The GM's Court

[Maelstrom Vortex]

You see there is a problem with that in RP Michi. It's an ooc attempt to manipulate IC events so that they will only occur in your favor. If you want to do such things you need to do so in character and realize that you are taking a risk when you do it and that there is a possibility your words will not be responded to favorably. If you're not willing to take the risk except for oocly, then you should not take the risk at all. It is basically your gut telling you, "this is a very bad idea". You asked me to perform an ic action and I had to perform it in an ic manner, otherwise I would have been participating in a conspiracy to meta game. Any OOC action taken to influence IC events can be construed as meta gaming as it is what meta-gaming is by definition. Any time you are asking me to clear something by Triyun that pertains to in character events you must realize you are effectively asking me to run it by Chairmain Jia in character and the results will be the same.

One of the hardest things to learn in an RP is where the IC/OOC boundary is drawn and what crosses it and what does not.

IRC that is explicitly about IC content cannot be "off the record" without "breaking the rules".

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[King Timmy]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297672525' post='2632715']
Any time you are asking me to clear something by Triyun that pertains to in character events you must realize you are effectively asking me to run it by Chairmain Jia in character and the results will be the same.
[/quote]
He didn't ask you to, you just said you would run it by Triyun.

All he did was ask a question and follow it with a statement with a after it. This implies a joke, banter, not serious and even if used IC should be interpreted that way.

I would assume it to be two diplomats that are having conversation, one asking the other for a favor, who then adds a comment about going to cochin, they both laugh and the other says I'll let you know.

I don't see how it can be construed as a threat.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='King Timmy' timestamp='1297676564' post='2632755']
He didn't ask you to, you just said you would run it by Triyun.

All he did was ask a question and follow it with a statement with a after it. This implies a joke, banter, not serious and even if used IC should be interpreted that way.

I would assume it to be two diplomats that are having conversation, one asking the other for a favor, who then adds a comment about going to cochin, they both laugh and the other says I'll let you know.

I don't see how it can be construed as a threat.
[/quote]


This, plus who doesn't ask OOC before creating a thread IC to upgrade/create a new treaty? I can screenshot almost half a dozen times Triyun has PM'd me OOC before approaching an issue IC. I'm disappointed with this, Mael.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Well, iKrolm and Timmy, this is where I and Triyun may differ. I see this as an abuse, not a valid strategy. It's a means of avoiding negative outcomes and risks that are inherent to the IC world. MO made an ooc request than an IC action occur while nothing that he may prefer to go with another ally if Triyun failed to comply. I simply relayed the full message in the only way it could be relayed to the IC head of state, and that was IC.

If you're going to do diplomacy, then do it in character. Out of character diplomacy is meta-gaming. I will insist going forward that any diplomatic request made of me that will have an IC outcome be established as an IC post by the originator. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that it would be realized that any IC affecting request made of me would be relayed ICly.

I will not be part of a conspiracy to meta-game outcomes and provide flawless diplomatic results.

Don't be disappointed in me. Be disappointed in the rules which make such meta-gaming illegal and if you wish to have them changed to allow meta-gaming then attempt to do so because in the end I am only following the rules.

KT, it would normally not be construed as a threat if it weren't for the fact it had happened before and any future occurrence of a collusion was actually mentioned directly in an ODP treaty defined between UKIM and UFE and expressly forbidden.

I care not for the outcome, I just want MO and the rest of you perhaps, to learn that this kind of boundary skirting can be dangerous and can definitely constitute illegal ooc meta gaming. The request alone, even if it didn't come with a threat, was illegal if it was not meant to be presented in an IC manner.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='King Timmy' timestamp='1297676564' post='2632755']
He didn't ask you to, you just said you would run it by Triyun.

All he did was ask a question and follow it with a statement with a after it. This implies a joke, banter, not serious and even if used IC should be interpreted that way.

I would assume it to be two diplomats that are having conversation, one asking the other for a favor, who then adds a comment about going to cochin, they both laugh and the other says I'll let you know.

