The GMs Court

[Shadowsage]

Yeah, you're probably right.
I didn't know the formula, thanks.

[Sargun II]

Can we [b]not[/b] have epically large images, please? Why not just link them?

http://likethis.com/

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sargun' date='21 June 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1277161437' post='2345762']
He was just adding on.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. Was confused, cause when I'm quoting, I usually state explicitly whether I agree, didsagree, or fall somewhere in the middle.

[Californian]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=87932

Sargun has claimed the Bay Republic even though BR has posted less than 25 days ago. It is a well known precedent that someone must not have posted for 25 days to qualify as being in a state of anarchy for RP purposes.

[Sargun II]

I have not claimed the Bay Republic. I have seized governance pending a response - in effect saying that if he doesn't reply within the time frame, then I'm claiming it.

[Californian]

Well you've already colored the Bay Republic as part of your nation. Funny how updates generally take weeks but you manage to make one the second you posted. If you haven't annexed him, then why is he colored as part of your nation?

[Sargun II]

That's because the map is unofficial, and I know he's not coming back.

[Californian]

No matter how official the map thread is, I do not believe the map updater is allowed to purposefully manipulate it to his own advantage knowing that he is putting in inaccurate information. It's unofficial in the sense that there may be accidental inconsistencies, not that you are allowed to purposefully construct such inconsistencies. As much as I trust your intuition, "I know he will" isn't a valid reason for deleting him off the map.

[Sargun II]

No, but Lynneth's precedent is. Unless he changes his ruling regarding Mudd, I'm in the right here.

[Michael McBride]

Shadow? Still waiting for your "proof" there, bud. I provided what you asked, let's see you do the same.

[Manetheren]

[quote name='Californian' date='21 June 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1277171151' post='2345982']
No matter how official the map thread is, I do not believe the map updater is allowed to purposefully manipulate it to his own advantage knowing that he is putting in inaccurate information. It's unofficial in the sense that there may be accidental inconsistencies, not that you are allowed to purposefully construct such inconsistencies. As much as I trust your intuition, "I know he will" isn't a valid reason for deleting him off the map.
[/quote]

I was deleted from the map for the same reason before 25 days of inactivity.

[iamthey]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='21 June 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1277135731' post='2345253']
I'm calling shens. He has to interact with the world just like everyone else. Botha interacts with the world and is currently involved in the current political situation. Keshav is a part of this community and should be treated as such (remember when everyone complained because Junio would recognize no IC situations towards him?). There should be no OOC barriers, such as this, for invading people ICly (exception being locked nations).
[/quote]

I acknowledge that Lynneth and ITDA can and have set forth the guidelines of bothamode. I helped write them myself, though I said at the time I did not like the idea of botha mode being used as a shield. Nonetheless it is what it is.

As you have said, the community can make rules. Ultimately the community hasn't invaded players like botha and justinian because they respect their method and choice of RP. In the same way whether keshav is protected, is ultimately up to the community. The GM's have interpreted precedent and tradition to find standardized guidelines for bothamode; naturally there are different schools of thought with respect to his style. Some say it is just out of the respect of the community, some say it only applies to botha (as he was the first Rper... maybe), and some say that in terms of war it is a firm and universal OOC shield. To this point we have avoided confronting it, as no one really wanted to peg down exactly what it was. Everyone likes the idea of a shield to hide from their enemies, and everyone wants to invade their enemies when they are behind the shield itself. While it would be nice to make some sort of selective rule which only governed botha... that doesn't really solve the problem, not to mention being unfair in its own right. Now after so many years of play, they have selected one view, albeit the more extreme view, which establishes a firm OOC wall against IC war and pegs war to IG counterparts.

