The GM's Court

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297804793' post='2634662']
I also explained why this was required as Triyun cannot sign a treaty, only Jia can. Askin Triyun would have been meta gaming. You haven't solved anything. Although you could if we do implement a solution for future issues.
[/quote]

I am aware of your 'explanation'.

[quote]
Alternatively, I do agree with having it wiped for the sake of killing the argument, but I hope people do LEARN from it and do not ask for IC things in OOC and actually create threads to request and create treaties if they want them.
[/quote]

Your thread was wiped because you attempted to RP the actions of the UKIM's government. I am killing no argument, this is indisputable. You essentially godmodded the centerpiece of that thread- regardless of your 'reasons' and attempts to 'teach' us the proper way to go about RPing on these boards, what you did was wrong. I hope you learn from this.




As an aside, I take this time to reaffirm that should the community feel that there must be a 'scout's honor' clause with regards to RPing diplomatic encounters, please, tell me now. Personally, I find this noble, yet ultimately impossible aim to be unenforceable. If anyone has any ideas on how to proceed with this endeavor, this is the thread to voice them.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1297807058' post='2634686']
Your thread was wiped because you attempted to RP the actions of the UKIM's government. I am killing no argument, this is indisputable. You essentially godmodded the centerpiece of that thread- regardless of your 'reasons' and attempts to 'teach' us the proper way to go about RPing on these boards, what you did was wrong. I hope you learn from this.
[/quote]


You do not seem to understand. I was teaching Granite Knight as he had requested I do so. If he had not requested I be his tutor, I would not be teaching. I am not being condescending. I was literally asked by him to show him some of the things he was doing wrong in the RP that had caused him to become an outcast from a lot of those around him. I was attempting to show him that this plotting behind people's back approach would not help, but only hurt him. I have learned much from this, I will not clarify what so as to save further argument. But to summarize, I'm not attempting to teach you or anyone else except those who might want to learn from this exchange more specifically, GK.

Would you like to see the 165kb log of time I've spent communicating with GK this past month giving him advice he asked for on various issues? Not just CNRP? Is it really wrong that people want and have asked for my help?

Additionally I was attempting to show him, with this new episode of events having played out as it has, that skirting the IC/OOC boundary can be a dangerous act. Regardless as to what you say about my post and thread, it is. In fact it may be point in case of why it in fact can be dangerous. If I "godmodded" as you have said.. it is because I interpreted his ooc request as a request for IC action. The reasoning for this has been explained previously. Thus the danger of addressing an IC topic OOCly is highlighted by the fact that if there is any mis-communication it can end up as a post on the forum that was unintended.

All you need is a standard.

My suggestion: All treaty requests and suggestions must be made on the boards or do not happen and could constitute meta-gaming if they occur in another domain. Lock all IC action into the IC arena.

Scouts honor won't work. There is an insufficient supply of it in this community. Where there is competition and politics is involved, laws are required. It is the only way to prevent exploitation of loopholes.

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1297806157' post='2634680']
The point is is that asking Triyun over IRC if he'd want to up the treaty is not OOC - it's no different than if he had sent a PM asking the same. IRC can and has been used before to discuss treaties and this should be taken no different. Let's say Chernarussia and I were on IRC at the same time, and in #cnrp, I said to him, "hey, Chernarussia, wanna upgrade our treaty?" and if he had said "no" then that would be it. It's simply the matter of streamlining the flow so that time isn't wasted by making a thread for all to happen is "that is not in our best interests".
[/quote]

The problem is Markus, that this behavior can also be used as a means to avoid consequences when creating treaties is also accompanied by a veiled threat. Leaving the threatened party no ic means of response even if the threat can only exist ic.

