Jump to content

The GM's Court


Executive Minister

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]
Centurius
Executive Minister
King of Cochin


[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 Executive Minister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because it got drowned in the previous thread, and I strongly agree with it...

A ruling was [i]never[/i] made regarding Kankou's suggestion regarding non-MBT vehicles being separate from field artillery. In other words, say you can have 10,000 tanks IG, that translates to having (additionally) 10,000 self-propelled vehicles (IFVs, APCs, etc.), and 10,000 towed artillery.

This isn't urgent per se, and if it needs to wait for the GM spots to be filled up by all means, but just highlighting this as I agree with Kankou's suggestion. Of course, if it was, in fact, shot down by a GM in the thread, just let me know. :v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1295314112' post='2579151']
Because it got drowned in the previous thread, and I strongly agree with it...

A ruling was [i]never[/i] made regarding Kankou's suggestion regarding non-MBT vehicles being separate from field artillery. In other words, say you can have 10,000 tanks IG, that translates to having (additionally) 10,000 self-propelled vehicles (IFVs, APCs, etc.), and 10,000 towed artillery.

This isn't urgent per se, and if it needs to wait for the GM spots to be filled up by all means, but just highlighting this as I agree with Kankou's suggestion. Of course, if it was, in fact, shot down by a GM in the thread, just let me know. :v:
[/quote]

First, a clarification.

[quote]In other words, say you can have 10,000 tanks IG, that translates to having (additionally) 10,000 self-propelled vehicles (IFVs, APCs, etc.)
[/quote]

That is total, combining all possible AFV mission types, correct? Ie: The person could choose to have 5000 IFVs, and 500 APCs, but would not be permitted to own any Self-propelled artillery or Self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery?

Also, I would be game for appending the rule to leave towed artillery out, however it seems to open up a myriad of questions, like 'what about towed anti-aircraft artillery?' But as always, this Thread can contain constructive discussion.

I don't see why we cannot have the discussion on this change now, then have a vote after enough people have spoken on the issue.



Also, I would like to take the time to post these logs.


[quote]20:28Executiveminister if i cant ask for peace in our time
20:28Executiveminister can i at least ask that you all deposit your current problems in MY thread?
20:28Executiveminister as orderly as possible?
20:28Executiveminister keeping in mind i've read jack for the last couple of days? [/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1295314870' post='2579176']
That is total, combining all possible AFV mission types, correct? Ie: The person could choose to have 5000 IFVs, and 500 APCs, but would not be permitted to own any Self-propelled artillery or Self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery?[/quote]

That would be (at least I would consider it to be, maybe Kankou can clarify?) the problem.

[quote]Also, I would be game for appending the rule to leave towed artillery out, however it seems to open up a myriad of questions, like 'what about towed anti-aircraft artillery?'[/quote]

Well, definition-wise, antiaircraft is separate itself (guns at least); under the current rule (anyways) this would be limited to 10,000 (an example problem/conflict being Kankou's array of thousands of antiaircraft flak). However, most antiaircraft is self-propelled, so that would fall under a catch-all 10,000 limit. Field artillery would be artillery pieces that are 1) not self propelled and 2) similar to howitzers where they can be either set up as battery emplacements [i]or[/i] offensive towed weapons. Others can interpret it differently, but that's what I'm personally talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1295315158' post='2579191']
That would be (at least I would consider it to be, maybe Kankou can clarify?) the problem.
[/quote]

The problem? I thought that was what you were proposing :P

To be honest, I would not immediately shun the idea of allowing someone 10,000 MBTs, 10,000 IFVs, 10,000 APCs, 10,000 SPAs, 10,000 SPAAGs, AND 10,000 towed anti-air and 10,000 towed artillery.... but we would need to clearly map out the different Armored Fighting Vehicle classes before such a change was made, if that is what you are proposing now.

[quote]
Well, definition-wise, antiaircraft is separate itself (guns at least); under the current rule (anyways) this would be limited to 10,000 (an example problem/conflict being Kankou's array of thousands of antiaircraft flak). However, most antiaircraft is self-propelled, so that would fall under a catch-all 10,000 limit. Field artillery would be artillery pieces that are 1) not self propelled and 2) similar to howitzers where they can be either set up as battery emplacements [i]or[/i] offensive towed weapons. Others can interpret it differently, but that's what I'm personally talking about.
[/quote]

As long as someone has the Air Defense Network number, I would be partial to allowing a separate cap for Towed or stationary AA. But again, i'd want much more than just my input, as im sure that's probably open to all sorts of horrible exploits that i haven't thought of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signing in as a GM.

Honored that someone in CNRP considered me able to be a GM. Honored and humbled by the responsibility. I will try to be as impartial as possible and do my GM duties in a timely and proper manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295499137' post='2584989']
Signing in as a GM.

Honored that someone in CNRP considered me able to be a GM. Honored and humbled by the responsibility. I will try to be as impartial as possible and do my GM duties in a timely and proper manner.
[/quote]

Boo. Hiss. Get off the stage, we're trying to watch the show. Down in front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My shot on Artillery:

1) Tanks: 1x IG Tank
2) IFV/APC/SPA: 2x IG Tank
3) Rocket/Heavy Artillery: 1x IG Tank


Reason: We need to allow customization. Some prefer mobility, while others want firepower. I say my suggestion is a good balance.

RA: obviously the multi-launchers, not the mortar type used by Martens.
HA: Any with a caliber larger than 4 inches. Can be towed, railed, fixed. Any smaller guns are limited by common sense.

About AAA: I don't see a point when we allow thousands of AA missiles, and only two players (Martens and myself) use AA guns as a major part of their defense. Never mind most of mine are 57mm autocannons, not AAA.

Edited by Kankou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must we put additional numbers to our artillery/support vehicles? Let's keep the good old KISS method and just do what we've been doing, that is, keep things at a "resonable" level. If anyone disputes the resonableness of an RPers number, then we have the GMs here to step in and make a ruling.

Less Numbers = More enjoyable RPing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion we dont need more numbers for artillery. It would be a fallacy to assume that more number of artillery tubes is always good. A large static defense could be easily destroyed. Towed artillery are most exposed to counter battery. Obviously we cannot have Self propelled guns of same number as tanks, but APCs and IFVs to be effective in CNRP anyway need the assault soldiers riding in them. Since we have the limit on assault soldiers that should be enough for APCs.

At the end of the day, my suggestion is that we resort to common sense approach rather than unnecessary regulation or standardized calculations. If, as Yawoo said, anybody is using unreasonable number of artillery, the GMs could decide upon a per case basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1295523897' post='2586128']
In my opinion we dont need more numbers for artillery. It would be a fallacy to assume that more number of artillery tubes is always good. A large static defense could be easily destroyed. Towed artillery are most exposed to counter battery. Obviously we cannot have Self propelled guns of same number as tanks, but APCs and IFVs to be effective in CNRP anyway need the assault soldiers riding in them. Since we have the limit on assault soldiers that should be enough for APCs.

At the end of the day, my suggestion is that we resort to common sense approach rather than unnecessary regulation or standardized calculations. If, as Yawoo said, anybody is using unreasonable number of artillery, the GMs could decide upon a per case basis.
[/quote]

This basically, don't abuse it and we wont wipe it. Simple.

Also hi, Centurius reporting in.

Edited by Centurius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295509650' post='2585894']
About AAA: I don't see a point when we allow thousands of AA missiles, and only two players (Martens and myself) use AA guns as a major part of their defense. Never mind most of mine are 57mm autocannons, not AAA.
[/quote]
You must not have noticed Portugal's multiple 90mm anti-air batteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295509650' post='2585894']
My shot on Artillery:

1) Tanks: 1x IG Tank
2)[b] IFV/APC/SPA: 2x IG Tank[/b]
3) Rocket/Heavy Artillery: 1x IG Tank


Reason: We need to allow customization. Some prefer mobility, while others want firepower. I say my suggestion is a good balance.

RA: obviously the multi-launchers, not the mortar type used by Martens.
HA: Any with a caliber larger than 4 inches. Can be towed, railed, fixed. Any smaller guns are limited by common sense.

About AAA: I don't see a point when we allow thousands of AA missiles, and only two players (Martens and myself) use AA guns as a major part of their defense. Never mind most of mine are 57mm autocannons, not AAA.
[/quote]


Is that 2x IG tank number an all-encompassing one for any vehicle types such as the IFV/APC or SPA? Or is it 2xIG for each category?

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1295512008' post='2585953']
Why must we put additional numbers to our artillery/support vehicles? Let's keep the good old KISS method and just do what we've been doing, that is, keep things at a "resonable" level. If anyone disputes the resonableness of an RPers number, then we have the GMs here to step in and make a ruling.

Less Numbers = More enjoyable RPing
[/quote]

I'd be in favor of using the KISS method... but the longer i stay on these forums, the more i realize that without such concrete numbers that ANYONE can go and check, people will continuously throw 'thousands' of whatevers in someone's direction and hope he gets demoralized. If that person actually wants to engage, then he really has no idea on how much he can possibly face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1295512008' post='2585953']
Why must we put additional numbers to our artillery/support vehicles? Let's keep the good old KISS method and just do what we've been doing, that is, keep things at a "resonable" level. If anyone disputes the resonableness of an RPers number, then we have the GMs here to step in and make a ruling.

Less Numbers = More enjoyable RPing
[/quote]

This, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shatner' timestamp='1295542536' post='2586560']
This, as well.
[/quote]
Yep, I agree. The limits on everything are starting to kill any creativity. CNRP is way too strict. I can understand KISS, but putting an exact number/rule on something really hurts the fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1295509650' post='2585894']
About AAA: I don't see a point when we allow thousands of AA missiles, and only two players (Martens and myself) use AA guns as a major part of their defense. Never mind most of mine are 57mm autocannons, not AAA.
[/quote]
I use guns as 100% of my AA defense. If you cared at all you would know that! I'm breaking up with you!

Edited by KaiserMelech Mikhail
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...