Question on Use of IG Resources for RP

[Sumeragi]

1. Is the use of any IG resources for land transactions banned?

2. If not, is the use of IG resources with RP justification allowed?

The questions above came up do to the fact that comrade nikonov has backed out of a (already done) land transaction deal using "I only did it for tech!" argument.

Here is the transation treaty: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...c=59465&hl=

As you can see, I gave Niko Hubei, a NAP, and a promise to give 400 tech for Heilongjiang and Jilin. Currently Niko has received 250 of the tech, and I was looking for the 4th seller to get him another 100 tech and send 50 myself. However, now he's attempting to back out by saying he only sold the land for tech, when the treaty above shows that there were other parts to it.

I await your ruling, GMs. Thank you.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Sumeragi

[Sargun II]

No land gifting for OOC reasons. in-game resources are an OOC reason

there is no argument here

edit: even if there were IC reasons, the reason he actually DID it was for the OOC reason; the IC reasons were manufactured due to OOC reasons

Edited June 18, 2009 by Sargun

[LeVentNoir]

God.....

Ok, as I see it, you entered into a contract. Point 1

Normally, I would say, there is no basis for any IG transaction to be made as a result of RP, but Botha and those who RP in his style do do exactly that as they believe the full interlinking.

So, unless you are playing in Botha mode, IG transactions should not be binding / used.

Its not a GM decision, its my Opinion.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

While it is true this is the deal she attempted to arrange in full, I've always warned and worried about the legitimacy of such a transaction. Sumeragi asked me to post here to vouch that the deal by her statements are accurate, they are. However, that doesn't have any impact in the legalities of the deal in relation to the rp, which I've always questioned.

My response has always been: Whether or not it is legal is not my territory.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Sumeragi]

edit: even if there were IC reasons, the reason he actually DID it was for the OOC reason; the IC reasons were manufactured due to OOC reasons

That's quite an interesting argument, since it's selective interpertation. I gave him the entire terms in one goal, and the only change that happened was the tech gong from 300 to 400.

[Sargun II]

That's quite an interesting argument, since it's selective interpertation. I gave him the entire terms in one goal, and the only change that happened was the tech gong from 300 to 400.

The only reason he accepted the "entire terms" was because of the tech.

[V The King]

I guess that's plausible given actual RP justifications, but I fear this may end up resulting in RP'ers "buying out" each other IG for IC advantage. It's a really gray territory. >_<

[Subtleknifewielder]

My view is you made a deal, both of you should stick by it.

[Tahsir]

Its a contracted deal. Make a RP about technology being exchanged to make it more interesting. Honestly, I don't see why anyone would have issue with this type of transaction. Its heavy on the person paying IG for RP.

[Botha]

So, unless you are playing in Botha mode, IG transactions should not be binding / used.

To quote JEN-smothing-or-other, I watch this with interest.

In seriousness, my opinion is that IG transactions should be binding because they are in-game - has nothing to do with Botha's Law of RPing. It's just that in-game deal should be regarded as binding regardless of any RP ramifications. In other words, if someone screwsyou out of the RP portion you should still follow through on the in-game deal.

[Subtleknifewielder]

To quote JEN-smothing-or-other, I watch this with interest.

In seriousness, my opinion is that IG transactions should be binding because they are in-game - has nothing to do with Botha's Law of RPing. It's just that in-game deal should be regarded as binding regardless of any RP ramifications. In other words, if someone screwsyou out of the RP portion you should still follow through on the in-game deal.

Wait, what? So if one person backs out, the other still has to honor it? That really doesn't sound fair to me.

OH, and the person you're quoting is JEDCJT.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder

[Tahsir]

To quote JEN-smothing-or-other, I watch this with interest.

In seriousness, my opinion is that IG transactions should be binding because they are in-game - has nothing to do with Botha's Law of RPing. It's just that in-game deal should be regarded as binding regardless of any RP ramifications. In other words, if someone screwsyou out of the RP portion you should still follow through on the in-game deal.

If you're my roommate I promise you ten of my apples for an extra hour of TV time to myself, and you never give me the time, I'm not going to give you the apples.

If you've already eaten some, Then I'm problem going to exact swift revenge and retribution on you too

Edited June 19, 2009 by Tahsir Re

[Botha]

Wait, what? So if one person backs out, the other still has to honor it? That really doesn't sound fair to me.

Well... what is the case and raminifications if someone breaks an in-game agreement or deal, such as a tech deal. Same thing - that's all what I am saying. Any deal made with in-game should be dealt in-game. So if I gave you $3000000 for a land claim, and then later you back out, then the person who backed out has to compensate in-game, just like if a tech deal or cash-for-trade agreement was broken.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Well... what is the case and raminifications if someone breaks an in-game agreement or deal, such as a tech deal. Same thing - that's all what I am saying. Any deal made with in-game should be dealt in-game. So if I gave you $3000000 for a land claim, and then later you back out, then the person who backed out has to compensate in-game, just like if a tech deal or cash-for-trade agreement was broken.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. What you're saying, in other words, is that the person who broke the deal should have to compensate the other in some way for their losses, correct?

[Botha]

What you're saying, in other words, is that the person who broke the deal should have to compensate the other in some way for their losses, correct?

Yes. If someone breaks an in-game deal for RP, then yes they should have to compensate in-game. i.e. if you give me in-game $$$ in return I give you RP land, but then later I go and recind that claim, I should have to give you back the $$$.

Even if that RP land claim is later removed from the map by GM due to inactivity, it is the right and honourable thing to do to return the $$$ in-game, because in-game resources were paid out. That's what I would do.

[mykep]

I'm going to throw in Mykep's law of CNRPing: If it hasnt been done before, don't do it.

Three years of standards, making stuff up, organizing it. We have a map now, wars unplanned, mergers and a bunch of other BS. Cant we just enjoy the large amount of rules and the other turd-iotic ways of getting land that we already have?

Edited June 20, 2009 by mykep

[Yawoo]

My personal opinion is that any in-game compensation for an RP claim should immediately be wiped by the GMs. The way I look at it is, if Nation XYZ nukes Nation ABC and then quits the RP and then Nation ABC goes in-game and does something to his in-game nation then people would be crying OOC attack. So, what is the difference here, in both situations an in-game transaction happened, why shouldn't the other RPers be crying OOC attack on our RP-land?

Either you sanction letting in-game transactions (be it a nuke because of what someone did in the RP, or some tech for land) or you don't allow in-game transactions, at all. This is not a situation where a "gray" area should be allowed. RP deals for RP items. In-game deals for in-game items, do not mix the two, it is the best way to keep the RP fair and balanced.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Yawoo