Unfortunately, EM has protected this exploit for everyone to use. But I'm hoping he's working on making that no longer a concern. The question is.. will he do the "right thing" with what he knows or not? I can understand him excluding this event because no rules yet have been created governing it, but it definitely needs addressed.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297808474' post='2634739']
You do not seem to understand. I was teaching Granite Knight as he had requested I do so. If he had not requested I be his tutor, I would not be teaching. I am not being condescending. I was literally asked by him to show him some of the things he was doing wrong in the RP that had caused him to become an outcast from a lot of those around him. I was attempting to show him that this plotting behind people's back approach would not help, but only hurt him. I have learned much from this, I will not clarify what so as to save further argument. But to summarize, I'm not attempting to teach you or anyone else except those who might want to learn from this exchange more specifically, GK.[/quote]

You do not seem to understand the point of my saying 'regardless of your reasons'. I meant to convey my heartfelt sentiment that no matter how much you display your intransigence, make up excuses or unearth hitherto secret arrangements between you and MO, you godmodded by RPing the actions of the UKIM's government. That is it. No amount of explanation or commentary can change this fact. I fail to see why you continue to defend your actions. Had MO wanted to learn from you in this manner, he would not have complained in this court.

[quote]
Additionally I was attempting to show him that skirting the IC/OOC boundary can be a dangerous act. Regardless as to what you say about my post and thread, it is. In fact it may be point in case of why it in fact can be dangerous. If I "godmodded" as you have said.. it is because I interpreted his ooc request as a request for IC action. Thus the danger of addressing an IC topic OOCly is highlighted by the fact that if there is any mis-communication it can end up as a post on the forum.
[/quote]

So you attempted to show him that skirting the IC/OOC boundary is dangerous by deliberately crossing it yourself? This places new insight on this issue. Tell me, would you teach your child about playing with loaded weapons by shooting yourself in the foot? You are being an unnecessary nuisance to the GMs with these teachings, I would kindly request you to cease any like-minded attempts of guidance you may have in the future as this causes unnecessary grief not only amongst the GMs, but to other RPers, MO in this instance. You could have easily told him this in that very IRC conversation. Instead, you aired his dirty laundry for all to see, godmodding as you did it.

An aside,

MO obviously spoke to you in confidence, if I am to believe what you said was true with regards to his 'request' of yours. I would be very disappointed in you telling everyone i felt like an outcast were I MO. The fact that I find myself lecturing you on this is most distressing.



[quote]
All you need is a standard.

My suggestion: All treaty requests and suggestions must be made on the boards or do not happen and could constitute meta-gaming if they occur in another domain. Lock all IC action into the IC arena.

Scouts honor won't work. There is an insufficient supply of it in this community. Where there is competition and politics is involved, laws are required.
[/quote]

Scouts honor will not work. That is why I placed scare quotes around them when I first mentioned them. Your (predicted) suggestion is impossible to enforce. How many private and locked channels are out there where such 'meta-gaming' can occur unchecked? How will the GMs be able to analyze forum PMs to check for similar behavior?

You cannot enforce such a rule, it is impossible. The only reason we could even remotely rely on having offenders dealt with would be if one of the participants complained in the GMs court or made a thread similar to yours (hint to everyone else: [b]DO NOT DO THIS[/b]), which is tantamount to a culprit turning himself in. Scouts honor.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1297811369' post='2634793']
You do not seem to understand the point of my saying 'regardless of your reasons'. I meant to convey my heartfelt sentiment that no matter how much you display your intransigence, make up excuses or unearth hitherto secret arrangements between you and MO, you godmodded by RPing the actions of the UKIM's government. That is it. No amount of explanation or commentary can change this fact. I fail to see why you continue to defend your actions. Had MO wanted to learn from you in this manner, he would not have complained in this court.
[/quote]

He did appologize

[quote]
So you attempted to show him that skirting the IC/OOC boundary is dangerous by deliberately crossing it yourself? This places new insight on this issue. Tell me, would you teach your child about playing with loaded weapons by shooting yourself in the foot? You are being an unnecessary nuisance to the GMs with these teachings, I would kindly request you to cease any like-minded attempts of guidance you may have in the future as this causes unnecessary grief not only amongst the GMs, but to other RPers, MO in this instance. You could have easily told him this in that very IRC conversation. Instead, you aired his dirty laundry for all to see, godmodding as you did it.
[/quote]

The crossing of the boundary was completely unintended as at first I had not realized I was crossing it. I thought I was simply fulfilling his request. Apparently I misunderstood the request and in doing so did cross the boundary. The net result is a lesson to myself and to everyone. The dirty laundry was aired because once the complaint was made the whole truth had to be made known for all perspectives to be understood.

