Jump to content
Sargun II

The Third Court

Recommended Posts

[center] [b]Note: The newest GMs want this to be an active, involved Court. Without community involvement we will not have community resolvement. Anyone can post here at will as long as it has to do with rules or disputes.[/b]

[color="#0000ff"][u][b]Definition of a GM[/b][/u][/color]

As hawk began in his own definition, the Game Masters (GMs) are CNRP players appointed by the Cyber Nations Forums moderating staff to apply the CNRP community rules. They represent the moderation staff within CNRP. GM's do not create rules, as they are not a triumvirate (or a duumvirate, or an autocrat). However, the rules can be ambiguous, as in reality they are not a centralized set of policies, but a loose network of customs, procedures, written and unwritten guidelines, and to some degree precedents. Many disputes within CNRP, as it is a competitive atmosphere, arise from this ambiguity. Therefore to apply the rules, the duty of interpretations is also left to the GM. Hawk himself described this by referring to the GM as a judge or an arbiter. This is a functional and a reasonable definition, so I continue to maintain it. It is from this definition, that scope and the role of the GM can be derived.

[u]Sitting GM's:[/u]
Executive Minister


[color="#0000ff"][u][b]Dispute Resolution[/b][/u][/color]

If a dispute occurs, be it a disagreement in the rules, disagreement in interpretation, claims of abuse, or any other incident whereby one party feels wronged by another the first step which should be attempted is a private negotiation between the two sides. This can be carried out however one sees fit (formal, informal, pm, query, thread post ect). The point of this is to get the two adversaries talking and to see if some sort of common ground can be reached without the need out outside intervention. Often this can be mutually beneficial as it does not always have to strictly conform to the rules of CNRP and the complexities and rigidity of the structure of rules often cannot make room for the circumstantial details of each case.

If negotiation fails, then please post in this thread (the GM court) linking specifically to the relevant posts which the dispute concerns. Provide a short description of the dispute. At this point the evaluating GM can examine the situation and if the verdict seems apparent, they can make a ruling prior to any case. (Example 1: someone deploy's a giant space laser to attack ground targets. Clearly this is outlawed and there is firm precedent to establish it, no drawn out case is necessary. Example 2: Someone overtly godmodes, it is fairly established what godmoding is no drawn out process is required. Example 3: Someone Rp's in your territory without your permission, again obvious and clearly illegal.) If however, the verdict is not apparent, a new thread will be opened by a GM to address the dispute, you, the initiator will be given the opportunity to provide the absolute best possible argument for why you think you are correct. It is your responsibility to provide us with the facts, evidence, logical appeals, and other appeals that supports your side. After this post the other person should compile the best case they possibly can supporting their side. They should also address errors in their opponents and in general refute the other side thoroughly. The person who initiated GM resolution will then be given a chance to respond to the refutation of their case and to refute the case of the second party. At this point third parties to the dispute who would like to make input are welcome to jump in and the original parties can continue to defend and attack eachother's positions. The GM who opened the topic will review this thread and render a decision (based on the arguments made and the evidence provided) in the GM court providing reasoning for the decision. This decision will be generally final, except within extreme cases where the decision itself is so beyond any level of justification that no rational individual could have condoned it. In such cases the other non-participating GM's may initiate a community poll to overturn the ruling.

Should the initiator or second party refuse to participate in the dispute resolution process, a decision will still be made on the basis of the participating party's posts, as well as any third party input. In such a case the non-participating party has foregone their opportunity to present their case to us. If they do not like the decision that comes back, we cannot be blamed or faulted for whatever impact the lack of their input has. Our decision will not necessarily be a default judgement favoring the participating side, but we will in all likelihood lack the full details of the non-participants side, (as only they fully know the details of what they posted).

If the GM`s see a violation of the rules that nobody comes forward about, then it is still up to the GM`s to fix said violation. Some of us in the community favor proactive GM`s and others favor laid-back ones, and for all intents and purposes you get the best of both worlds with the current, sitting GM`s.


[color="#0000ff"][u][b]Outcome Determination[/b][/u][/color]

[u]Types of Outcome:[/u]
Affirmation: Agreement with initiator.
Negation: Agreement with the second party.
Double Negation: Disagreement with both parties.

[u]Result (prescription):[/u]
Wiping of actions deemed illegal thus resolving the dispute.
Upholding of the disputed actions leaving the status quo as it is.
Designating an award which resolves the dispute.

Most of the disputes involving GM's require the employment of their interpretive powers. To make this process (at least for myself) more transparent these are the three core questions I ask myself and I attempt to determine when weighing a decision.

1) Is the meaning apparent in the formulation of the rule? In other words is its meaning obvious.

2) Is there a precedent for this case? Beyond that is this precedent fair and reasonable? I find tradition to personally be a deplorable justification for doing anything. As humans our history has been one of various parties mastering and dominating one another, though the way in which we go about this has become increasingly more abstract and complicated our history is littered with death, slavery, and 'injustice'. So before I pass the buck to my predecessors I do always check to see if the precedent in question is equitable. It is also worth noting that the GM who made the decision may have been narrowly focused and that they did not or could not predict the ultimately uses and results of their original ruling. Context is important so I consider that as well.

3)If no such meaning is obvious, and if no reasonable precedent is available, I simply assess what the best interpretation would be.

[color="#0000ff"][u][b]Compilation of GM/Moderator Rulings[/b][/u][/color]


1) Activity: If a member of CNRP fails to post IC for a period longer than 25 days the result is an immediate and total wipe of the Rper's nation. The land automatically becomes white space on the 26th day, and this wipe is considered a break in continuity. If you lose your land in a wipe and come back, the GMs will not give you your land back.

