Jump to content

OOC Shields


Voodoo Nova

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='24 June 2010 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1277418158' post='2349175']
Did he now? Like what? Taking huge swathes of territory?

Oh wait, Triyun DID take a lot of land.
[/quote]

It wasn't nearly the size of my IC advance, and when I allowed him to stop my attack by having my military not fight against tactics it was easily designed to beat, I allowed him to retain land he had no hope of counter attacking against. This was the chief issue. Sometimes the better fighter wins. Just because a couple people have over-bloated territory and are scared of fighting a real war does not mean we should accommodate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='25 June 2010 - 04:39 AM' timestamp='1277437173' post='2349588']
Voodoo...it was taken care of IC.

Sargun, Why does Triyun NEED more?

Triyun...are you going to try and take his non-chinese land too? From what I understand, not all his land historically belongs to China.
[/quote]

You don't need all those parts of Australia, so give some to Voodoo.

And yes, all his land does belong to China.

Edited by Triyun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' date='24 June 2010 - 10:51 PM' timestamp='1277437891' post='2349613']
You don't need all those parts of Australia, so give some to Voodoo.

And yes, all his land does belong to China.
[/quote]
Subtle has given parts of Australia up before... so your commentary is not quite as biting as you probably hoped it would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Yawoo' date='24 June 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1277438118' post='2349622']
Subtle has given parts of Australia up before... so your commentary is not quite as biting as you probably hoped it would be.
[/quote]

The best part is that [b]your[/b] commentary completely missed the point. Triyun was pointing out the flaw in Subtle's statement: nobody [b]needs[/b] any land at all, and all land anyone has can be "too much" or "too little" depending on each person's opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' date='24 June 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1277435641' post='2349523']
It wasn't nearly the size of my IC advance, and when I allowed him to stop my attack by having my military not fight against tactics it was easily designed to beat,[b] I allowed him to retain land he had no hope of counter attacking against. This was the chief issue. Sometimes the better fighter wins. [/b]Just because a couple people have over-bloated territory and are scared of fighting a real war does not mean we should accommodate them.
[/quote]

Okay, now its getting ridiculous. Link to these unbeatable tactics?

Edited by Executive Minister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='24 June 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1277437403' post='2349596']
Subtleknifewielder, are you really going to say that IC actions should be influenced because of OOC decisions?
[/quote]
Don't put words in my mouth. However, since you brought it up...

Was it an IC or OOC decision that first prompted you to start RP'ing?

I don't believe motivations should be OOC, but I do believe any RP between two or more players should at least have a modicum of consent. Botha certainly got that part right.

[quote name='Triyun' date='24 June 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1277437891' post='2349613']
You don't need all those parts of Australia, so give some to Voodoo.

And yes, all his land does belong to China.
[/quote]
Lolvoodoo? Why would I give some to voodoo, a non-oceanic nation? Not comparable---despite the fact that I've given away land before, it's never been to a non-oceanic nation (excepting of course the Paracels, which actually belongs to the Union as a whole). I also didn't gain one pixel of my land through conquest. Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' date='25 June 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1277475715' post='2350001']
Your missing the sarcasm clearly, my point was just as ridiculous as yours.
[/quote]

This thread is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Triyun' date='25 June 2010 - 07:22 AM' timestamp='1277475715' post='2350001']
Your missing the sarcasm clearly, my point was just as ridiculous as yours.
[/quote]
Wrong. You didn't address my point. Why do you NEED it all? And why insist on historical claims when CNRP isn't ABOUT history?

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='25 June 2010 - 09:24 AM' timestamp='1277483065' post='2350093']
Still waiting on a link to the attack Keshav has no hope to counter against, the tactics that make Triyun a better fighter.
[/quote]
Oh yeah, forgot about this. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='25 June 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1277490856' post='2350190']
Wrong. You didn't address my point. Why do you NEED it all? And why insist on historical claims when CNRP isn't ABOUT history?
[/quote]

Subtle, why does anybody need any land? What's the point of any claim to any land or any CB for any war? CNRP isn't [b]ABOUT[/b] anything, it just exists, so your questions are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevent? Fine, it's obvious we're not going to see eye to eye on this...

OK, let's try something else...Triyun is a fan of unplanned warfare. Unplanned is another way of saying you are forcing an RP on someone who doesn't want it. Now, he's met someone he can't force. And we think this is bad...why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='25 June 2010 - 02:58 PM' timestamp='1277495869' post='2350273']
Irrelevent? Fine, it's obvious we're not going to see eye to eye on this...