[quote]
An aside,

MO obviously spoke to you in confidence, if I am to believe what you said was true with regards to his 'request' of yours. I would be very disappointed in you telling everyone i felt like an outcast were I MO. The fact that I find myself lecturing you on this is most distressing.
[/quote]

As I pointed out, once the complaint was made the full truth of the whole matter had to be known to give a complete perspective on the event embarrassing as it may be to anyone involved. If you seek to try me as a judge, I will present all the evidence.

[quote]
Scouts honor will not work. That is why I placed scare quotes around them when I first mentioned them. Your (predicted) suggestion is impossible to enforce. How many private and locked channels are out there where such 'meta-gaming' can occur unchecked? How will the GMs be able to analyze forum PMs to check for similar behavior?

You cannot enforce such a rule, it is impossible. The only reason we could even remotely rely on having offenders dealt with would be if one of the participants complained in the GMs court or made a thread similar to yours (hint to everyone else: [b]DO NOT DO THIS[/b]), which is tantamount to a culprit turning himself in. Scouts honor.
[/quote]

It is problematic, but a solution of some form still needs found to these practices or people need to avoid them otherwise such issues will recur repeatedly and the exploits will continue. Simply requiring all discussion of treaties be RP'd in being created and signed would be a first step. Even if they are pre-negotiated a character record must be made of how the discussion went that way if things do sour, it sours in IC where parties may act upon it instead of just.. bam.. OP is a treaty and its there regardless as to if negotiations may have failed.

To give an example. I think the ideal way this should have played out is that if GK wanted a treaty he would create a thread like he did the first time around where his diplomat was in a car with Cao and they drove around Beijing discussing the terms. If GK's UKIM diplomats had brought it up before Cao that he was thinking of going to Cochin if the treaty didn't get improved/escalated then the same exact thread as I had created would have formed with Cao informing Jia of the situation and allowing Jia to determine how to react.

That's how it SHOULD have happened.

CNRP seems to be trying to move itself towards a "perfect world" situation where everything is predetermined and nothing goes against expectations. I will warn you now if it is allowed to continue that direction; It will become the driest literary environment on the internet.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Zoot Zoot]

Then you know where the door is Mael.
It's been ruled against so just drop it mate.

[Centurius]

It has always been that way and unless you get a majority of the community to back your position it always will. The matter is closed and no further rulings on it will be made.

If you want to change the rules about making treaties discuss it in a new topic and get the support of the community. End of story.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1298756782' post='2645596']
40% increase in cruise missiles (6,000 of each cruise missile variant currently in the Slavic Armed Forces arsenal)
40% increase in hypersonic cruise missiles (5,000 missiles to constructed and placed in stockpile)
[/quote]


These cruise missile numbers seem a little large; even the United States only maintains a stock pile of 3,500 tomahawk cruise missiles.

Edited February 27, 2011 by iKrolm

[Lestari]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1298771254' post='2645732']
These cruise missile numbers seem a little large; even the United States only maintains a stock pile of 3,500 tomahawk cruise missiles.
[/quote]
But could an RL nation of Malatose's nations' size [i]potentially [/i]maintain such a stockpile? If so, I imagine it is within permissible parametres.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='dotCom' timestamp='1298771403' post='2645733']
But could an RL nation of Malatose's nations' size [i]potentially [/i]maintain such a stockpile? If so, I imagine it is within permissible parametres.
[/quote]
It's feasible as long as the missiles are cheap to purchase and maintain. That's not the case for Tomahawk missiles or other city-leveling missiles.

[Zoot Zoot]

It's CNRP.
What does it matter?
Munitions levels have never mattered before.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='dotCom' timestamp='1298771403' post='2645733']
But could an RL nation of Malatose's nations' size [i]potentially [/i]maintain such a stockpile? If so, I imagine it is within permissible parametres.
[/quote]

Even before the war, Malatose was around 50k NS; only Lavo or Lynneth have approached a comparable strength the United States IRL. Plus, 5000 of those CMs are hypersonic which certainly aren't cheap.