2) [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90283"]Spy roll reform:[/url] 1: RP is required for any spy operation. Be it an agent sneaking into a complex, or hacking a computer. 2: Spyrolls cover only certain aspects of a mission; Picking locks, hacking computers, sneaking past a camera system, etc. 3: Any spyroll can be voided by previous RP. You cannot instantly pick a lock into a room if there are two doors, it would take two rolls. You cannot sneak past an array of cameras that point in all directions. A satellite cannot pick up movements that are sufficiently hidden. A sufficiently encrypted message cannot be read if enough RP has gone into the coding. Etc.

3) [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90233"]Enforceability Planned war Conditions:[/url] In the event of a planned or partially planned war, any pre-agreed conditions of the war, such as its timescale, are considered binding on all future participants.

4) [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=87914"]Insurgency:[/url] A player retains the right to roleplay the population as well as non-governmental entities within their nation even after the fall of their government within a war. This right remains in place in so far as a player does not break continuity be it in the form of an activity wipe, a reroll, or an extended and unreasonably long absence (greater than 25 days).

5) [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88186"]Tech Trading Interpretation:[/url] If one opts to tech trade up; the borrowing of their trade partern's TE, must result in a proportional reduction in overall military numbers.

6) Space weapons: Space weapons are banned. Missile defense and SDI units are exempt from this ban. [MOD RULING: THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO NORMAL SPACE WEAPON BAN]

7) [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=42831&view=findpost&p=2557393"]Non-MBT fighting numbers[/url]: Non-MBT fighting vehicles must equal or be less numerous than the number of MBT fighting vehicles.


[color="#0000ff"][b][u]Conclusion[/u][/b][/color]

As a general summation:

-No Ruling will be given on an unclear issue without all sides being publicly heard from.

-It is the responsibility of interested parties to provide the evidence and arguments necessary to understanding a case. We cannot be expected to do the investigative leg work over an issue that those who are actually involved in understand the best. The most efficient way to obtain the facts is for those who know them to come forward.

-The GM`s will not take any abuse. There will be disagreements, and if you find that you disagree with us then [b]politely[/b] point out what you believe to be flaws. Any unwarranted abuse will not be looked kindly upon. [/center]

Edited by Sargun
Sargun is no longer a GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1283991048' post='2447119']
-Evidences that BH had helped a terrorist group in GLP.
-Classified messages he received and sent.

Tomorrow:

-Evidences that indicate that other countries had helped BH during the BH Civil War (such as logistics and military plans that mention other countries' military assistance)
[/quote]
Ok...

-Evidences that BH had helped a terrorist group in GLP--[color=red][b]2, Fail[/b][/color]
]-Classified messages he received and sent. [color=red][b]45, Success[/b][/color]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for one of or all of the three GM's. Will you be enforcing the reformed spy rules?

Edited by iamthey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the new Spy rules...they make spying pretty useless. Everyone can just RP perfect defences against spying, and then, people won't risk sending spies beforehand to nations they're not at war with, as it'd TRIGGER a war...

Edited by Kaiser Martens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1284017821' post='2447466']
I don't like the new Spy rules...they make spying pretty useless. Everyone can just RP perfect defences against spying, and then, people won't risk sending spies beforehand to nations they're not at war with, as it'd TRIGGER a war...
[/quote]

The only thing I dont like about this statement are the unbeatable defenses.

Other than that, yes there is a RISK for sending spies in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1284017821' post='2447466']
I don't like the new Spy rules...they make spying pretty useless. Everyone can just RP perfect defences against spying, and then, people won't risk sending spies beforehand to nations they're not at war with, as it'd TRIGGER a war...
[/quote]
This.

Defenders can RP !@#$%^&* ultra defenses on the spot and make spying useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284042136' post='2447641']
Did the community vote these reformed rules by a majority? If so, then yes, I believed I am instructed quite clearly by the OP to do so.
[/quote]

An overwhelming majority. As for spy defense I don't see what the issue is, there are various levels of defense which SHOULD be more or less unbeatable. Breaking into a secret highly defended government vault should have a very low rate of success, arguably less than 1-3%. On the other hand sending in a suicide bomber, or someone to destroy general infrastructure should have a reasonably high rate of success ~>50%. The new rules make sense. So you can't spam a target's hardened military installations with spy attacks, well that is the point. The old system was [i]useful[/i] but it was also continuously abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1284017821' post='2447466']
I don't like the new Spy rules...they make spying pretty useless. Everyone can just RP perfect defences against spying, and then, people won't risk sending spies beforehand to nations they're not at war with, as it'd TRIGGER a war...
[/quote]
[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1284035816' post='2447564']
This.

Defenders can RP !@#$%^&* ultra defenses on the spot and make spying useless.
[/quote]
[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1284043694' post='2447655']
An overwhelming majority. As for spy defense I don't see what the issue is, there are various levels of defense which SHOULD be more or less unbeatable. Breaking into a secret highly defended government vault should have a very low rate of success, arguably less than 1-3%. On the other hand sending in a suicide bomber, or someone to destroy general infrastructure should have a reasonably high rate of success ~>50%. The new rules make sense. So you can't spam a target's hardened military installations with spy attacks, well that is the point. The old system was [i]useful[/i] but it was also continuously abused.
[/quote]
This.