I don't see how it can be construed as a threat.
[/quote]


[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1297677887' post='2632775']
This, plus who doesn't ask OOC before creating a thread IC to upgrade/create a new treaty? I can screenshot almost half a dozen times Triyun has PM'd me OOC before approaching an issue IC. I'm disappointed with this, Mael.
[/quote]


I agree. I fail to see how a joke such as this can translate to IC strongmanning a diplomatic maneuver. Furthermore, I recall numerous times people have approached me to treaty OOC before making a thread IC. If you do not want to associate yourselves with MO anymore (I don't blame you ) then simply do so. Let the treaty stagnate and be done with this. Seems real petty to me.

I don't know what all of you are talking about. This 'IC diplomatic decision-making process' you claim to subscribe to is some joke. I doubt you've ever participated in some treaty thread or another that ended up without both parties signing something. Even on the off chance that you did, to say you do not contact your desired partners before springing a thread on them is ridiculous.

EDIT: Also, Happy Single's Awareness Day to everyone.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Executive Minister

[king of cochin]

Though I cannot rule on this issue, let me make my understanding of OOC/IC boundary and Metagaming perfectly clear.

IC is anything that is posted ICly in the Fantasy RP section of the forum, or any IC conversation mutually agreed to be an IC dialogue over IRC and reproduced as such and confirmed to be true by both parties.

OOC is anything that is said in the Open National RP section outside of Fantasy RP sub forum, anything tagged under OOC: in Fantasy RP subforum, any conversation in cnrp unless mutually agreed to be an In Character RP.

Metagaming is the usage of non IC or OOC information as basis for any IC action or statement. If you use something you know OOCly, make sure that the info is gained ICly. Else it is metagaming.

Triyun and Maelstrom Vortex have the right to enact the cancellation clause on the treaty with Graniteknight, but they do NOT have the right to refer/use information gained from any OOC conversation without Graniteknight's permission. The reasons for that is obvious. What proof does MV has that such a conversation ever took place? IRC logs can be manufactured, especially query conversations, which is why when we do in character RPs in IRC and use its logs, it has to be verified by all participants of the conversation.

As regards accusation on graniteknight of metagaming, you are absolutely wrong. IRC's ooc conversations are used by literally everybody to form a basis for IC diplomacy and RPs. How many times have players on IRC discussed possible treaties informally so that the framework of an IC treaty can be made? Also are you really suggesting that every conversation in IRC is to be translated into IC? Suppose I say on IRC that I am nuking Beijing now, does that mean Triyun has the right to "react" to that? No. Triyun can react only if there is an IC act. Things in IRC can NOT be considered as IC act to react upon.

Basically you can still cancel upon the treaty with graniteknight, but you MUST change your existing RP to confirm to IC information. Cook up something else, rather than metagame upon OOC information.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1297690786' post='2632912']
Though I cannot rule on this issue, let me make my understanding of OOC/IC boundary and Metagaming perfectly clear.

IC is anything that is posted ICly in the Fantasy RP section of the forum, or any IC conversation mutually agreed to be an IC dialogue over IRC and reproduced as such and confirmed to be true by both parties.

OOC is anything that is said in the Open National RP section outside of Fantasy RP sub forum, anything tagged under OOC: in Fantasy RP subforum, any conversation in cnrp unless mutually agreed to be an In Character RP.

Metagaming is the usage of non IC or OOC information as basis for any IC action or statement. If you use something you know OOCly, make sure that the info is gained ICly. Else it is metagaming.

Triyun and Maelstrom Vortex have the right to enact the cancellation clause on the treaty with Graniteknight, but they do NOT have the right to refer/use information gained from any OOC conversation without Graniteknight's permission. The reasons for that is obvious. What proof does MV has that such a conversation ever took place? IRC logs can be manufactured, especially query conversations, which is why when we do in character RPs in IRC and use its logs, it has to be verified by all participants of the conversation.

As regards accusation on graniteknight of metagaming, you are absolutely wrong. IRC's ooc conversations are used by literally everybody to form a basis for IC diplomacy and RPs. How many times have players on IRC discussed possible treaties informally so that the framework of an IC treaty can be made? Also are you really suggesting that every conversation in IRC is to be translated into IC? Suppose I say on IRC that I am nuking Beijing now, does that mean Triyun has the right to "react" to that? No. Triyun can react only if there is an IC act. Things in IRC can NOT be considered as IC act to react upon.