Edited February 27, 2011 by iKrolm

[Lestari]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1298771974' post='2645742']
Even before the war, Malatose was around 50k NS; only Lavo or Lynneth have approached a comparable strength the United States IRL. Plus, 5000 of those CMs are hypersonic which certainly aren't cheap.
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure several nations here have the potential to be far more powerful than the RL US. I mean people have used mechs and such, and if I recall correctly some person's nation leader became an AI and uploaded his consciousness to a computer or something :v

[Triyun]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1298771254' post='2645732']
These cruise missile numbers seem a little large; even the United States only maintains a stock pile of 3,500 tomahawk cruise missiles.
[/quote]

The US is in a less militarized world. There are only 200 fifth gen fighters IRL almost all in the US, there are only 13 nuclear power carriers in the world IRL, 12 of which are in the US. Using IRL numbers even the USs cannot be used as an accurate reflection of CN RP world.

[Triyun]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1298771254' post='2645732']
These cruise missile numbers seem a little large; even the United States only maintains a stock pile of 3,500 tomahawk cruise missiles.
[/quote]

The US is in a less militarized world. There are only 200 fifth gen fighters IRL almost all in the US, there are only 13 nuclear power carriers in the world IRL, 12 of which are in the US. Using IRL numbers even the USs cannot be used as an accurate reflection of CN RP world.

[Centurius]

Considering the political climate in cnrp and the fact Vektor has been rp'ing military increases for 1.5-2 rl years it is very much feasible for him to have his massive stockpiles.

Also keep in mind he USA is directly bound by Congress and has a lot of different programs it has to put money in that could be used for weapons. Vektor however has a militarized totalitarian state, so no. The missiles aren't too much.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='dotCom' timestamp='1298772211' post='2645745']
I'm pretty sure several nations here have the potential to be far more powerful than the RL US. I mean people have used mechs and such, and if I recall correctly some person's nation leader became an AI and uploaded his consciousness to a computer or something :v
[/quote]
That was mine, as it happens, and while I still have the AI and its components, it's not active. In storage, so to say, and I doubt I'll use it again.

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1298773779' post='2645761']
Considering the political climate in cnrp and the fact Vektor has been rp'ing military increases for 1.5-2 rl years it is very much feasible for him to have his massive stockpiles.

Also keep in mind he USA is directly bound by Congress and has a lot of different programs it has to put money in that could be used for weapons. Vektor however has a militarized totalitarian state, so no. The missiles aren't too much.
[/quote]
And nobody cares about economy, GDP, et cetera...Even with this silly GDP-modificator, Sri Lanka's GDP is 'only' 9.2 trillion, bit bigger than China's and half that of the US.
Vektor's would be hopelessly overstretched building all these missiles.
But nobody cares about economy.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

*chuckles* Munitions can be produced relatively cheaply and quickly with any industry at all. Look at North Korea for example. Huge army.. awful economy. Pieces of major equipment may be a problem, but not munitions. I believe it would give people more creditability though if they cited their production plan and rate.. like how many factories committed producing how many per day and how many days the production run went. I did the same thing for my sea crawlers and had a massive production net with little dispute as to the quantity; compared to arguments over the viability of the actual weapon platform. Thus, no matter what the munition is.. if you want it, though we haven't historically done so in most cases, it may be a good idea to give people an idea in your fact books of how you came by them. This is merely a suggestion as a means of improving the quality of the RP and I do not believe it should be mandatory or necessary.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1298856652' post='2646458']
*chuckles* Munitions can be produced relatively cheaply and quickly with any industry at all. Look at North Korea for example. Huge army.. awful economy. Pieces of major equipment may be a problem, but not munitions. I believe it would give people more creditability though if they cited their production plan and rate.. like how many factories committed producing how many per day and how many days the production run went. I did the same thing for my sea crawlers and had a massive production net with little dispute as to the quantity; compared to arguments over the viability of the actual weapon platform. Thus, no matter what the munition is.. if you want it, though we haven't historically done so in most cases, it may be a good idea to give people an idea in your fact books of how you came by them. This is merely a suggestion as a means of improving the quality of the RP and I do not believe it should be mandatory or necessary.
[/quote]

Actually not all munitions can be mass produced cheaply and quickly without the adequate industrial and technological base. Stock munitions like small arms, artillery shells are one thing, higher technology missiles, fighter planes are yet another thing. Production of an assault rifle is more or less simple thus enabling a factory line production enabling greater speed, but high technology weapons are still more or less manually assembled with individual components individually fabricated.