Also, take into mind some defenses would be required to have been RP'd out by the defender before the spy attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1284017821' post='2447466']
I don't like the new Spy rules...they make spying pretty useless. Everyone can just RP perfect defences against spying, and then, people won't risk sending spies beforehand to nations they're not at war with, as it'd TRIGGER a war...
[/quote]


I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but besides battlefield intel spying usually is useless in reality. If it weren't, I'm sure the U.S. would have taken the occasional suitcase nuke by now. Most advanced nations DO.. have extravagant defenses against espionage in order to defeat attacks on their internal infrastructure. And the vast majority of all intelligence efforts are directed at COUNTER INTELLIGENCE, not aggressive intelligence.

I'd say in severely contested cases one solution may be opposed roles to see if one person's counter intelligence can detect their opponents aggressive intelligence activity.

This means the attacker would have to succeed at 2 rolls, 1 to bypass passive defenses.. and a second is rolled against them by the defender to see if the attacker bypasses active defenses. If the attacker succeeds at both, then the defender is screwed. However..ANY failure at all would result in total mission failure.

Also an added penalty to the attacker and a bonus to the defender should be added for every successive defense within a 1 week time frame.. and it should be steep.. resulting from intensifying awareness of the target nation against espionage based aggression.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GMs are working on a more comprehensive ruling involving the entire "Invasion of Britain" debacle. Executiveminister has been hard at work writing a draft of a ruling with things that all three GMs have agreed need to be fixed from this situation. However, there is one ruling that doesn't need to wait and must be acted on immediately.

DeSchaine [b]must[/b] accept the war or he will be wiped. He must accept it as it currently is, or he will be wiped. He must fix his Godmod or he will be wiped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has come to our attention that a certain war has seen better days. Operation THUNDERCLAP has run aground, and it is our job as the current GM line-up to bring a swift, fair and absolute conclusion to both parties.

I decided to take the liberty of contacting a number of the participants directly or indirectly involved... with their permission, and in the spirit of transparency, i will be including logs of these interviews accompanied by my thoughts on the matter. It is my hope that you will all come to realize that I entered this 'conflict' with as open a mind as possible, I will try my best to outline my line of thought throughout this report.

Indeed, my mind was very open, for I had not even read the THUNDERCLAP threads in question as I interviewed Yawoo, my first contact.