Basically you can still cancel upon the treaty with graniteknight, but you MUST change your existing RP to confirm to IC information. Cook up something else, rather than metagame upon OOC information.
[/quote]

If Centurius would permit me to rule on the matter, consider this to be my ruling. Very well said, Cochin.

[Triyun]

iKrolm, I do not have a problem with using IRC or PM in that manner. What I have a problem with is when someone uses it to discuss the hard stuff instead of doing it IC and then proceeds to not at all approach the issue IC because then it actually costs them political points. My issue here is that MO already had talked to me on IRC I said no, he then goes to Mael and throws this other thing in and asks Mael to intercede. By MOs own admission, he would have created a thread if I had said yes, however if I had said no he would have been on his merry way. How would he know IC which way I would go on it? The problem with MOs argument and quite frankly Cochin's as well is that it protects the use of OOC knowledge, but only in situations where it could hurt someone diplomatically. It means that you can approach someone with something, however controversial OOC to gauge their reaction to an action IC. If the reaction is bad you can then not have to pay the IC price, when really in a true IC/OOC divide, if you want something IC you should have to bring it up IC. What we are asking here is for a universal standard. You should not be able to blackmail someone, and then call OOC, while knowing full well that if the person had said "ok we get it we'll upgrade the treaty" there would be no call for OOC, just the creation of an IC thread to codify it. In both incidents the decision making would have occurred in an entirely OOC environment. Both the hypothetical thread that MO admitted he would have made and the actual thread that Mael said he would have made are simply the codifying a decision which MO himself wanted me to make in an OOC context. I ask for the GMs to practice consistency and look at the actual functionality, rather than continue to allow this double standard.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1297690786' post='2632912']
Though I cannot rule on this issue, let me make my understanding of OOC/IC boundary and Metagaming perfectly clear.

IC is anything that is posted ICly in the Fantasy RP section of the forum, or any IC conversation mutually agreed to be an IC dialogue over IRC and reproduced as such and confirmed to be true by both parties.

OOC is anything that is said in the Open National RP section outside of Fantasy RP sub forum, anything tagged under OOC: in Fantasy RP subforum, any conversation in cnrp unless mutually agreed to be an In Character RP.

Metagaming is the usage of non IC or OOC information as basis for any IC action or statement. If you use something you know OOCly, make sure that the info is gained ICly. Else it is metagaming.

Triyun and Maelstrom Vortex have the right to enact the cancellation clause on the treaty with Graniteknight, but they do NOT have the right to refer/use information gained from any OOC conversation without Graniteknight's permission. The reasons for that is obvious. What proof does MV has that such a conversation ever took place? IRC logs can be manufactured, especially query conversations, which is why when we do in character RPs in IRC and use its logs, it has to be verified by all participants of the conversation.

As regards accusation on graniteknight of metagaming, you are absolutely wrong. IRC's ooc conversations are used by literally everybody to form a basis for IC diplomacy and RPs. How many times have players on IRC discussed possible treaties informally so that the framework of an IC treaty can be made? Also are you really suggesting that every conversation in IRC is to be translated into IC? Suppose I say on IRC that I am nuking Beijing now, does that mean Triyun has the right to "react" to that? No. Triyun can react only if there is an IC act. Things in IRC can NOT be considered as IC act to react upon.

Basically you can still cancel upon the treaty with graniteknight, but you MUST change your existing RP to confirm to IC information. Cook up something else, rather than metagame upon OOC information.
[/quote]

Graniteknight has acknowledged the conversation took place. There is no question of whether or not the logs are fabricated, so this angle of the discussion is itself.. fabricated.

This was not mere conversational discussion. MO was asking me to perform an action that could ONLY take place ICLY. He asked me to escalate a treaty for him and I used his exact verbiage.

[quote]
How many times have players on IRC discussed possible treaties informally so that the framework of an IC treaty can be made?
[/quote]

I am suggesting that this behavior is illegal by the rules and meta-gaming. If you're going to discuss and create a treaty it should be done IC or not at all as to prevent the avoidance of the consequences of IC failure. This incident is case and point to the exact nature of that arrangement.

