The GM's Court

[Michael McBride]

If I may venture my two cents (and if someone has already brought this up, feel free to ignore). This was hashed out last night on #cnrp and I feel it is very relevant to the current discussion. The question was asked of MO if MV/Triyun had said "Yes" to his request to upgrade if he would have started a thread. MO said he would have. He was then asked if he would have started a thread had they said "No" to his request. He said he would not, and did not.

To me, when a question such as the one MO posed is postulated to directly impact IC action (in this case, discussing whether or not to upgrade the treaty or not), I feel it should be RP'd out regardless of the consequence. So, MO would have to start a thread in this case and get turned down. Postulating this sort of question, not receiving the answer you want, and then taking no action is a clear cut definition of metagaming (using OOC knowledge for IC gain).

[AironthFlamewing]

Thought this statement out for the better and removed it.

Edited February 14, 2011 by graniteknight

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='graniteknight' timestamp='1297722080' post='2633435']
How would creating a thread saying "hey i got rejected" do anything but up my post count and be more or less worthless
[/quote]

The thread wouldn't be saying "Hey I got rejected". The thread would be the IC action of you asking, regardless of whether or not you knew you were going to get rejected. I simply don't feel it right to use IRC to try and skirt IC consequences for actions. And no, this isn't anything against you, I'd be saying the same regardless of who it was presented with the same situation.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1297721725' post='2633426']
If I may venture my two cents (and if someone has already brought this up, feel free to ignore). This was hashed out last night on #cnrp and I feel it is very relevant to the current discussion. The question was asked of MO if MV/Triyun had said "Yes" to his request to upgrade if he would have started a thread. MO said he would have. He was then asked if he would have started a thread had they said "No" to his request. He said he would not, and did not.

To me, when a question such as the one MO posed is postulated to directly impact IC action (in this case, discussing whether or not to upgrade the treaty or not), I feel it should be RP'd out regardless of the consequence. So, MO would have to start a thread in this case and get turned down. Postulating this sort of question, not receiving the answer you want, and then taking no action is a clear cut definition of metagaming (using OOC knowledge for IC gain).
[/quote]

While this is a rather sensible suggestion it has inherent problems of its own. For example in the past couple of years of RPIng there are certain players with whom I have intermittently sought to improve my diplomacy with. Usually how do we develop diplomacy? Talk in IRC. Around 3 or 4 conversations had taken place over the years and all had been negative. Should every single one of those failed conversations be RPd out? IRC is something used to facilitate CNRP, not an alternative of it by itself. CNRP is a community role play effort, a sort of creative writing effort, where the framework of storylines are discussed out beforehand itself though OOC conversations like IRC or PM.

What MO did may seem like a blackmail to you, it was all an OOC conversation - like a testing of waters. If you wanted to react to that, of course react, but not as if what MO said was IC. After all doing RPs on trumped up charges is hardly a new thing here.

As regards the whole character/player divide, let me ask where does a character end and where does a player end? Is a player on #cnrp on an in character persona or is he there as an individual communicating in a community? CNRP is a performance stage for which #cnrp is the backstage. A drama or an act invariably needs rehearsal, it needs a script, it needs practice, it needs the working out of the kinks in the story by the participants. All that happens in #cnrp. Fantasy RP is the only platform for IC roleplay.

If you want to react on MO doing the blasphemy of considering to improve relations with your IC regional enemy, sure do it. But make appropriate In Character RP rather than act as if MO actually did anything IC. What Mael/Triyun did here is the actual metagaming.

[Michael McBride]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1297736627' post='2633768']
While this is a rather sensible suggestion it has inherent problems of its own. For example in the past couple of years of RPIng there are certain players with whom I have intermittently sought to improve my diplomacy with. Usually how do we develop diplomacy? Talk in IRC. Around 3 or 4 conversations had taken place over the years and all had been negative. Should every single one of those failed conversations be RPd out? IRC is something used to facilitate CNRP, not an alternative of it by itself. CNRP is a community role play effort, a sort of creative writing effort, where the framework of storylines are discussed out beforehand itself though OOC conversations like IRC or PM.