[quote]23:07 Executiveminister seems you're first on the docket
23:07 Executiveminister tell me everything you know about that england invasion
23:07 Executiveminister and deschaine's ignorance (deliberate or not) of it
23:07 Yawoo You guy's already have a docket? O.o
23:07 Executiveminister maybe i'm more proactive than the other GMs
23:07 Executiveminister or maybe I have more to prove
23:08 Yawoo Or maybe you're just making this all up [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img]
23:08 Yawoo Where do you want to begin?
23:09 Executiveminister the beginning, preferably
23:09 Executiveminister i'm doing to pm deschaine next
23:09 Executiveminister links would help
23:09 Executiveminister the war in question is operation thunderclap
23:09 Executiveminister ?
23:10 Yawoo Er, which version or both?
23:10 Yawoo Technically v2 is just a continuation of v1 without the OOC mess in it
23:10 Executiveminister okay
23:10 Executiveminister i'll ready v1
23:10 Executiveminister then go to v2
23:10 Executiveminister but
23:10 Executiveminister tell me about the OOC
23:11 Yawoo Let me start at the very beginning.
23:12 Yawoo Aug 9th, JED and I PM'd both ITDA and DeSchaine to let them know we will be warring them and asked them if they would like it planned to avoid OOC mess
23:12 Yawoo If necessary, I can provid screenshots to everything I say
23:12 Executiveminister k
23:12 Executiveminister i'll be screen capping this
23:12 Executiveminister ITDA was:
23:12 Yawoo That's fine
23:12 Executiveminister and Deschaine was:
23:13 Yawoo ITDA informed us that he'd be having a moderate dip in activity. He then went on to ask us for our reasonings for the war
23:14 Yawoo DeSchaine said and I quote "No. Taeunas is going to fold most of Scotland into it with the exception of Wales and Portugal. Those parts will become protectorates, and I have one person already wanting to take some of that land."
23:14 Executiveminister uh huh
23:15 Yawoo Both JED and I explained out our reasonings in the PM to ITDA and DeSchaine then we told DeSchaine that the war will happen, that is our right as RPers
23:15 Executiveminister mmhmm
23:15 Executiveminister same pm to both i take it?
23:15 Yawoo Then DeSchaine replied with "Umm, no it wont. I dont recognize unplanned wars into Taeunas territory. "
23:15 Yawoo Yes, same PM
23:16 Yawoo To which I replied with a cheeky, "Feel free not to recognize it, we'll take the autowin."
23:16 Yawoo Nothing was said in that PM after that
23:17 Executiveminister *sigh
23:17 Executiveminister okat
23:17 Yawoo JED and I then proceeded to spend, oh, I think, two-three days doing prep RP work - shifting forces around, etc...
23:17 Yawoo We deployed and JED hit Portugal (to the best of my memory) then DeSchaine tried to get a lock in the lock thread
23:17 Executiveminister so it looks like i'm going to have to delve into the legitimacy of the 'X does not recognize unplanned wars' in the community that people seem to like having in their sigs
23:18 Yawoo He does not have it in his sig
23:18 Executiveminister yeah
23:18 Executiveminister i'll still have to look into the legitimacy of the unplanned war denial thing
23:18 Executiveminister go on if you have more
23:18 Yawoo Nor, was he not recognizing unplanned wars - he was not accepting any kind of war
23:18 Yawoo Which, he simply can not do
23:18 Executiveminister i gotcha
23:18 Executiveminister something else not in the threads?
23:18 Yawoo We offered to have it planned, that was the point of the PM :/
23:18 Executiveminister i hear ya
23:19 Yawoo Yes, the lock stuff
23:19 Executiveminister what has he been doing so far that you can tell means he's ignoring the war's progression
23:19 Executiveminister okay go with the lock stuff
23:19 Executiveminister i'll ask again later
23:20 Yawoo DeSchaine asked for a lock. Subtle granted it without researching into it. I posted evidence that he was at war. Subtle took the lock off - which became an issue for IaT that started my lack of confidence in the former GMs
23:20 Yawoo ITDA came back and threw a fit in the lock thread because we went to war
23:21 Yawoo I explained, in that thread, that if either he or DeSchaine said that they'd be gone then JED and I would have held off the war, they didn't, in fact the only mention of any sort of handicap was ITDA's mention of a SLIGHT dip in activity
23:21 Executiveminister hmmm i remember subtle removing it... and the thread about when people should accept locks
23:21 Yawoo Slight, to me, means that instead of posting three times a day you only post once
23:21 Yawoo Obviously ITDA and I have severe differences in that thinking
23:21 Yawoo Regardless, ITDA dropped his claims
23:22 Yawoo Now - DeSchaine doesn't post anything for awhile
23:22 Yawoo So, with our understanding of the rules per the Tahoe war and the knowledge of GM using precedence, we began an autoadvance
23:22 Yawoo That became and issue when DeSchaine saw it and talked to IaT - before talking with JED or I
23:22 Yawoo *an
23:23 Executiveminister okay
23:23 Executiveminister wait
23:23 Executiveminister so you autoadvanced without GM approval?
23:23 Executiveminister or with it?
23:23 Yawoo JED spoke with IaT
23:23 Executiveminister and?
23:23 Yawoo You'll have to speak with him about that
23:23 Executiveminister who, JED, or iat
23:23 Yawoo Per the knoweldge I had, at the time, we had GM approval
23:23 Yawoo JED
23:23 Executiveminister okay
23:24 Yawoo Supposedly, IaT says we didn't
23:24 Yawoo So, to be certain, you'll have to speak with JED as he spoke with IaT
23:24 Executiveminister fine
23:24 Yawoo Regardless though, even without GM approval, precedence has been used before without it
23:24 Executiveminister i'll have to look into that, but sure
23:24 Yawoo That's the point of it - but that's a whole 'nother discussion
23:25 Executiveminister so you autoadvance, and deschaine complains to iat
23:25 Executiveminister i heard you did two autoadvances
23:25 Yawoo Now, insert two OOC page fest of GM biasness and lack of getting JED or my side of the story
23:25 Yawoo and Sargun comes in with a compromise of 10 days, and taking our previous autoadvances back to two
23:25 Yawoo Which we did
23:26 Yawoo We make two more after that compromise, in that time DeSchaine posts in maddy's thread
23:26 Yawoo After which, JED sends him a PM asking for him to respond to our invasion
23:27 Executiveminister and he did that godmod, time travel posting thing, right?
23:27 Yawoo That was after he replied with "Ok." to our PM, yes
23:27 Executiveminister where he went all the way back, before the autoadvances
23:27 Executiveminister to when your navies reached england, i take it?
23:27 Yawoo Yes and No
23:27 Executiveminister no to?
23:28 Yawoo He went all the way back, and destroyed our fleets before we landed
23:28 Executiveminister entirely?
23:28 Yawoo or something like that - it was a massive godmod
23:28 Executiveminister i saw that
23:28 Executiveminister anything else after that?
23:28 Yawoo I believe, but you'll need to double check the post, that he destroyed all of JED's fleet yes
23:28 Executiveminister anything else?
23:28 Yawoo We reminded him once more on Sept 5th that his post was a godmod
23:29 Yawoo and asked him to fix it and let him know to look in the OOC area
23:29 Yawoo After which, we saw that he left every single PM convo that we started with ihm
23:29 Yawoo *him
23:29 Yawoo It lists participants on the left hand side
23:29 Yawoo Now, look today in his news thread
23:29 Yawoo He acts like England is still under his control
23:29 Executiveminister okay
23:30 Executiveminister i think i got that much
23:30 Executiveminister !@#$
23:30 Yawoo So, combined his continual posting presence, his leaving of PM convos, and his news post and it all seems liek he is ignoring us
23:30 Executiveminister JED really should have been here
23:30 Executiveminister okay
23:30 Yawoo Remember, we can screenshot for proof if necessary
23:30 Yawoo We haven't done anything wrong - which is why it is so frustrating for us
23:31 Executiveminister okay
23:31 Executiveminister i'll try to get a hold of deschaine
23:31 Executiveminister IDTA left
23:31 Executiveminister CNRP i think
23:32 Executiveminister so i dunno about him, i'll have to talk to subtle or sargun
23:32 Yawoo Talk to both
23:32 Yawoo I'd like all current GMs to know the situation[/quote]

To be quite frank, at this point it seemed the ruling would simply have to be that DeSchaine must accept the war in question... I spoke to Deschaine via pm, but I will refrain from posting what he has posted, as it really just reinforced Yawoo's position and was generally unconstructive otherwise. Deschaine refused not only to plan a war, but also refused any war completely and totally outright. We all know this is in breach of the fundamental "you don't recognize, you get wiped" rule. Yawoo and JED offered to plan this war, they were in the right when they said the war must commence.

