OOC Shields

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='29 June 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1277866069' post='2354758']
And just how did you get ahold of such detailed information of events that occured long before you came to be here?
[/quote]
There is a word called, "lurking".

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='29 June 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1277869331' post='2354806']
There is a word called, "lurking".
[/quote]
not when the IG nation is nowhere near that old.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='30 June 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1277870533' post='2354827']
not when the IG nation is nowhere near that old.
[/quote]

People can read previous RP's.


However, I am curious as to which player RP'd an insurgency for 3 months, whose troops all died in a nuclear holocaust....I'd remember something like that.

[Botha]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='29 June 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1277840589' post='2354248']Ah, so he consulted you? The man did his research I see.[/quote]

[color="#000080"]Yes he did. And I was pretty straight up with him about the difficulties regarding 'outside' RP interaction.

Another point that dawned on me today why I have been able to maintain a Botha Mode RP while others haven't been too successful is that I've been RPing essentially in the same manner since December 2007 (and by and large in the manner how pretty much everyone else did back then).

While I haven't changed, everyone else around me has as new rules were developed - but I've been left in peace unchanged. [/color]

[Zoot Zoot]

Botha, you dont well.
You just dont get into peoples faces and wind them up lol. Ive never had any reason in almost a year of RP, across four nations, to have any problem with you mate.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Botha' date='30 June 2010 - 10:59 AM' timestamp='1277888365' post='2355034']
[color="#000080"]Yes he did. And I was pretty straight up with him about the difficulties regarding 'outside' RP interaction.

Another point that dawned on me today why I have been able to maintain a Botha Mode RP while others haven't been too successful is that I've been RPing essentially in the same manner since December 2007 (and by and large in the manner how pretty much everyone else did back then).

While I haven't changed, everyone else around me has as new rules were developed - but I've been left in peace unchanged. [/color]
[/quote]

I think because you were from before modern CNRP and have rp'd it so long your status is accepted.

[iamthey]

-snip-

wrong thread.

Edited June 30, 2010 by iamthey

[Justinian the Mighty]

[quote name='Centurius' date='30 June 2010 - 09:57 AM' timestamp='1277906207' post='2355132']
I think because you were from before modern CNRP and have rp'd it so long your status is accepted.
[/quote]

That’s a load of crap if I’ve ever seen one. Some people just get special treatment in cnrp and free reign to do whatever they want, unless they start to bother the wrong people. It's just how the system works.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='29 June 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1277871820' post='2354844']
People can read previous RP's.


However, I am curious as to which player RP'd an insurgency for 3 months, whose troops all died in a nuclear holocaust....I'd remember something like that.
[/quote]
Yeah, RP's buried in hundreds of pages...in a forum that is now actually entirely archived.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='30 June 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1277919852' post='2355356']
Yeah, RP's buried in hundreds of pages...in a forum that is now actually entirely archived.
[/quote]
Boredom and plenty of time to waste does interesting things to people.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='30 June 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1277922021' post='2355403']
Boredom and plenty of time to waste does interesting things to people.
[/quote]
Plenty of time? That's not the impression I got.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='30 June 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1277922360' post='2355413']
Plenty of time? That's not the impression I got.
[/quote]
Ultra fast reading ability it is or asking various long timer RPers to provide a brief history of CNRP.

We should create a wiki that has CNRP history in it. Anyone up to the task of reading and interpreting hundreds of pages of IC posts?

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='30 June 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1277930868' post='2355650']
Ultra fast reading ability it is or asking various long timer RPers to provide a brief history of CNRP.

We should create a wiki that has CNRP history in it. Anyone up to the task of reading and interpreting hundreds of pages of IC posts?
[/quote]
OK, now you're fishing for excuses.

As for the wiki...there's a thread buried somewhere in this forum (Open National) that covered some important events...but it was nowhere complete despite the OP being quite long by the end of it.

And what use is history if the previous owner's history is retconned on the new arrival?

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='30 June 2010 - 04:10 PM' timestamp='1277932187' post='2355704']
And what use is history if the previous owner's history is retconned on the new arrival?
[/quote]
Then we can add that the culture and etc in the area between the original owner and the new owner had altered? Use fake details to fill in the gaps I guess.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

*hoooks up one of lynneth's fusion reactors to a giant magnetic field emitter to repel all attacks on the U.S.*

Since this is in the ooc forum.. does it count as an ooc shield?

More seriously, I think the way wars are waged should be somewhat negotiated. If you settle all issues on numbers, etc, in advance of the rp it makes the rp smoother. You may not agree on everything, that's going to happen.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='30 June 2010 - 02:21 PM' timestamp='1277932854' post='2355716']
Then we can add that the culture and etc in the area between the original owner and the new owner had altered? Use fake details to fill in the gaps I guess.
[/quote]
mmm...perhaps.

[Vedran]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' date='30 June 2010 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1277939203' post='2355893']
*hoooks up one of lynneth's fusion reactors to a giant magnetic field emitter to repel all attacks on the U.S.*

Since this is in the ooc forum.. does it count as an ooc shield?

More seriously, I think the way wars are waged should be somewhat negotiated. If you settle all issues on numbers, etc, in advance of the rp it makes the rp smoother. You may not agree on everything, that's going to happen.
[/quote]

Indeed, I agree that before a war is conducted, one party should contact the other and learn by means of OOC their capabilities to remove the risk of one of them using a few thousand more tanks than he has and getting away with it, and similar concerns. That's what I consider an acceptable level of OOC planning that should be the standard in how things are done, and right now I think it is (through factbooks).

What, to me, is pretty lame is when the outcome is decided beforehand and then the story is written. It leaves out the suspense of not knowing whether you'll win, whether this operation or that battle will turn out to be a success for you or not. I don't want to ever do a war like that. But of course that is up to the involved parties if they want to do it. However, for someone to [i]require[/i] such planning as a prerequisite to doing any kind of war with them...I don't think that should be allowed. I think that requiring this kind of planning for every conflict constitutes OOC shields. There is spontaneity in roleplay, part of the excitement comes from the uncontrolled and surprising nature of wars. Wanting to control that is understandable, but not to the point of not recognizing any attack unless you agree to it. That's just excluding yourself from the community and the way things are done.

tl;dr OOC-planned wars are great, depending on the degree of planning

Edited July 1, 2010 by Vedran

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Vedran' date='01 July 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1278007183' post='2356844']
Indeed, I agree that before a war is conducted, one party should contact the other and learn by means of OOC their capabilities to remove the risk of one of them using a few thousand more tanks than he has and getting away with it, and similar concerns. That's what I consider an acceptable level of OOC planning that should be the standard in how things are done, and right now I think it is (through factbooks).

What, to me, is pretty lame is when the outcome is decided beforehand and then the story is written. It leaves out the suspense of not knowing whether you'll win, whether this operation or that battle will turn out to be a success for you or not. I don't want to ever do a war like that. But of course that is up to the involved parties if they want to do it. However, for someone to [i]require[/i] such planning as a prerequisite to doing any kind of war with them...I don't think that should be allowed. I think that requiring this kind of planning for every conflict constitutes OOC shields. There is spontaneity in roleplay, part of the excitement comes from the uncontrolled and surprising nature of wars. Wanting to control that is understandable, but not to the point of not recognizing any attack unless you agree to it. That's just excluding yourself from the community and the way things are done.

tl;dr OOC-planned wars are great, depending on the degree of planning
[/quote]

I agree with all that you have said here on one minor condition. As you said there is spontaneity in RP. Therefore I think that if one nation RP's a natural disaster such as an earthquake then any other affected nations should aldo need to RP damages/responses.

After all natural disasters are just Earth's way of wagering war on humanity.

[Vedran]

Well, that is not really spontaneity, because a player could just decide to have a natural disaster to further their own interests at the expense of others, so I really don't agree. There's too much room for abuse there.

I believe there was some discussion earlier on allowing GMs to do occasional natural disasters to spice things up. I do not remember the outcome of that discussion nor am I sure about my own opinion on the matter.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Vedran

[Kevin Kingswell]

[quote name='Vedran' date='01 July 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1278036302' post='2357286']
[b]Well, that is not really spontaneity, because a player could just decide to have a natural disaster to further their own interests at the expense of others,[/b] so I really don't agree. There's too much room for abuse there.

I believe there was some discussion earlier on allowing GMs to do occasional natural disasters to spice things up. I do not remember the outcome of that discussion nor am I sure about my own opinion on the matter.
[/quote]

The part I bolded also applies to player started wars. I have yet to know of a true war where the only reason for fighting was to right a wrong or something. Everyone to date that I can remember has started a war for land at the expense of others.

[Vedran]

[quote name='Kevin Kingswell' date='01 July 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1278038960' post='2357326']
The part I bolded also applies to player started wars. I have yet to know of a true war where the only reason for fighting was to right a wrong or something. Everyone to date that I can remember has started a war for land at the expense of others.
[/quote]

Sure, but there's a difference. In real life, hurricanes and earthquakes and the like are not caused by governments to further their interests.

So while war is controlled by the player and controlled by the nation, natural disaster in your idea would be controlled by the player but not the nation. Meaning, war being used deliberately by players to further their own interests at the expense of others is fully acceptable, while natural disasters used deliberately by players to further their own interests at the expense of others is abuse and quite literally god-moding.

Natural disasters should be restricted to internal RP, and if their occurrence should directly affect multiple nations, it should be controlled by GMs and not by regular players.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Vedran

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Vedran' date='01 July 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1278036302' post='2357286']
Well, that is not really spontaneity, because a player could just decide to have a natural disaster to further their own interests at the expense of others, so I really don't agree. There's too much room for abuse there.

[b]I believe there was some discussion earlier on allowing GMs to do occasional natural disasters to spice things up. I do not remember the outcome of that discussion nor am I sure about my own opinion on the matter.[/b]
[/quote]
People went into an uproar and flat out rejected the idea. Some claimed it would give another way for GMs to help themselves at the cost of other players. Others disliked the idea of their pixels going bye-bye. Others had different reasons.

[iKrolm]

The way it works now is best. Someone starts a storm/earthquake/etc., and nearby any nations can join the RP if they wish to.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I've RP'd disasters in the past in ways so as to allow people nearby to determine the degree to which they are affected and this is perhaps the best way to do so in the current system.