I will not change my existing RP even if everyone else ignores it. I did exactly what Granite Knight asked me to do. I did not attempt to meta. He did.

I feel that the GMs are attempting to use their power to change the outcome of events to favor a potential ally, in the case of Cochin and GK having related RP and that GM bias is playing a role here. That said, my stance remains unchanged. I feel EM is siding with Cochin in such a way as to avoid conflict and division; achieving consensus, which in this case is the wrong idea.

I have no bias in this matter and that should be considered as I could really care less about the IC relations of UFE and UKIM, I'm just along for the ride. I AM trying to teach MO a valuable lesson about RP that if the GM's fail to enforce the rules properly will be undermined.

The lesson: Don't ask for IC favors OOC if you are attempting to avoid IC negatives.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Centurius]

While I agree with the ruling of Em I also have to say this is borderline. Especially the fact that a threat of ic action was used in an ooc conversation makes it that way. In the future if you want to blackmail someone into a rp do it ic.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1297701389' post='2633024']
iKrolm, I do not have a problem with using IRC or PM in that manner. What I have a problem with is when someone uses it to discuss the hard stuff instead of doing it IC and then proceeds to not at all approach the issue IC because then it actually costs them political points. My issue here is that MO already had talked to me on IRC I said no, he then goes to Mael and throws this other thing in and asks Mael to intercede. By MOs own admission, he would have created a thread if I had said yes, however if I had said no he would have been on his merry way. How would he know IC which way I would go on it? The problem with MOs argument and quite frankly Cochin's as well is that it protects the use of OOC knowledge, but only in situations where it could hurt someone diplomatically. It means that you can approach someone with something, however controversial OOC to gauge their reaction to an action IC. If the reaction is bad you can then not have to pay the IC price, when really in a true IC/OOC divide, if you want something IC you should have to bring it up IC. What we are asking here is for a universal standard. You should not be able to blackmail someone, and then call OOC, while knowing full well that if the person had said "ok we get it we'll upgrade the treaty" there would be no call for OOC, just the creation of an IC thread to codify it. In both incidents the decision making would have occurred in an entirely OOC environment. Both the hypothetical thread that MO admitted he would have made and the actual thread that Mael said he would have made are simply the codifying a decision which MO himself wanted me to make in an OOC context. I ask for the GMs to practice consistency and look at the actual functionality, rather than continue to allow this double standard.
[/quote]

Triyun. If you decided to enact a spy roll against me and it failed, would you continue to make a thread? Actually, lets back this up. If you looked at my IG spy statistics and saw that the odds were 10% and 90% in MY favor, would you still ask for a spy roll?

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297708850' post='2633113']
I feel EM is siding with Cochin in such a way as to avoid conflict and division; achieving consensus, which in this case is the wrong idea.
[/quote]

Whoa, I can't believe i missed this juicy tidbit. I'll clarify here and now so there's no question about this issue further down the road.

Not once did I agree or announce that i am 'merely playing to be a part of ANYONE's apparatus' . I am my own man, with my own wants, desires and goals, so on and so forth. I think and therefore I am. One only needs to look at the old GM's court thread to know how I act when I feel another GM's ruling or line of reasoning is wrong.

But you know that already.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1297712105' post='2633172']
But you know that already.
[/quote]

Actually I don't. I follow CNRP closely enough to be involved without usually dragging myself into the dirt. Light activity player. Do not believe that I am very aware of your previous decisions or actions to any great detail, because that would be incorrect. According to the rules, your ruling is still wrong. If you would like to edit the rules to remove the restriction upon meta-gaming, feel free to do so. You do have that authority.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