However, there was a key point that needed to be addressed before a ruling was made. Did JED and Yawoo advance with or without GM approval? The primary issue of this war is the fact that for honest or dishonest reasons, DeSchaine went on a considerable leave of absence. In this case, JED and Yawoo felt that it was for dishonourable means and proceeded to auto-advance. We know that the community overwhelmingly voted in favour of only allowing the decision to 'lock or not to lock, instead auto-advance' be made solely by the GMs, and on a case-by-case basis.

So I talked to IAT.

[quote]22:03 Executiveminister <dropping link to the Yawoo interview>
22:03 Executiveminister thats an interview i held with yawoo
22:03 iamthey ok
22:03 iamthey reading
22:03 Executiveminister of particular concern of mine is the first few autoadvances they made
22:04 Executiveminister there is apparently a discrepancy on whether or not they advanced with GM approval
22:04 Executiveminister in any case
22:04 Executiveminister even if this war goes to !@#$
22:04 Executiveminister i'm going to propose that auto-advances are severely limited, but determined on a case-by-case basis as was favoured in subtles poll
22:05 Executiveminister even then, auto-advances must NOT be made without express GM approval in the thread
22:05 iamthey I agree with that personally
22:05 iamthey its gotten out of hand
22:06 iamthey as for the GM approval
22:06 iamthey let me see what he says specifically
22:06 iamthey ok
22:06 iamthey So he says that JED spoke to me and that I signed off on it
22:07 iamthey At the time the war started I was busy and kind of on a mini LoA. So thought I was on IRC I was not reading or paying much attention to RP
22:07 iamthey JED and I did have a conversation
22:07 Executiveminister did you okay it?
22:08 Executiveminister he says JED said you did
22:08 Executiveminister but you apparently say you didn't
22:08 Executiveminister 23:22 Yawoo So, with our understanding of the rules per the Tahoe war and the knowledge of GM using precedence, we began an autoadvance
22:08 Executiveminister thats the offensive line
22:08 Executiveminister that worries me
22:08 iamthey He wanted clarification on the war and what he should do. I told him that I had no idea what was going on and to ask lynneth.
22:08 iamthey He pressed me for answers
22:08 Executiveminister so you did not okay the auto-advance to JED?
22:08 Executiveminister or did you
22:08 Executiveminister also, like the interview i might cap this
22:09 Executiveminister if not
22:09 Executiveminister then we can redo this
22:09 iamthey I'm giving an answer
22:09 Executiveminister kk
22:09 Executiveminister my bad, coffee rush
22:10 iamthey He presented the situation as deschaine and ITDA refusing to war and or simply not responding. Under that information my advice was to autoadvance.
22:10 iamthey Though I told him to talk to lynneth for a better answer
22:10 Executiveminister so you did... alright
22:10 iamthey or rather for a more informed answer
22:10 Executiveminister and he didn't?
22:11 iamthey apparently not
22:11 Executiveminister okay
22:11 Executiveminister tbh... as sucky as it sounds, Yawoo and JED seem to be in the right... but for the wrong reasons
22:11 Executiveminister i am confident
22:11 Executiveminister that, had mud not been an ass hat in the past
22:11 Executiveminister this would not have happened
22:11 iamthey Heh
22:11 Executiveminister but, looking at thunderclap v1 and v2
22:12 iamthey I think the answer I gave may have been misleading
22:12 iamthey and I appologized to JED for that
22:12 Executiveminister Deschaine's got a superb second chance to advance
22:12 iamthey but I don't think it was a ruling
22:12 iamthey it was just my legal opinion
22:12 iamthey and yeah
22:12 Executiveminister which is taken by others who are not gms to be law
22:12 iamthey Deschaine has pissed away his opprotunity
22:12 Executiveminister no
22:12 Executiveminister he IS pissing it away
22:12 Executiveminister if he does not respond in the thraed
22:12 iamthey mhmm
22:13 Executiveminister he still has time
22:13 Executiveminister tbh, i think we're gonna rule that deschaine must recognize the war... declaring that you refuse to do unplanned wars is one thing... refusing war at all is grounds for being Junioed
22:13 Executiveminister right after
22:13 Executiveminister reform the auto-advance ruling
22:13 iamthey Yeah
22:13 iamthey You have to recognized unplanned wars
22:13 Executiveminister and clarify the I DO NOT RECOGNIZE X laws
22:13 Executiveminister or whatever
22:14 iamthey I always thought that was basically !@#$%^&*
22:14 Executiveminister iamthey You have to recognized unplanned wars ME: I wouldn't go that far
22:14 Executiveminister like
22:14 Executiveminister the issue here
22:14 Executiveminister is deschaine categorically refused ANY war
22:14 Executiveminister planned or unplanned
22:14 iamthey thats true
22:14 Executiveminister apparently, yawoo and jed were willing to plan, and deschaine gave them the bird
22:14 iamthey indeed
22:15 Executiveminister also, if i see yawoo and precedent or precedence in the same post again, I am going to kick a baby[/quote]

As you can see, this seemed like a clear cut case of 'you must accept a war, lest you be Junio'd'... DeSchaine refused to accept it, then went on an extended leave, which would warrant suspicion given his reaction to the war. Had DeSchaine not rebutted JED and Yawoo totally, this issue would not have happened at all.

So to wrap everything up, I talked to JED.

