Yawoo Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1300222270' post='2665772'] SO basically, what it is is: "WAAAAH HE NUKED ME AND I CANT SIT ON MY LAND WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING WAAAH" Right? All I see here is nations whining that they are hurt by something completely in the realms of reality. Here's some other things we don't see in real life: Every nation owning nuclear weapons No poor nations, just a bunch of super techs. Random treaties to nations all over the globe, regardless of political or militarial views. Nuclear attacks without reprocussions. Zombies Hmmm... [/quote] Regardless of your opinion, this is a rule as has been stated multiple times throughout this decision. Your continued whining is not going to change that. If you want to change the rule, then I suggest you ask the GMs to set up a community wide poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1300222270' post='2665772'] SO basically, what it is is: "WAAAAH I STARTED A WAR I HAD NO INTENTION OF ACTUALLY FIGHTING!!! WAAAAAHHH, THE BIG BAD MEANIES - that are usually not as big or as bad as you'd think - ARE LOLDEPLOYING 100,000,000,000 NUCLEARLY VULNERABLE TROOPS IN TIGHT QUARTERS ON MY SOIL, AND SENDING 1,000,000,000 CRUISE MISSILES AGAINST MEEEE!!!!! WAAAAHHH LEMME WUSS OUT AND MAKE SURE THOSE BIG BAD MEANIES LOSE SOME PIXELS! IF I GO DOWN, I'M TAKING ALL OF YOUR PIXELS WITH MEEEEE..." [/quote] I fixed that for you. If you wanna be annoying, or do things you KNOW will irk people, then have the guts to invest time and effort sticking it out and fighting. If you run and decide to simply grief, then you are just as bad as the bandwagoners and other oppressors you fear so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus Wilding Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Is there a limit on how often I can use bio/chemical weapons using artillery and mortars? Like, if I had a dedicated chemical shell artillery corps, would it be under a restriction that I don't know about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 [quote name='Markus Wilding' timestamp='1300222668' post='2665782'] Is there a limit on how often I can use bio/chemical weapons using artillery and mortars? Like, if I had a dedicated chemical shell artillery corps, would it be under a restriction that I don't know about? [/quote] Biological and chemical weapons like all other non-nuclear wmd's have a cap of 50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1300222908' post='2665790'] Biological and chemical weapons like all other non-nuclear wmd's have a cap of 50. [/quote] Darn it, there goes my bright idea of developing artillery/mortar shells and small dumb bombs filled with LSD. Edited March 15, 2011 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 [quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1300226832' post='2665835'] Darn it, there goes my bright idea of developing artillery/mortar shells and small dumb bombs filled with LSD. [/quote] If you ever war me, i have no issues with you using those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1300238330' post='2665991'] If you ever war me, i have no issues with you using those. [/quote] Same here. I really want to RP a couple of troops wigging out and proclaiming how soft their guns are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Just to cover a base here- I posted a Claim to Jed's vancouver esque lands in Jed's official tghread at 1:45 AM at 1:59 AM Bio laid claim to my new citizenry and declared in my land. He is rping my citizenry that is not legal. Post: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99996 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 IIRC, the ruling goes that A) You already recognized it by posting in it, so it's legit; and B) I can declare a revolt and fight for the land (as I am doing); if memory serves me, that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 You cannot declare a revolt without my permission! I remember that being decided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 I had asked JED for the land before you made the declaration; the only reason why you were able to get there first was simply because JED's internet is on the fritz. Aside from that, I'm within my grounds to RP a revolution in new land (so long as I fight it). But, wait for a GM, if you feel the need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 BS and whining thats all that is I mean come on, I could claim that my internet was on the fritz to and it accidentally made me post something, thats a load of crap. Further, were the land discussion discussed in an IC manner(with IC characters) I did not see such and I have logs. It was ruled when I had my flap with triyun that IC must be made clearly used in the IC room elsewise #cnrp the room you were in and any and all queries therein are considered OOC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanic Republic Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Biohazard' timestamp='1300343974' post='2667351'] I had asked JED for the land before you made the declaration; the only reason why you were able to get there first was simply because JED's internet is on the fritz. Aside from that, I'm within my grounds to RP a revolution in new land (so long as I fight it). But, wait for a GM, if you feel the need. [/quote] It's MO's land, not open land; JED's internet issue is unfortunate but nothing more than that. "why you were able to get there first" There's plenty of land to choose from, and here you admit he reached it first. You can't just revolt willy nilly in someone's land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 He recognized it by responding to it. If he would have simply gone to the GMs instead of responding ICly, I could see the point he was making. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanic Republic Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Biohazard' timestamp='1300344598' post='2667375'] He recognized it by responding to it. If he would have simply gone to the GMs instead of responding ICly, I could see the point he was making. [/quote] Cut him some slack, and don't be !