That is a different issue because there are actual measurements which one can make based on what is generally accepted to be public knowledge about the formidability of someone's IG might. I consider things like how good an intel service is and how good a military is as something of at least somewhat public knowledge. IRL we know Mossad and the CIA are great intel services, we know that Tanzania's does not quite measure up. Same thing with the size and strength of a military. Diplomatic reactions on the other hand are different. Diplomatic reactions are an entirely separate thing from IG stats. It is not a measurement based on IG strength. If I for instance wanted to attack Cochin I can make a pretty good guess that Lynneth wouldn't help me and thus not bring the topic up. But what I shouldn't be able to do is to tell Lynneth OOC "attack Cochin with me and I along with six other people will attack you with 25 nukes each" then say that it is being OOC if he calls me and makes a negative topic IC, but if he said yes and makes a positive topic IC I am just fine with that and everything goes along fine. Thats the problem with this ruling. The decision making process of either yes or no is made OOC, but your only allowing for one reaction (the one of saying yes) to occur IC. Either you shouldn't allow it at all or you should allow for both.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297712680' post='2633179']
Actually I don't. I follow CNRP closely enough to be involved without usually dragging myself into the dirt. [/quote]


Dirt? What is dirty, CNRP, or me?

[quote]Light activity player. Do not believe that I am very aware of your previous decisions or actions to any great detail, because that would be incorrect. [s]According to the rules, your ruling is still wrong. If you would like to edit the rules to remove the restriction upon meta-gaming, feel free to do so. You do have that authority.[/s]
[/quote]

Well now you know it is an ill choice to question my independence with regards to GMing. I accept your apology.

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1297712722' post='2633181']
That is a different issue because there are actual measurements which one can make based on what is generally accepted to be public knowledge about the formidability of someone's IG might. I consider things like how good an intel service is and how good a military is as something of at least somewhat public knowledge. IRL we know Mossad and the CIA are great intel services, we know that Tanzania's does not quite measure up. Same thing with the size and strength of a military. Diplomatic reactions on the other hand are different. Diplomatic reactions are an entirely separate thing from IG stats. It is not a measurement based on IG strength. If I for instance wanted to attack Cochin I can make a pretty good guess that Lynneth wouldn't help me and thus not bring the topic up. But what I shouldn't be able to do is to tell Lynneth OOC "attack Cochin with me and I along with six other people will attack you with 25 nukes each" then say that it is being OOC if he calls me and makes a negative topic IC, but if he said yes and makes a positive topic IC I am just fine with that and everything goes along fine. Thats the problem with this ruling. The decision making process of either yes or no is made OOC, but your only allowing for one reaction (the one of saying yes) to occur IC. Either you shouldn't allow it at all or you should allow for both.
[/quote]

Apparently, this can be condensed into the following. Attached is my fundamental answer to this complaint of his.

[code]
15:18 Triyun I'm campaigning for not using the OOC barrier to deliver threats without consequence
15:18 Executiveminister hmmm
15:18 Executiveminister a lot of people do that [delivering threats OOC], and most people see it for what it is
15:18 Executiveminister others apparently take it for face value[/code]

Is this a correct assessment of Triyun's issues with MO's actions?


This aside, my main problem with both Mael and Triyun (mostly Mael's) handling of this OOC 'extortion' by MO is that Maelstrom_Vortex mistook (in my eyes) a purely OOC question for an IC diplomatic exchange.

[code]15:22 Executiveminister so you simply thought that MO wanted you to IC'ly tell Triyun?
15:22 Executiveminister was that the issue?
15:23 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] EM: It was the only way I could tell Triyun because he[MO] was asking for a treaty elevation
15:23 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] Triyun cannot do that
15:23 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] Jia can.
15:23 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] Triyun cannot oocly go "Derp treaty improved."
15:24 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I relayed his request in the proper forum.
15:24 Executiveminister[01:21] <michigans_own[NoR]> would it be good for us in rp to increase our treaty?
15:24Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO ]In the only way it could be legally requested.
15:24 Executiveminister he did not say
15:24 Executiveminister 'I. the leader of the UKIM, hereby invoke you, Maelstrom_Vortex, to make Triyun, leader of China, upgrade our treaty'
15:25 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] And I told him I'd find out and respond in 24 hours.
15:25 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] So I asked Jia exactly how he asked me.
15:25 Executiveminister he expected you to say, 'well yes or no, Michigans_own, triyun would or
would not like to pursue an RP that would improve, keep our treaty the same'
15:26 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I interpreted what he said as an actual treaty request.