[quote]22:35 Executiveminister howdy
22:35 Executiveminister as you may or may not know
22:35 JEDCJT howdy do!
22:35 Executiveminister i got the chance to speak to yawoo about your war
22:35 JEDCJT oh?
22:35 Executiveminister care to go on record for me so i can get the whole story?
22:35 JEDCJT sure
22:35 Executiveminister kk
22:35 Executiveminister for the sake of openness, and yadda yadda
22:35 Executiveminister i'll be giving you what yawoo said to me
22:36 Executiveminister dropping link to Yawoo interview
22:36 JEDCJT mhmm
22:36 Executiveminister of particular concern is this auto-advance you made, apparently with IATs permission
22:36 Executiveminister but if you would like to start from the beginning, as Yawoo did
22:36 Executiveminister that would be hella cool
22:37 JEDCJT sure, I will do that
22:37 JEDCJT reading your link right now
22:37 Executiveminister yeah, finish it n !@#$
22:37 Executiveminister i've got time
22:40 JEDCJT What Yawoo said is correct
22:40 Executiveminister wat
22:41 JEDCJT everything he said was correct. Want me to begin the story?
22:41 Executiveminister sure
22:41 Executiveminister mind you
22:41 Executiveminister i'm also in the process of conversing with deschaine now... so forgive me if i seem occupied
22:41 Executiveminister also, this might be used against you in the gms court, yadda yadda
22:41 Executiveminister lol
22:42 JEDCJT ok, on August 9th, I sent Deschaine and ITDA a PM telling them that Yawoo and I were going to invade Scotland (or the Tauenas protectorate in Britain and Portugal)
22:43 JEDCJT ITDA replied first, questioning the reasons for the war and etc etc
22:44 JEDCJT Deschaine said no, stating that Tauenas is going to fold Scotland into it and that Wales and Portugal is going to become protectorates
22:44 JEDCJT of which Yawoo stated that war will happen
22:45 JEDCJT that we were giving Deschaine the opportunity to have the war planned
22:45 JEDCJT of which Deschaine replied, and I quote, "Umm, no it wont. I dont recognize unplanned wars into Taeunas territory. "
22:45 Executiveminister okay
22:46 Executiveminister so you offered to plan it
22:46 Executiveminister deschaine said no
22:46 Executiveminister go on
22:46 Executiveminister or actually
22:46 Executiveminister deschaine seemed to totally reject the idea of having any war, planned or not?
22:46 JEDCJT yes, we actually contacted him and offered him a chance to have the war planned
22:46 JEDCJT we're sweet like that, yeah
22:46 Executiveminister okay
22:46 Executiveminister gotcha
22:46 JEDCJT tbh, we didnt have to inform him, but we did
22:46 Executiveminister i hear ya
22:46 Executiveminister go on
22:47 JEDCJT and yes, he seemed to reject the idea of having any war and stuff
22:47 JEDCJT after that, Yawoo and I proceeded to move our forces around a bit over the next few days
22:47 JEDCJT soon, we hit Portugal
22:47 JEDCJT of which Deschaine tried to get a lock
22:48 JEDCJT while he was ALREADY in a war
22:48 JEDCJT (he was in the France-German war)
22:48 JEDCJT ironic, huh? he was fighting in a war already and yet refused to fight a war with us
22:48 JEDCJT thats the way I view it
22:48 JEDCJT anyways
22:49 JEDCJT Subtle honored the request, of which Yawoo stated that Deschaine couldnt do that
22:49 Executiveminister i remember that little spat
22:49 JEDCJT yeah
22:50 JEDCJT after that little spat, Subtle removed the lock
22:50 Executiveminister then subtle made a poll that was overwhelmingly in favour of auto-advances/locks being allowed only in a case-by-case basis (ie: autoadvance if lock is denied, lock if auto-advance is deemed inappropriate because of a legitimate leave of absense)
22:50 Executiveminister okay
22:50 Executiveminister go on
22:52 JEDCJT then we proceeded with the invasion, posting every four days (following what we believed was a legitimate rule already established by precedent)
22:52 JEDCJT whenever Deschaine failed to respond, we continued
22:52 JEDCJT that is, until the GMs interjected
22:53 JEDCJT and the thread soon devolved into a huge OOCfest
22:53 Executiveminister yeah
22:53 Executiveminister i read that
22:53 Executiveminister okay
22:53 Executiveminister so
22:53 Executiveminister the main issue i have
22:53 Executiveminister that i really need cleared up
22:53 Executiveminister is this
22:53 JEDCJT it seems that Deschaine had specifically asked the GMs to intervene
22:53 JEDCJT ok
22:54 JEDCJT whats the issue?
22:54 Executiveminister JEDCJT then we proceeded with the invasion, posting every four days (following what we believed was a legitimate rule already established by precedent)
22:54 Executiveminister did you
22:54 Executiveminister or did you not
22:54 Executiveminister have gm approval
22:54 Executiveminister or did you just go with a gut feeling
22:54 Executiveminister that deschaine was pulling a Mudd
22:54 Executiveminister like
22:54 Executiveminister don't get me wrong
22:54 JEDCJT yea, we had GM approval
22:54 Executiveminister i need to know
22:54 Executiveminister who gave it
22:55 Executiveminister IAT?
22:55 JEDCJT I talked with Iat, at first he gave me the advance to keep on autoadvancing every 4 days, but that's because he didnt know the full story yet. And once he knew the full story and Deschaine asked him to intervene, then Iat got involved
22:56 JEDCJT *advice
22:56 JEDCJT but Yawoo and I were following precedent that were established by the war with Tahoe and before that
22:57 JEDCJT I believed that the autoadvance was a precedent established in place, so I was following that
22:58 JEDCJT and so the OOC fest with the GMs continued, until Sargun came in with a compromise scaling back the autoadvance
22:58 JEDCJT we accepted that
22:59 Executiveminister yeah
22:59 Executiveminister then deschaine, still made
22:59 Executiveminister mad*
22:59 Executiveminister god modded
22:59 Executiveminister okay
22:59 JEDCJT yes
22:59 Executiveminister did iat mention anything about going to lynneth for a more concrete ruling?
22:59 JEDCJT I sent him a PM welcoming him back and asking him to post in the invasion thread
23:00 JEDCJT of which he then proceeded to post a complete godmod post
23:00 Executiveminister yeah
23:00 JEDCJT and yes, I did contact Lynneth about that
23:00 Executiveminister what did HE say?
23:01 Executiveminister also
23:01 Executiveminister i ask you to hold off on posting in the v2 for now
23:01 Executiveminister a ruling should becoming soon
23:01 Executiveminister either when sargun gets on
23:01 Executiveminister or sometime tomorrow
23:01 JEDCJT Lynneth said, and I quote, "The autowin is not to be used as precedent. That was a unique case with mudd."
23:01 JEDCJT I was like wtf?
23:01 JEDCJT it sounded arbitary to me
23:03 JEDCJT I asked him about the autoadvance and autowin, by the way
23:04 Executiveminister so did you just play 'mommy can i? daddy can i?' and just stick with IaTs ruling?
23:04 JEDCJT he said no autoadvances, and that he hated precedences
23:04 Executiveminister so did you just go with IaT's ruling?
23:04 JEDCJT Well, yes, I did
23:05 Executiveminister okay
23:05 Executiveminister anything else?
23:05 JEDCJT and no, I didnt go like 'mommy can i?' 'daddy, can I?', lol
23:05 Executiveminister that was a figure of speech
23:05 Executiveminister its when
23:05 Executiveminister a kid goes to one of his parents and asks for permission for something
23:06 Executiveminister they say no
23:06 Executiveminister so he goes to the other one
23:06 Executiveminister they say yes
23:06 Executiveminister thats all
23:06 Executiveminister in this case its vice versa, but it fits
23:06 JEDCJT Lynneth told me that before IaT made the ruling
23:06 Executiveminister i thought everyone knew what that meant
23:06 Executiveminister what ruling did IaT make?
23:06 JEDCJT I always felt Lynneth was making rules up
23:06 Executiveminister i hear you
23:07 JEDCJT as such, I felt IaT was more fair
23:07 Executiveminister its okay
23:07 Executiveminister you don't need to say stuff like that
23:07 Executiveminister again
23:07 Executiveminister i'd really appreciate it
23:07 Executiveminister if you hold off on the war in the mean time
23:07 Executiveminister we're almost at a conclusion
23:07 JEDCJT sure
23:08 Executiveminister kk[/quote]


Right here is one of several issues that have cropped up during this war, that must be addressed from now on. JED has brought to light a serious loop hole that must be sealed up immediately. From now on, if any member of this community asks for a ruling and receives an unfavourable one, or is specifically deferred to another GM, or receives mixed messages from two or more GMs,[b] DO NOT[/b] [u]under any circumstances choose the GM that gave you the ruling that made the most sense to you[/u], like JED did. [b]Immediately inform the GMs of this contradiction.[/b] [u]This mistake can easily be interpreted as a genuinely dishonest attempt at fishing for outcomes and will [b]NOT BE TOLERATED[/b] henceforth.[/u]

This war had a unique GM situation, Iamthey approved, however haphazardly, of an auto-advance, while Lynneth contradicted him later on. Under normal circumstances, the third GM, IDTA would have been called to break the tie, but JED could not reasonably be expected to call upon IDTA in this case to rule unbiased as he was a participant of the war in question. [b]There must be a standardized procedure on what to do if there is a GM deadlock.[/b]

From now on, if one requires a ruling, goes to a GM and receives one, you [b]MUST[/b] accept the ruling of the first GM you contact. [b]You may not subsequently ask another GM for a ruling unless specifically ordered to do so.[/b] IAT could have easily told JED to go to Lynneth indefinitely, yet he was not assertive enough to JED to make it clear that he was unsure of the ruling he was giving, or even if he was sure of it being a legitimate ruling at all. If Lynneth's ruling seemed unfair, as was JED's case, then he should have made the case public so that it could be corrected.

[b]DeSchaine must accept the war,[/b] this was never in dispute, however, care must be given to ensure that the same mistake JED did does not happen again. Everything got thrown in a canoe and sent up !@#$ creek because the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing.

[b]Deschaine must retcon his massive godmod post,[/b] and the war shall [u]resume from that point in time[/u], taking into consideration, and only taking into consideration all factors [u]present in that point in time[/u]. DeSchaine had made it clear to me that actions in the Europe War would have affected the American invasion war (ie: troops coming home, CAP flights to and from his territories to continental Europe, etc). If all parties involved need to deliberate these facts, and other subsequent events after the godmod, they may do so in the appropriate OOC thread.

[b]WE CANNOT[/b] wipe or redact the two auto-advances that were awarded, wrongly or not, to Yawoo and JED. However, we feel that this is more than enough of a compromise to DeSchaine, as it still gives him time to respond in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On spying,

I guess that most of it makes sense, but the result is that in the end, spies are not likely to be used much. I guess that I will just end up using my 550 spies as Elite Officers/warriors, rather than spies proper. Once war has started, it's extremely difficult if not near impossible to send a spy into the nation you're trying to beat, anyway.