@#$%*y about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 When I wanted to take Singapore the first time, it was ruled that I could not simply claim it, I had to claim it and RP out a full occupation over it. Other people had a chance to counter those moves. I believe that with the very short time between Bio and MOs move, its perfectly fair (not to mention more interesting) for them to have a contest over it. I find it funny that MO is making such a big deal when he possesses the vastly more powerful armed forces and actual allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AironthFlamewing Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Its a matter of principle Triyun, this is a question of can a player revolt when another player is taking control of land and actually has possession(evidenced by my troops moving into towns and territories and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 No its got nothing to do with principle. This isn't a land that you've had for three weeks, it was a piece of land you claimed a few minutes before bio wrote a post to contest it. The Nation collapsed, it wasn't given to anyone, it simply collapsed leaving a vacuum. Two people want the land at the same time, RP out a contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manetheren Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Like Triyun said, if there is a contest then it should be IC instead of OOC whining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Since there seems to be very little time difference between both players posting claims to the same land, MO would not be able to claim the absolute IC control that would be gained by RPing for a considerable stretch of time. Hence ICly it would be a test of propaganda and force. Solve this ICly. Having said that I dont want this ruling to be misinterpreted due to the ambiguity of "time needed for absolute control". This is a one off ruling for this case where it is explicitly clear that both players have conflict of claims due to short time difference. This ruling does not permit any one else to start an insurgency in a player's established territory without permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1300351582' post='2667509'] Since there seems to be very little time difference between both players posting claims to the same land, MO would not be able to claim the absolute IC control that would be gained by RPing for a considerable stretch of time. Hence ICly it would be a test of propaganda and force. Solve this ICly. Having said that I dont want this ruling to be misinterpreted due to the ambiguity of "time needed for absolute control". This is a one off ruling for this case where it is explicitly clear that both players have conflict of claims due to short time difference. This ruling does not permit any one else to start an insurgency in a player's established territory without permission. [/quote] I fully agree with this. Good show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) While I can agree with Granite's concerns, I will ultimately support Cochin's ruling. However, a few points I wish to reiterate. Granite is upset that his claim, and thus, OOC control of anyone that has anything to do with the territory in question, was 'violated' by Biohazard RPing that the citizens within the territory were his. However, any land claims that are made after the original SOI dependent claim when a nation first starts are not instant! There is always a chance for someone to dispute your claims, and thus, the absolute control of the citizenry would not automatically fall to you. Sure, Biohazard disputing Granite's claim by DoEing is a messy, messy choice. He could have just as easily asked one of the various mercenary nations to attack Granite, or if he was an immediate neighbour, declare that one of those annoying auto-binding doctrines was in effect - as an example of the many avenues one would use to dispute a claim such as Granite's. Now, this also means that Biohazard cannot simply assume complete control over his territory either. Both will need to come to an IC compromise for this OOC/IC control to fall completely into one or the other's hands. Edited March 17, 2011 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1300351582' post='2667509'] Since there seems to be very little time difference between both players posting claims to the same land, MO would not be able to claim the absolute IC control that would be gained by RPing for a considerable stretch of time. Hence ICly it would be a test of propaganda and force. Solve this ICly. Having said that I dont want this ruling to be misinterpreted due to the ambiguity of "time needed for absolute control". This is a one off ruling for this case where it is explicitly clear that both players have conflict of claims due to short time difference. This ruling does not permit any one else to start an insurgency in a player's established territory without permission. [/quote] Consider this ruling seconded by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Requesting a spyroll to determine the validity and truthiness of Commie Aussieland's claims against Pihana [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing334.png[/IMG] Edit: Forgot pic Edited March 17, 2011 by Lynneth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted March 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Lynneth' timestamp='1300369737' post='2667649'] Requesting a spyroll to determine the validity and truthiness of Commie Aussieland's claims against Pihana [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing334.png[/img] Edit: Forgot pic [/quote] 0-10 fail, 11 to 100, success. [img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww106/mofailla/Lynnethgoesdownunder.jpg?t=1300369971[/img] With 91, Lynneth is a winrar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.