[/code]

The quote that we are discussing is this one: [code]<michigans_own[NoR]> would it be good for us in rp to increase our treaty?[/code] A quote that is readily available in logs posted by Maelstrom in the thread in question.

Was MO asking Maelstrom Vortex to ask Triyun about a treaty upgrade like I believe he was? Or was the President of the UKIM formally requesting an ambassador between the UKIM and the UFE (Mael's character) to ask Chairman Jia?


I personally believe that Mael is incorrect to directly translate a (seemingly) OOC request into direct IC actions by MO's government. He is Rping MO's actions by saying that MO's government threatened to IC'ly run to Cochin if their demands were not met.

[code]15:26 Executiveminister he asked if it was a good idea to increase the treaty
15:26 Executiveminister he did not ask
15:26 Executiveminister hey, increase our treaty
15:27 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] The only way to find out if a treaty improvement would be good or not IC, is to ask IC
15:27 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] That is what I did.
15:27 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I used his words.
15:27 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I converted them to an IC context and I delivered his request[/code]

I believe here Maelstrom_Vortex is admitting to RPing out the actions of MO's government without MO's consent. Am I wrong?
[code]
15:34 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] Well, to me the mere request of asking to elevate a treaty is an IC act.
15:35 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I do not have a real country. Triyun doesn't have a real country
15:35 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] What other context could one ask a treaty to be elevated in?
15:35 Executiveminister' hey mael, do you think it would be cool if i started rping a violent splinter faction of the Dragon Cult, but with Noddist influences?'
15:35 Executiveminister is that equivalent to dropping nodic/dragon cultists in china?
15:36 Executiveminister can you only respond to my request in an IC capacity?
15:36 Executiveminister 'NO dreamer Executiveminister! I, Chairman Jia would not like these Nodic dragon cultists in China, i declare war on you, and will tell all of our mutual allies how bad you are!'
15:37 Executiveminister what other context could you answer to my request with?
15:37 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] That's a different context as the actions you are taking would not be legal.
15:37 Executiveminister why not simply, 'hey, EM, nice idea, but i dont wanna corrupt dragons with Noddists, just sayin'
15:38 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] They require ooc consent.
15:38 Executiveminister so do Treaties
15:38 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] A treaty escalation only requires IC consent.
15:38 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] No they do not.
15:38 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] Players do not sign treaties, leaders of states do
15:38 Executiveminister while Chairman Jia is only capable of accepting a treaty, Triyun must too, otherwise, who the hell is controlling Chairman Jia?!?!?!?!
15:39 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] You can seperate yourself from your characters that's what the IC/OOC boundary is about.
15:39 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I merely did what Mo asked.
15:40 Executiveminister you didnt
04[15:40] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> He asked me to clear by the person who has the ability to authorize a treaty elevation as to whether or not such an elevation would be a good idea or he would side with Cochin
04[15:40] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> That person is Jia.
[15:41] <+Executiveminister> which was ultimately Triyun
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> No, it's Jia
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> Triyun cannot sign a treaty ICly for UFE
[15:41] <+Executiveminister> see
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> If he put a signature on it the treaty would be invalid.
[15:41] <+Executiveminister> this discussion is getting into the metaphysical
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> You are not separating characters and players EM[/code]

Is Maelstrom's reasoning for directly translating MO's OOC request into IC acceptable? Mael has already questioned my capabilities as a GM to recognize the IC/OOC boundary (no, I will not post that). Perhaps CNRP can self govern itself and state whether or not Mael is in the right for creating his thread in the first place.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Executive Minister

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Logs are edited:

I also stated this:

Chairmain Jia is his own person as a character. Triyun has no authority to sign a treaty with the UFE. Jia does. If Triyun put his ooc signature on an IC treaty the treaty would be invalid. That said if someone asks me, the player of a diplomat to the UFE, whether or not a treaty between our nations can be escalated, I see it as an IC action because OOCly I could care less either way and do not know the answer to it, only Triyun and his character do. That said I brought the treaty up in the only legal way it could come to exist and be brought to the attention of the only person who could have a voice on whether or not such a treaty would be a good idea and be binding.. and that was Jia.. and I used Mo's exact verbiage acting as a diplomatic delegation of his own country.