What MO did may seem like a blackmail to you, it was all an OOC conversation - like a testing of waters. If you wanted to react to that, of course react, but not as if what MO said was IC. After all doing RPs on trumped up charges is hardly a new thing here.

As regards the whole character/player divide, let me ask where does a character end and where does a player end? Is a player on #cnrp on an in character persona or is he there as an individual communicating in a community? CNRP is a performance stage for which #cnrp is the backstage. A drama or an act invariably needs rehearsal, it needs a script, it needs practice, it needs the working out of the kinks in the story by the participants. All that happens in #cnrp. Fantasy RP is the only platform for IC roleplay.

If you want to react on MO doing the blasphemy of considering to improve relations with your IC regional enemy, sure do it. But make appropriate In Character RP rather than act as if MO actually did anything IC. What Mael/Triyun did here is the actual metagaming.
[/quote]

I strongly disagree with your point of view.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1297736627' post='2633768']
If you want to react on MO doing the blasphemy of considering to improve relations with your IC regional enemy, sure do it. But make appropriate In Character RP rather than act as if MO actually did anything IC. What Mael/Triyun did here is the actual metagaming.
[/quote]

Your opinion in this matter cannot be unbiased and thus your response is predictable. Triyun did nothing. I did this and I would like to point out I have no serious motivators for doing it other than attempting to help Granite Knight see why such actions as he has taken are dangerous and are not healthy in CNRP.

What other absurd claims will you make now Cochin?

By the way, I like Pravus, wholeheartedly disagree with your POV on the unbiased ground that pre-negotiating treaties in OOC to avoid a negative outcome is blatant meta gaming. Not everything needs a script. Not everything needs laid out in advance, particularly when there are risks involved.

Every potentially failed dialogue needs played out. I've formed many treaties and blocks and even an empire or two in the past at great risk. I threw out the treaty and then asked people to sign. I did not hide my tail between my legs and run from the consequences of putting it out there.

A script IS metagaming.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Triyun]

Role playing and creative writing are not synonyms Cochin. Role playing is each person plays a role, with that roles own interests, goals, etc. Creative writing can be a collaborative story but it does not necessarily have the divergent interest that a role playing game does. What you seem to like to do, no offense, is to try and get everyone to play along with the story line you want. While everyone likes to get their way, part of a role playing game is that sometimes there is friction with other players and you play to out smart them.

[king of cochin]

With the accusation of bias, that too in the manner described, I must cease any more participation in the discussion of this issue.

[Sargun II]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98684"]http://forums.cybern...showtopic=98684[/url]

JEDCJT just godmodded, as iamthey has not reached the 25 day mark. He last posted ICly on [b]at least[/b] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97608&view=findpost&p=2597667]the 24th[/url]. 7 + 14 = 21, not 25.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Sargun

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1297745117' post='2634028']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98684"]http://forums.cybern...showtopic=98684[/url]

JEDCJT just godmodded, as iamthey has not reached the 25 day mark. He last posted ICly on [b]at least[/b] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97608&view=findpost&p=2597667]the 24th[/url]. 7 + 14 = 21, not 25.
[/quote]

Uh oh! That affects me too! I too had claimed IAT had gone inactive and RPd accordingly. Let me now see how and if IAT would react to it.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1297745428' post='2634042']
Uh oh! That affects me too! I too had claimed IAT had gone inactive and RPd accordingly. Let me now see how and if IAT would react to it.
[/quote]

I don't read your RPs so I didn't notice.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1297745117' post='2634028']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98684"]http://forums.cybern...showtopic=98684[/url]

JEDCJT just godmodded, as iamthey has not reached the 25 day mark. He last posted ICly on [b]at least[/b] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97608&view=findpost&p=2597667]the 24th[/url]. 7 + 14 = 21, not 25.
[/quote]

I don't see a godmod there. Nowhere in that post did JED say the government of IAT's country was in anarchy, he simply stated there had been a lack of communication from them, that in itself is not a godmod as I can claim I haven't had much communication from Germany and then invade one of their territories doesn't mean that Germany isn't active, merely that I wanted an excuse to invade.

