game will be handled by the mods. Anything else is not a low worthy of banishing someone through the use of constant warfare.

[zigbigadorlou]

Your statements are so subjective, you're like a caricature of some archetype representative of ignorance.

"Miscreants" and "nazis" are two epithets that depend on the eyes of their beholder from which to draw their meanings.

What if I decided that the way you play the game makes it less enjoyable for myself? You'd be right here on the other side of the fence singing the tune as Karma.

Just be quiet.

Its like bashing your head against a brick wall.

We say there exists legitimate use, you bring up abuse.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Karma can sing our tune too.

Rather than continue this, how about we do the intelligent thing and see what happens if/when a situation such as this arises? Then we can truly test our opinions out to see if there is validity to what we say.

AKA, we know there is abuse. We know it exists. That's not what we're talking about.

[Hymenbreach]

Your statements are so subjective, you're like a caricature of some archetype representative of ignorance.

"Miscreants" and "nazis" are two epithets that depend on the eyes of their beholder from which to draw their meanings.

What if I decided that the way you play the game makes it less enjoyable for myself? You'd be right here on the other side of the fence singing the tune as Karma.

Just be quiet.

Whistles:

"Who do you think you are kid-ding Mr Litler,

If you think old Hymie's done."

I'll think you'll find that Nazi has a fairly definite definition. As for being subjective to the people giving the EZI... well, duh.

Just don't be quiet. You are a funny little man.

[Cynic2]

I stated clearly that it is lunacy to do constant attacks. Thats PZI and EZI, which are both different from a normal ZIing.

Any low that requires that someone not be allowed to play the game will be handled by the mods. Anything else is not a low worthy of banishing someone through the use of constant warfare.

How do you figure that it is lunatical to go to war constantly against an enemy that you see as a threat?

Who are you to decide what is worthy of constant warfare and what isn't? Why do you want players to be barred from a legitimate in game action? You and every other player in the community have the option to go to war to help a nation that you feel is unjustly repressed or to exert political pressure and assist them that way.

[Ragashingo]

How do you figure that it is lunatical to go to war constantly against an enemy that you see as a threat?

Because at some point they are not a threat anymore, and the warfare becomes a means to drive someone from the game.

Who are you to decide what is worthy of constant warfare and what isn't? Why do you want players to be barred from a legitimate in game action? You and every other player in the community have the option to go to war to help a nation that you feel is unjustly repressed or to exert political pressure and assist them that way.

Who are you to decide what is worthy of constant warfare and what isn't? See how that works?

I have never suggested it be barred from the game. All I want is for players to have enough respect for one another that they don't resort to long term warfare in an attempt to drive someone from the game. We can play the game, have disagreements, espionage, and gigantic wars without deciding that we have the right to play and that someone with less power than us doesn't.

So who am I to decide? I'm someone looking out for the good of all players and for the good of the game itself.

[Cynic2]

Because at some point they are not a threat anymore, and the warfare becomes a means to drive someone from the game.

Who are you to decide what is worthy of constant warfare and what isn't? See how that works?

I have never suggested it be barred from the game. All I want is for players to have enough respect for one another that they don't resort to long term warfare in an attempt to drive someone from the game. We can play the game, have disagreements, espionage, and gigantic wars without deciding that we have the right to play and that someone with less power than us doesn't.

So who am I to decide? I'm someone looking out for the good of all players and for the good of the game itself.

If a nation or alliance decides that an enemy is a likely future threat then why shouldn't they have the right to constantly declare on them?

I play this game simulating the role of a nation leader. If my ruler decides that another nation is a viable threat to them or because they disagree with us about what kind of cheese is better then I have every right to march to war against that nation for as long as they are in my attack range.

As long as long term warfare is a permissible part of the game it should always be an available option. You can decry it all you want but short of barring the practice from the game there will always be cases of it happening. It's up to the community to stand up and put a stop to it if they feel it is unjust.

"So who am I to decide? I'm someone looking out for the good of all players and for the good of the game itself." An admirable goal.

[Ragashingo]

If a nation or alliance decides that an enemy is a likely future threat then why shouldn't they have the right to constantly declare on them?

Everybody is a potential threat.

[Cynic2]

Everybody is a potential threat.

Hence declaring war should always be an available option. If the community determines that the repetition if war against a nation is wrong then they should come together to put a stop to it.