To this end, what I really think this most recent group of GM's has been about is the establishment of firmer definitions, and an increase in consistency with respect to the criteria used in determining rules. Max aircraft vs IG aircraft for example. It has been about moving the community away from a laundry list of random rules and guidelines, some of which exist for no reason at all, towards something more rational and universal. In the past a handful knew the rules which they could pull out of their $@! at any arbitrary moment or forget about entirely when it suited them, now at least there is a semblance of order and a degree of simplicity (albeit the job is no where near complete). However everything done has attempted to maintain fidelity to the will of the community, whether the community accepts this most recent establishment or not, is up to them. In the case of junio the community made the decision to remove him, they may again make such a choice in the case of keshav, or to a lesser extent simply refuse to acknowledge his protection. If you think the ruling made is wrong, appeal to the RP body itself, in this case they can act as the final arbiter.


[quote name='Californian' date='22 June 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1277170403' post='2345960']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=87932

Sargun has claimed the Bay Republic even though BR has posted less than 25 days ago. It is a well known precedent that someone must not have posted for 25 days to qualify as being in a state of anarchy for RP purposes.
[/quote]

This should be handled IC. Yes the government still exists and can be assumed to be making contact with other governments; but he can still invade it, shut down its communications, or otherwise claim their land for his own. If they do not fight back, or respond to his war then its there is no contest to the take over. Governments in the region are welcome to step in, or otherwise encourage sargun to not invade, but good luck with that.

Edited June 22, 2010 by iamthey

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Sargun' date='22 June 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1277171219' post='2345987']
No, but Lynneth's precedent is. Unless he changes his ruling regarding Mudd, I'm in the right here.
[/quote]
[quote name='Emperor Mudd' date='22 June 2010 - 06:15 AM' timestamp='1277180102' post='2346186']
I was deleted from the map for the same reason before 25 days of inactivity.
[/quote]
This is an entirely different case than Mudd's.
In Mudd's case, he went unresponsive for 10+ days for several times before I decided that he be wiped. Mudd also was in the middle of a war, which made the entire thing more serious.

Bay Republic? He isn't at war.
He didn't go "afk" for 3 or more times, 10+ days each.

Case closed, he's not gone until the 25 day limit is over.


I also very much would favour [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_positivism"]Positivism[/url] instead of precedences everywhere, because each individual case is unique. Derp.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Shadowsage' date='22 June 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1277163946' post='2345823']
Two rolls please.

Intelligence, both.
[/quote]
[quote name='Shadowsage' date='22 June 2010 - 01:58 AM' timestamp='1277164689' post='2345840']
As a question, how can I have 50% and him have 70%?

[url="http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5026/newbitmapimage4z.png"]image link[/url]
[/quote]

Fail: 1-50
Win: 51-100

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing247.png[/IMG][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing248.png[/IMG]

One fail, one win.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='22 June 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1277195467' post='2346392']
Bay Republic? He isn't at war.
He didn't go "afk" for 3 or more times, 10+ days each.
[/quote]

Actually, he has gone afk for three times, for months at a time instead of days or simply weeks. He also has a habit of making nations, posting once or twice, and then leaving completely.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Sargun

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Sargun' date='22 June 2010 - 04:59 PM' timestamp='1277218738' post='2346544']
Actually, he has gone afk for three times, for months at a time instead of days or simply weeks. He also has a habit of making nations, posting once or twice, and then leaving completely.
[/quote]
He still is not subject to that ruling, as he is [b]not[/b] at war and never has been during his inactivity. The key part of mudd's ruling was that he did it during war.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='22 June 2010 - 11:34 AM' timestamp='1277220880' post='2346575']
He still is not subject to that ruling, as he is [b]not[/b] at war and never has been during his inactivity. The key part of mudd's ruling was that he did it during war.
[/quote]

Make a guideline for all, not one. Is war inactivity going to be ~10-12 days for everyone?

Edited June 22, 2010 by Voodoo Nova

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='22 June 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1277220880' post='2346575']
He still is not subject to that ruling, as he is [b]not[/b] at war and never has been during his inactivity. The key part of mudd's ruling was that he did it during war.
[/quote]

So you have to be inactive multiple times while at war.

Hmmm, that almost sounds like you just made up that rule on the spot during Mudd's war - oh wait, you [b]did[/b]

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Shadowsage' date='21 June 2010 - 06:58 PM' timestamp='1277164689' post='2345840']
As a question, how can I have 50% and him have 70%?
[/quote]
It could be that he has more land (land increases spy attack defense but not offense), has more tech, and/or has more spies than you.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='22 June 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1277220960' post='2346579']
Make a guideline for all, not one. Is war inactivity going to be ~10-12 days for everyone?
[/quote]
If the other GMs agree with this...Sure.

[quote name='Sargun' date='22 June 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1277221030' post='2346581']
So you have to be inactive multiple times while at war.

Hmmm, that almost sounds like you just made up that rule on the spot during Mudd's war - oh wait, you [b]did[/b]
[/quote]
Because it had never happened before.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='22 June 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1277221848' post='2346595']
Because it had never happened before.
[/quote]
That doesn't make it okay for you to make up new rules on the spot. What kind of a rule is "if you go inactive three times or more during a war and those inactive periods last longer than ten days"? That's a rule specifically designed for one circumstance and one circumstance only. In other words, you made up the rule to end the war.

The job as a GM is to enforce the existing rules, not to make completely new ones up. The GM's role is to act as a moderator would and solve OOC disputes by making a ruling akin to a moderator - striking down Godmodding, penalizing people for metagaming, and trying to maintain order by acting as an enforcer of the rules. The GM's role is [b]not[/b] to make circumstantial rules and change the basics of CNRP, such as the inactivity rule.

also, end rant and see you later.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Sargun

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Sargun' date='22 June 2010 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1277222072' post='2346599']
That doesn't make it okay for you to make up new rules on the spot. What kind of a rule is "if you go inactive three times or more during a war and those inactive periods last longer than ten days"? That's a rule specifically designed for one circumstance and one circumstance only. In other words, you made up the rule to end the war.

The job as a GM is to enforce the existing rules, not to make completely new ones up. The GM's role is to act as a moderator would and solve OOC disputes by making a ruling akin to a moderator - striking down Godmodding, penalizing people for metagaming, and trying to maintain order by acting as an enforcer of the rules. The GM's role is [b]not[/b] to make circumstantial rules and change the basics of CNRP, such as the inactivity rule.

also, end rant and see you later.
[/quote]
People wanted a GM decision.
I gave them a GM decision. Whether or not it gets turned into an actual rule is still open, because precedents are not rules in my opinion.
I didn't expect to make everyone happy with that decision - especially not the affected one, Mudd - but I made it. Regardless of whether it was the right or wrong decision, I stand by it as it has happened.

[JEDCJT]

Requesting two rolls, please. Both intelligence. Against the Republic of Canada.

[img]http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww320/LordJedcjt/spyodds.png[/img]

Yea, I have 90%, so...

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='22 June 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1277222792' post='2346609']
[b]People wanted a GM decision.
I gave them a GM decision. Whether or not it gets turned into an actual rule is still open, because precedents are not rules in my opinion. [/b]
I didn't expect to make everyone happy with that decision - especially not the affected one, Mudd - but I made it. Regardless of whether it was the right or wrong decision, I stand by it as it has happened.
[/quote]
You should have told them to make a rule in the first place rather than saying, "I can make or delete rules if I want to without the entire community's input!"

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sargun' date='21 June 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1277171219' post='2345987']
No, but Lynneth's precedent is. Unless he changes his ruling regarding Mudd, I'm in the right here.
[/quote]
Sargun, if the map is unofficial...why does it even need pinned?

[quote name='HHAYD' date='22 June 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1277230587' post='2346747']
You should have told them to make a rule in the first place rather than saying, "I can make or delete rules if I want to without the entire community's input!"
[/quote]
HHHAYD, the GM's are there to settle a dispute. if he had NOT made any kind of ruling, he woul;dn't be doing his job in settling the dispute.