Was JED's intention to invade Hawaii because he thought IAT was at 25 days? Yes, most likely, but the way the post is worded doesn't necessarily dictate a godmod.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1297745572' post='2634050']
I don't see a godmod there. Nowhere in that post did JED say the government of IAT's country was in anarchy, he simply stated there had been a lack of communication from them, that in itself is not a godmod as I can claim I haven't had much communication from Germany and then invade one of their territories doesn't mean that Germany isn't active, merely that I wanted an excuse to invade.

Was JED's intention to invade Hawaii because he thought IAT was at 25 days? Yes, most likely, but the way the post is worded doesn't necessarily dictate a godmod.
[/quote]

I'm sorry, the fact that he just swept into another player's lands [b]without any response from the other person[/b] is godmodding. If I invaded you by sea and said I went onto your beaches without you firing a shot, would you consider it godmodding? Because that's exactly what JEDCJT just did.

[quote]

After hours of preparations, the task force steamed into the Pacific Ocean. It would take several hours before the task force reached the Hawaii Islands. C-130 aircrafts would steadily descend into the city of Hilo, along others, in Hawai'i (the larger island within the overall Hawaii); the same went for the islands of Maui and Moloka'i. Honolulu, the traditional capital of Hawaii, would be occupied by Red Army troopers, followed by the rest of O'ahu. The troops would proceed to distribute food and supplies to the Hawaiian population in addition to re-establishing law and order. Shortly after, the islands of Kaua'i, Ni'ihau, Nihoa, and the Northwestern Islands were occupied in turn. Hawaii as a whole was under control of the RDF.[/quote]

Yeah... not godmodding... right.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Sargun

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1297745702' post='2634052']
I'm sorry, the fact that he just swept into another player's lands [b]without any response from the other person[/b] is godmodding. If I invaded you by sea and said I went onto your beaches without you firing a shot, would you consider it godmodding? Because that's exactly what JEDCJT just did.
[/quote]

And IAT can, per usual, once he posts his response, stop that in it's track and RP a response before JED's troops can land on the beaches.


Edit: Read his RP before calling him out on godmodding - he said would, not did. That leaves it open for IAT to respond.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Yawoo

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1297745813' post='2634056']
Edit: Read his RP before calling him out on godmodding - he said would, not did. That leaves it open for IAT to respond.
[/quote]

Incorrect.

[quote][b]Hawaii as a whole was under control of the RDF[/b].[/quote]

Edited February 15, 2011 by Sargun

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1297745936' post='2634061']
Incorrect.
[/quote]

Nice ninja edit

The last part, I will admit, is a poor phrase and may indicate a godmod or simply a mistake on JED's part. However, the majority of his RP is not godmoding and leaves it open for IAT to respond.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1297746069' post='2634065']
Nice ninja edit

The last part, I will admit, is a poor phrase and may indicate a godmod or simply a mistake on JED's part. However, the majority of his RP is not godmoding and leaves it open for IAT to respond.
[/quote]
Saying "they would" followed by "it is now" means, at least because of grammar, that what happened in the "they would" [b]already happened[/b] in order for the "it is now" to have happened. Let me try to illustrate it. JEDCJT said he [b]would[/b] do all sorts of stuff and then later said he [b]did[/b] something that required the [b]would[/b] to have happened in order for the [b]did[/b] to have happened. Like...

Say JEDCJT says "i have no money. so my men went into the market. there, after several hours, they would steal an apple. they would then sell the apple for ten dollars. i now have ten dollars." Because he said at the end that he does have ten dollars and we know he didn't have ten dollars before, it means that the part where his men [b]would[/b] do something actually happened.

Does that make sense? :<

[JEDCJT]

The reason I did this was that I thought IAT was inactive, and thus I sent my forces into Hawaii in the same way that I usually send into inactive nations (such as Pyotoh and the others). I apologize if my actions was deemed god-modding. The part where Hawaii was under the control of the RDF can be considered as a poor phrase on my part - but it simply was because I was under the mistaken impression that IAT was inactive. I can either retcon my thread or let it be and let IAT post a response when he does get on. Either way works fine.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1297746288' post='2634075']
Saying "they would" followed by "it is now" means, at least because of grammar, that what happened in the "they would" [b]already happened[/b] in order for the "it is now" to have happened. Let me try to illustrate it. JEDCJT said he [b]would[/b] do all sorts of stuff and then later said he [b]did[/b] something that required the [b]would[/b] to have happened in order for the [b]did[/b] to have happened. Like...

Say JEDCJT says "i have no money. so my men went into the market. there, after several hours, they would steal an apple. they would then sell the apple for ten dollars. i now have ten dollars." Because he said at the end that he does have ten dollars and we know he didn't have ten dollars before, it means that the part where his men [b]would[/b] do something actually happened.

Does that make sense? :<
[/quote]

While I do understand what you're saying, I just don't think an entire RP should be wiped on the basis of one phrase - after all, if the GMs would simply wipe the godmod in the RP (the last phrase) then the entire RP could still be able to go on without any godmod in it.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1297746466' post='2634083']
While I do understand what you're saying, I just don't think an entire RP should be wiped on the basis of one phrase - after all, if the GMs would simply wipe the godmod in the RP (the last phrase) then the entire RP could still be able to go on without any godmod in it.
[/quote]

Point out where I said the entire RP should be wiped.

[Yawoo]

[quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1297746545' post='2634089']
Point out where I said the entire RP should be wiped.


[/quote]

Touche, sir, touche.

[Executive Minister]

Maelstrom_Vortex's thread is [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98636&st=0&gopid=2632658&#entry2632658"]hereby[/url] wiped.

The crux of his thread is some Cao [mael's character] informing Jia [Triyun's character] that

[quote] A delegate from UKIM approached me today and threatened to switch allegiances to side with our regional rivals despite assurances to the contrary when we signed our ODP. They state that if we do not improve our treaty with them from ODP status to a more significant treaty that they shall break with us and align with the Kingdom of Cochin.
[/quote]

This did not happen. Mael has fully admitted to

[code]15:27 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I converted them to an IC context and I delivered his request
[/code]
turning MO's OOC into IC for him. Mael realised that MO's request was OOC, recognizing that he needed to 'convert' it into an IC action, an IC action without MO's consent. This is RPing MO's Gov't and this thread must be wiped.


Whether or not we deal with Triyun's demands for 'no OOC treaties' will need to wait. Even if we were to make a ruling on metagaming or OOC treatying, it wouldn't take affect in this current issue, but future issues. If anyone wishes to discuss this new requirement for OOC treatying, be our guests.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Executive Minister

[AironthFlamewing]

I used #cnrpic late last night for talks with Jed, so the room actually works and it was actually quite fun. hehe

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1297785349' post='2634451']
Maelstrom_Vortex's thread is [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=98636&st=0&gopid=2632658&#entry2632658"]hereby[/url] wiped.

The crux of his thread is some Cao [mael's character] informing Jia [Triyun's character] that



This did not happen. Mael has fully admitted to

[code]15:27 Maelstrom_Vortex[NPO] I converted them to an IC context and I delivered his request
[/code]
turning MO's OOC into IC for him. Mael realised that MO's request was OOC, recognizing that he needed to 'convert' it into an IC action, an IC action without MO's consent. This is RPing MO's Gov't and this thread must be wiped.


Whether or not we deal with Triyun's demands for 'no OOC treaties' will need to wait. Even if we were to make a ruling on metagaming or OOC treatying, it wouldn't take affect in this current issue, but future issues. If anyone wishes to discuss this new requirement for OOC treatying, be our guests.
[/quote]

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.

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 name='graniteknight' timestamp='1297792359' post='2634517']
I used #cnrpic late last night for talks with Jed, so the room actually works and it was actually quite fun. hehe
[/quote]

That room has often been awesome when used and been the source of much good rp.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Markus Wilding]

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".