But then of course in the unrealness that is CNRP, such production schedules are okay.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1298856652' post='2646458']
*chuckles* [b]Munitions can be produced relatively cheaply and quickly with any industry at all[/b]. Look at North Korea for example. Huge army.. awful economy. Pieces of major equipment may be a problem, but not munitions. I believe it would give people more creditability though if they cited their production plan and rate.. like how many factories committed producing how many per day and how many days the production run went. I did the same thing for my sea crawlers and had a massive production net with little dispute as to the quantity; compared to arguments over the viability of the actual weapon platform. Thus, no matter what the munition is.. if you want it, though we haven't historically done so in most cases, it may be a good idea to give people an idea in your fact books of how you came by them. This is merely a suggestion as a means of improving the quality of the RP and I do not believe it should be mandatory or necessary.
[/quote]
A Javelin missile cost about $40,000. An AGM-114 Hellfire missile cost about $68,000. That does not include the launchers.

Also, calculating how much ammunition that a player's industry can produce based on infra level and how much ammunition is needed for a battle will be a tad hard. I'd be amazed to see someone try to cook up a math formula for that.

Edited February 28, 2011 by HHAYD

[Markus Wilding]

Good god. No. CNRP doesn't need any more freakin' math. It's hard enough as it is WITHOUT x formula to get y amount of z weapons.

[KaiserMelech Mikhail]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1298861103' post='2646512']
Good god. No. CNRP doesn't need any more freakin' math. It's hard enough as it is WITHOUT x formula to get y amount of z weapons.
[/quote]
Reeki, CNRP doesn't have any math. Also, there's nothing hard about any of this.

[Markus Wilding]

Oh really now?

[quote]*Take your in-game citizen count and multiply it by 0.80. This number is your maximum in-game soldier count. Multiply this number by 10.0 and this number will be your maximum CNRP soldier count. Tanks are directly equal to what your maximum is in-game.
For example: If I have 10,000 citizens in-game, then I have 80,000 soldiers in RP.[/quote]

When I said hard, I meant more in terms of people like me. Like me, I mean people who just want to RP.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1298857463' post='2646472']
Actually not all munitions can be mass produced cheaply and quickly without the adequate industrial and technological base. Stock munitions like small arms, artillery shells are one thing, higher technology missiles, fighter planes are yet another thing. Production of an assault rifle is more or less simple thus enabling a factory line production enabling greater speed, but high technology weapons are still more or less manually assembled with individual components individually fabricated.

But then of course in the unrealness that is CNRP, such production schedules are okay.
[/quote]

You obviously haven't seen a Toyotat plan in operation like we have here in my home state. We assemble complex things in mass daily. Seriously, if you slave a factory or two to produce a specific munitions type and another factory or two to producing replacement parts. It runs on minimal manpower, using mostly precision robotics for function.

Wallah, instant war machine.

The factories aren't even of significant size.. they might take up the space of a mini-mall or two.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Markus Wilding]

Civilian technology is a lot different than military technology. You can't compare a Toyota factory to a AGM-114 Hellfire factory.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1298863635' post='2646540']
Civilian technology is a lot different than military technology. You can't compare a Toyota factory to a AGM-114 Hellfire factory.
[/quote]

You're right in some instances Civilian technology may actually be more complex because they do not require the same environmental endurance as military tech allowing them greater complexity due to less abuse.

I understand your argument, but you're wrong. We have equally complex equipment under mass manufacture as they have in any missile plant. Computers and microprocessors for example, which require white rooms. In fact, in some instances private technology has outpaced military technology, this is the case for example in the space race.. where Virgin Atlantic seems to have somewhat outpaced even military hardware.

So yes, they can be compared.

We also have precision civilian technology for geographic mapping purposes.. especially when it comes to identifying the location and drilling points of oil wells. So even in terms of targeting and guidance you could argue that some industries even have similar targeting standards as the military. It'd suck to miss that oil pocket when you drill.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex