Bacharth Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 (edited) I'm closing this poll. I think we have a good opinion of what people think of CNRP. This poll means only one thing: not everyone is affected by global events, so no more of this, "you launched so many nukes the world should be in a nuclear holocaust." -------------- So, I have discovered the main problem why people don't participate or not recognize people: it is because they see CNRP as an all-encompassing entity where some will choose to abide by rules set up. Remember to post your vote in reply. ONLY THOSE WHO PLAY CNRP ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE I have set up a simple question. "Should players on the CNRP would map be officially regarded as CNRP roleplayers and be required to participate in a game?" I have tried to keep my bias out of this section as much as possible so that my opinion won't sway yours. An answer of Yes means that everyone who is on the CNRP world map is required to OOC-ly recognize everything in the CNRP environment. The statement: "Nobody should be forced to RP what they don't want to RP" will no longer hold water. If a world event happens in CNRP, like a massive nuclear holocaust, everyone will abide by it. Reasons for: - We will start acting more like a community, and therefore care more about the actions of other players and be more realistic - Give the CNRP game moderators an easier time ruling over people, because everyone in CNRP will be required to answer to the mods, and if they refuse, they will be removed from the map. Reasons against: - People who want to RP with others who abide by the rules will be forced to rp something they might not want to. - People will be forced to react to circumstances not generated by their own doing. An answer of No means that people on the world map will RP how they want to, and if people want to abide by a set of rules they can. The above statement of forced RP will hold true. Things will remain as they are. Reasons for: - People will be able to RP as they want to. - Allows for more freedom. Reasons against: - Leaves a huge division in CNRP and adds to more fighting and bickering between people about what should and what should not exist. - More unrealistic situations will occur where people can launch millions of nukes with no consequence. I added another option. Split CNRP into two worlds with these two options. In this option, those who want CNRP to remain the way it is will RP together on their own world, and those who want to roleplay as a community will remain on their own world. Land will remain the same, it will just be taken as countries from this world will be removed and placed onto a different world map into the exact same space, protectorates and all. If there is one who decides to join the CNRP world, they will have to join the CNRP community. Edit: On second thought, no, because that's up to the side that lost the poll. Also, GMs need to post with their support of this poll being the end of the debate. Edited January 19, 2010 by VinceSixx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acca Dacca Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Its a world. You want a shell, join Junio's Italy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted January 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I voted yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I've always said yes to this sort of question. Vince pretty much laid out my own sentiments. Right now things are entirely unrealistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Conversely Mykep, there is my favorite example of why you should have to consult with your neighbor before attacking them: -Nation A decides to RP some internal strife -Nation B, a former ally of Nation A, cancels their alliance and proceeds to invade Nation A with all their allies(plus some lolbandwagoners) -Nation A can either exist as a tiny little protectorate of Nation B, or Nation A can move. Its not a fun situation and not one I would like to see brought upon people. Both these polls have the problem that they give us the issue of false dilemas, both polls restrict the possible answers to to extreme opposites (yes or no). Should people have to interact with each other, should they be prevented from saying 'I dont recognize your RP, Ill do what I want' all the time? yes (We shouldnt all be Junio Borgheses) Should people be forced to accept the loss of their nation or the assassination of significant leaders? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Closest thing to my opinion is "No". I like the way things are, but then again nothing bad (i.e. forcefully attacked) really has happened to me. I am also against forced roleplaying, and yes would create even more than there currently is, without making the good types of bonds in between the role players. I just hope the mods don't need to come in like they have before, as HK47 did waaay back when. I agree with The Flying Scotsman (who is this Mykep? ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The FSM Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Er.... Mykep is a man I knew a long time ago. Funnily enough Acca Dacca uses the same avatar. Must have made me confused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I agree that people have to be more cooperative and everyone should subscribe to a set of rules. However I dont think that generalizing as is encompassed by Option "Yes" is the answer here. If one player RPd an earthquake does it mean that I have to recognize it? No. What if one player Rped a meteor hitting his nation, should I RP its after effects on my nation? No. What we need is responsible RPs and responsible players. I do not want to respond to a constant hell storm generated by people who do not think things through. Option Yes would have been my choice, if CNRP was a more idealistic and responsible world, however the fact that it is not so means I vote for Option No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justinian the Mighty Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I voted no for the same reasons as KoC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacharth Posted January 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I agree that people have to be more cooperative and everyone should subscribe to a set of rules. However I dont think that generalizing as is encompassed by Option "Yes" is the answer here. If one player RPd an earthquake does it mean that I have to recognize it? No. What if one player Rped a meteor hitting his nation, should I RP its after effects on my nation? No.What we need is responsible RPs and responsible players. I do not want to respond to a constant hell storm generated by people who do not think things through. Option Yes would have been my choice, if CNRP was a more idealistic and responsible world, however the fact that it is not so means I vote for Option No. Incidents like what you were describing would be decided by the GM first, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Incidents like what you were describing would be decided by the GM first, of course. But what if a GM's decision on what to RP in my nation is not acceptable to me? Is it okay for me to lose control of what I want to RP? If I am developing a mega port city, how much would I want a Tsunami to strike it? Though such things do happen in RL, in RL there are no arbiters of what happens and what don't, but here you are planning to give epochal powers to a few individuals. The institution of GMs is playing a very vital role in CNRP. A proposal like this, if effected, would severely tarnish its reputation and make it open to gross manipulations and abuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 For the reasons Cochin described already, I'm voting no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Cooperation in RP makes for a quality story. It is all about the story and the enjoyment from developing it. Those who exist merely to conquer through their poorly thought out posts and outrageous technological advantageous miss out on most of the fun. Poor form, will go with number 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 But what if a GM's decision on what to RP in my nation is not acceptable to me? Is it okay for me to lose control of what I want to RP? If I am developing a mega port city, how much would I want a Tsunami to strike it? Though such things do happen in RL, in RL there are no arbiters of what happens and what don't, but here you are planning to give epochal powers to a few individuals.The institution of GMs is playing a very vital role in CNRP. A proposal like this, if effected, would severely tarnish its reputation and make it open to gross manipulations and abuses. What about a nuclear carpetbombing taking place in another nation right next to yours? I am split in between. An RPer who wants to RP a worldwide event has to contact everyone who will be affected. However, highly realistic situations can not be ignored, such as massive amount of radiation from a nuclear carpet bombing. That would ICly force a neighboring nation to speak out against the war and attempt to seek peace since they will be affected by the nuclear holocaust instead of saying, "Meh". Especially EMP's large range, it is bound to affect other nations that neighbors the targeted nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acca Dacca Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Cooperation in RP makes for a quality story. It is all about the story and the enjoyment from developing it. Those who exist merely to conquer through their poorly thought out posts and outrageous technological advantageous miss out on most of the fun. Poor form, will go with number 2. The story. Not your story, not my story, THE story. CNRP is a world with a story, if you wanted everything to go your way, then you do not have to be apart of CNRP for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Forced cooperation is not cooperation at all. The world is fine as it is, and if you look at a lot of RPs that aren't big deals you'll see realism, cooperation and the sharing of events (like the earthquake in Dragonisia, for instance). You should never have to RP something that you have no say in. If someone invades you, at least you can fight back, call for help, etc. If someone has a nuclear war, I don't feel like interrupting my plans and RPing nuclear fallout. If your plan went into effect, the world would be a wasteland by now. It's not a bad idea, it just isn't a good suggestion for a game like CNRP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Forced cooperation is not cooperation at all. The world is fine as it is, and if you look at a lot of RPs that aren't big deals you'll see realism, cooperation and the sharing of events (like the earthquake in Dragonisia, for instance).You should never have to RP something that you have no say in. If someone invades you, at least you can fight back, call for help, etc. If someone has a nuclear war, I don't feel like interrupting my plans and RPing nuclear fallout. If your plan went into effect, the world would be a wasteland by now. It's not a bad idea, it just isn't a good suggestion for a game like CNRP. This man speaks the truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakwars Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I agree with the Flying Scotsman. the Scotsman is a good newspaper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingChris Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Sargun phrased my opinion better than anyone else could. No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Sargun and Cochin already described my position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 I think that, because nuclear war happens every other month, nuclear winter is not something that we should force people to RP. It simply would not be fun to be forced to RP in a Fallout 3-world because keshav got pissed at cochin or something. (just stating examples) However there ought to be more cooperation among nations, but not in a way that is determined by the nations in the game. I would propose having a single, overlord GM without a nation that brings about natural disasters to the world arbitrarily and forces the world to RP them out. These should be realistic, obviously, but with the system as it is I would not support more cooperation. Also, I voted 'yes' because the question was deceiving and I did not read the post until later. In retrospect, I should have voted 'No'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSchaine Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Voted no. Merger has a point. With all the devastation that has happened, it'd be a wasteland. That space elevator would have been busted long time ago, and mor ethan a few nation would be RP'ing horribly mutated populations of were-rabbits. Seriously though, not a cool thing. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 Would those people voting no becuase they are against forced roleplay please stop. Many but not all of us already agree with and allow forced roleplay. How you ask? Its simple one of the current rules is that is you are invaded or have a war declared on you then you have to accept it or you lose your land. That is forcing roleplay on someone with the real threat of loosing all their land or having to become a puppet. If you are truly against forced roleplaying then you need to agrue against that rule and eithe rignore it or try and have it removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmpaSand Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 No. I should not have my work erased simply because a childish RPer decides to invade on a whim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted January 17, 2010 Report Share Posted January 17, 2010 It's what happens when you refuse to accept a war. You get your land taken by the aggressor without opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.