OK, let's try something else...Triyun is a fan of unplanned warfare. Unplanned is another way of saying you are forcing an RP on someone who doesn't want it. Now, he's met someone he can't force. And we think this is bad...why?
[/quote]

OK, let's try something else...Keshav is a fan of planned warfare. Planned is another way of saying that you are forcing OOC decisions on IC movements. Now, he's met someone who wants to settle things in-character rather than out of character. And we think this is good... why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='25 June 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1277496594' post='2350283']
OK, let's try something else...Keshav is a fan of planned warfare. Planned is another way of saying that you are forcing OOC decisions on IC movements. Now, he's met someone who wants to settle things in-character rather than out of character. And we think this is good... why?
[/quote]
Nuh uh, Triyun's the one complaining. You first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='22 June 2010 - 01:14 PM' timestamp='1277237665' post='2346879']No, it's about limiting these politics to RP'ing by mutual consent. You act like that's a bad thing.[/quote]

[color="#000080"]Everything in Botha Mode can be boiled down to the following statement: [b]"Role-play within the statistical means of your nation and role-play by mutual consent."[/b] This statement forms the basis of the two rules or 'laws' of Botha Mode role-playing. Both laws are complimentary and one does not supercede the other.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='iamthey' date='22 June 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1277253091' post='2347071']
Bothamode as ITDA stated also incorporates the IG war slots of a nation. Therefore to a nation in bothamode, IC war is invalid as it is pure fantasy. The only time an IC war can take place is if there is a corresponding IG war to link it to. This is the reason some happen to be unhappy with the standards set forth, because it effectively invalidates recourse on the part of the community to a given player, effectively giving them an OOC shield.[/quote]

[color="#000080"]No. Second Law of Responsible Roleplay in Botha Mode mode clearly permits RP wars [i]by mutual consent[/i].

Those three words: [i]by mutual consent[/i], they are the real issue at hand when problems come up regarding Botha mode used as a "shield".

Any situation not by mutual consent is simply regarded as an example of godmodding.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Botha' date='25 June 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1277521214' post='2350575']
[color="#000080"]No. Second Law of Responsible Roleplay in Botha Mode mode clearly permits RP wars [i]by mutual consent[/i].

Those three words: [i]by mutual consent[/i], they are the real issue at hand when problems come up regarding Botha mode used as a "shield".

Any situation not by mutual consent is simply regarded as an example of godmodding.[/color]
[/quote]

The problem here is when mutual consent means "one person blocks what another person wants". Perhaps it should be amended to [i]by reasonable mutual consent[/i].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' date='25 June 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1277525043' post='2350652']
The problem here is when mutual consent means "one person blocks what another person wants".[/quote]

[color="#000080"]Interesting choice of words there, "...what another person [i]wants[/i]".

To me that implies that in that situation, 'another person' has no respect for me as an RPer and has no respect for my nation and the storyline developed.

As for reasonable consent, impossible to define was reasonable is - espcially if the parties involved could not agree in the first place on mutual consent.[/color]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Saarkin Cor' date='26 June 2010 - 04:07 AM' timestamp='1277539654' post='2350827']
Sounds to me like what one person in the "mode" wants overrides what the person not in the "mode" wants, and will fight against the opposite ever happening.
[/quote]

Sounds to me like what one person not in the "mode" wants overrides what the person in the "mode" wants, and will fight against the opposite ever happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Botha' date='26 June 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1277539152' post='2350820']
[color="#000080"]Interesting choice of words there, "...what another person [i]wants[/i]".

To me that implies that in that situation, 'another person' has no respect for me as an RPer and has no respect for my nation and the storyline developed.

As for reasonable consent, impossible to define was reasonable is - espcially if the parties involved could not agree in the first place on mutual consent.[/color]
[/quote]
And if the other person's nation and the other person's storyline has them in an expansionist-set nation? Nobody can disagree that Triyun has RP'd a Chinese nation that has been critical of Articuno Islands and advocates having China reunified - indeed, having Asia unified. In that sense, Keshav has no respect for Triyun's nation and the storyline developed by simply barring him from performing his actions.

If the parties involved cannot agree in the first place, then it shows that one or both of the players is unwilling to compromise and in that case it should be looked into to see if either one of the players is intentionally being, to be blunt, a dick.

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='26 June 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1277568465' post='2351006']
Sounds to me like what one person not in the "mode" wants overrides what the person in the "mode" wants, and will fight against the opposite ever happening.
[/quote]
The problem is that it's Keshav overriding what Triyun wants; Triyun has no power to override anything Keshav does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...