Maybe if there were a system while while easier like the one we had before, was less prone to being abused...but I cannot come up with much...

Oh and. If a merger nation IG has two SDIs, does that mean that incoming nukes have to roll to get through both? I figure it's better to ask now than later when there's a war in the middle of a complaint storm.

Edited by Kaiser Martens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1284085529' post='2448353']
On spying,

I guess that most of it makes sense, but the result is that in the end, spies are not likely to be used much. I guess that I will just end up using my 550 spies as Elite Officers/warriors, rather than spies proper. Once war has started, it's extremely difficult if not near impossible to send a spy into the nation you're trying to beat, anyway.

Maybe if there were a system while while easier like the one we had before, was less prone to being abused...but I cannot come up with much...

Oh and. If a merger nation IG has two SDIs, does that mean that incoming nukes have to roll to get through both? I figure it's better to ask now than later when there's a war in the middle of a complaint storm.
[/quote]

I would say one... ie: if TBM and I merged, if the nuke was headed towards former legion, it would be his roll, if it headed to Nod, it would be mine. So one roll either way, as a nuke cannot be in two places at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284086021' post='2448360']
I would say one... ie: if TBM and I merged, if the nuke was headed towards former legion, it would be his roll, if it headed to Nod, it would be mine. So one roll either way, as a nuke cannot be in two places at once.
[/quote]
What if the nuke passed through both territories? For example, someone in Africa launched nukes at Berlin, meaning it would pass through the Goth and Germany. Would it be a double roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1284086629' post='2448371']
What if the nuke passed through both territories? For example, someone in Africa launched nukes at Berlin, meaning it would pass through the Goth and Germany. Would it be a double roll?
[/quote]

To be quite frank, if it passes over a persons territory directly it may be rolled against by that person... i'm pretty sure SOM threatened to do that to Sargun in the Second East African war if sargun launched more nukes at me... although I haven't been around to actually see it play out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1284085529' post='2448353']
On spying,

I guess that most of it makes sense, but the result is that in the end, spies are not likely to be used much. I guess that I will just end up using my 550 spies as Elite Officers/warriors, rather than spies proper. Once war has started, it's extremely difficult if not near impossible to send a spy into the nation you're trying to beat, anyway.

Maybe if there were a system while while easier like the one we had before, was less prone to being abused...but I cannot come up with much...

Oh and. If a merger nation IG has two SDIs, does that mean that incoming nukes have to roll to get through both? I figure it's better to ask now than later when there's a war in the middle of a complaint storm.
[/quote]
[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1284086629' post='2448371']
What if the nuke passed through both territories? For example, someone in Africa launched nukes at Berlin, meaning it would pass through the Goth and Germany. Would it be a double roll?
[/quote]
[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284086837' post='2448381']
To be quite frank, if it passes over a persons territory directly it may be rolled against by that person... i'm pretty sure SOM threatened to do that to Sargun in the Second East African war if sargun launched more nukes at me... although I haven't been around to actually see it play out.
[/quote]
I talked to a GM long before my reappointment, and they told me (with the agreement of several other individuals) that if one partner has an SDI, they are both covered, but in the case of them both having an SDI, only one roll is required, regardless of the target location.

Edited by Subtleknifewielder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' timestamp='1284089413' post='2448455']
I talked to a GM long before my reappointment, and they told me (with the agreement of several other individuals) that if one partner has an SDI, they are both covered, but in the case of them both having an SDI, only one roll is required, regardless of the target location.
[/quote]

You didn't address what happens if a nuke passes over a non-target nation. May that nation choose to destroy the missile (if it has an SDI, via SDI roll)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a nuke takes a path over a nation with an SDI, the owner of the nation has the [b]choice[/b] to make a single SDI roll against it at normal SDI odds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1284091659' post='2448508']
Which is why I wondered why Subtle quoted Kankou's question and my identical response.
[/quote]

Not sure if my question had been answered. If it's a merge, will it still be SDI by original nation, or combined roll?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SDI by original nation was what I believe to be the original ruling (I cannot confirm it and I'm not sure if I'm just making something off the otp of my head), but unless someone can prove otherwise it's SDI by original nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1284090729' post='2448487']
If a nuke takes a path over a nation with an SDI, the owner of the nation has the [b]choice[/b] to make a single SDI roll against it at normal SDI odds.
[/quote]

Really? I was under the impression an SDI only covered the nation that is attacked.

[quote name='iamthey' timestamp='1274323980' post='2304090']
I agree with this.

Also, in the past the scope of the SDI has been limited to blocking attacks on one's own territory. The point being to prevent people from using their SDI to defend others (like if 3 countries all with SDI's have troops in one area, and the area is hit with a single nuke). How do you reconcile that? If I happen to have troops in an ally's capital, and the ally does not have an SDI, can I use my SDI to defend my troops and by extension that capital? Clearly we run into trouble. Which is why in the past I have said SDI's should only be able to defend one's own territory and arguably their fleet. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
[/quote]


And an SDI covers both merged nations:

[quote name='Californian' timestamp='1262129820' post='2065197']
As for merged nations, the whole nation is protected if a member has an SDI. More SDIs doesn't do anything, you don't get higher odds or more chances to reroll, it's just one of the things you have to deal with if you merge.
[/quote]

edit: finish typing it

Edited by iKrolm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iamthey was talking about using your own SDI to cover other territories, not using your own SDI to cover yours. And thanks for the Californian link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×