For now on I will direct Mo that if he wants to create a treaty he will post the request IC in a thread or I will not respond to it; or to him. He should have made the request as he did with our first treaty in a thread.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Markus Wilding]

Reading the logs, I fail to see a problem. MO made an OOC request (should we RP our treaty being elevated) and Mael took it in a different way than MO did. It's a simple, clean-and-cut case of miscommunication is all.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1297718789' post='2633336']
Reading the logs, I fail to see a problem. MO made an OOC request (should we RP our treaty being elevated) and Mael took it in a different way than MO did. It's a simple, clean-and-cut case of miscommunication is all.
[/quote]

These kinds of miscommunications should be avoided as they're a potential exploit. This is why I advocate one of two possibilities

1. It will be recognized that addressing an IC topic in IRC may be taken as an IC inquiry and posted in such manner unless specifically clarified. This is in the understanding that communications takes place in a myriad of ways, not exclusively on the boards, and no form of communication should be refused as a method of RP.

2. All IC must be done on the boards in public view or is invalid. This includes diplomatic requests and any ooc requests as to ic affairs in another format which would constitute a meta-gaming attempt.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297718627' post='2633332']
Logs are edited:
[/quote]

Tell me exactly where that text is supposed to be, and i will insert it.

[AironthFlamewing]

Or we actually we use #cnrpic as a room for cnrp discussions for IC, why else do we have the room

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='graniteknight' timestamp='1297719469' post='2633359']
Or we actually we use #cnrpic as a room for cnrp discussions for IC, why else do we have the room
[/quote]

Why didn't you use it then? Or the forums?

@ EM's request. The missing bits:

[quote]04[15:40] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> He asked me to clear by the person who has the ability to authorize a treaty elevation as to whether or not such an elevation would be a good idea or he would side with Cochin
04[15:40] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> That person is Jia.
[15:41] <+Executiveminister> which was ultimately Triyun
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> No, it's Jia
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> Triyun cannot sign a treaty ICly for UFE
[15:41] <+Executiveminister> see
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> If he put a signature on it the treaty would be invalid.
[15:41] <+Executiveminister> this discussion is getting into the metaphysical
04[15:41] <+Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO]> You are not separating characters and players EM[/quote]

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1297719653' post='2633367']
Why didn't you use it then? Or the forums?

@ EM's request. The missing bits:


[/quote]

I Edited the last portion of logs with that snippet he wanted.

I fail to see how you can 'miscommunicate' the fact that MO specifically referred to RPing, not formal diplomatic discourse. The reason he didn't use the #CNRPic channel? HE WAS NOT SPEAKING IN IC.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

He may not have been speaking in IC, but he was asking me to consult Triyun about the impact of an IC action before it occurred so he could know the results in advance. He even observed himself that if he got a positive answer he would start an rp thread. If he got a negative answer he would not. That should not be legal.

That is meta gaming by definition. Decision making based purely on OOC information.

If I had not asked Jia ICLY, I would have been party to the meta gaming. Mo wanted to know the results of an IC inquiry and he got his answer IC. That is how it should happen.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

What I would like to see happen, is that if people want to throw an elbow in negotiations they need to do it ICly. The issue as I see here is that after I said no MO he went to Mael and said "if you don't do this I will play the Cochin card". Now he wanted me to change my mind and make a different decision based on this OOC knowledge. MO admitted that if I said no he would go on his merry way, but if I said yes he would make a topic. My point is, is that he's using OOC knowledge there and hoping I change my IC decision based on a threat he made. What I would like to see happen is if he wants to deliver that type of message it be IC, and I think that if people want to do something of that nature in the future they have to do it IC even if they discuss it on IRC and know that the reaction will be negative. What I do not like is that people do the hardball part of politics OOC to save themselves from souring relations IC even while they accept OOC agreements being translated into IC when it benefits them.

[Sargun II]

Oh give me a break. "can we talk about a treaty" "no" "k" is nowhere near metagaming or anything that you people are making it out to be. If this was [b]anything[/b] near what you were describing you would have made an issue of this [b]years[/b] ago. This is pathetic.