Executive Minister Posted June 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1306903709' post='2721814'] [img]http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/kousenkankou/zootspyroll.jpg[/img] Against Zoot, to gather informtion on the leader of the Templar Knights, committed by Teutonic Knights. [/quote] [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1306925735' post='2721948'] Since the GMs have not yet rolled my remaining chance on May 31st, I request that there be a total of [b]three rolls[/b], including my slots for June 1st. [/quote] I assume you mean the day you asked for a single roll against Sarah? Denied. You never asked for it then. I cannot ask for 100 spy rolls today just because I haven't utilized any spy rolls the last 50 days. Centurius has already given you the two rolls for that oh so sweet and hawt knight-on-knight action, attributed to the pic i've quoted. [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307393806' post='2725587'] Still waiting. Also, add in 2 rolls against Sarah (90% like the last time) for today. [/quote] [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307403879' post='2725759'] [img]http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac318/kousenkankou/sarahspy2.jpg[/img] [/quote] With that pic of Sarah, i'll give you two rolls on her. You WILL NOT get that third Zoot roll unless one of the other GMs is foolish enough to challenge the might of the all-powerful Executive Minister. [img]http://i710.photobucket.com/albums/ww106/mofailla/kankousarahslashfic.jpg[/img] With 0-90 being win, 91-100 being fail you have a win and a loss. That being said, I believe all the spy rolls prior to this posting are now in order. Kankou, you won't get that third zoot roll, albeit that's probably a moot point considering today is a new day. Edited June 9, 2011 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 I have something concerning this: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=94994&view=findpost&p=2728137 Ignoring all the thing about broken promises and such, here is what irks me about the situation. If Voodoo had a nice clear shot though allied territory, this most likely would mean VOodoo should have the area as a protectorate. However, he had to go through either Zargathia, Cochin, or Mongolia to get to the area, which means he would have needed permission to pass, something that was never asked for or given permission of. In this case, there is no specific way for Vood to have made the area a protectorate, and as such former Xinyan should be a disputed region with Voodoo claiming it without forces on the ground. It is to my opinion that we should be cracking down on automatic protection when it is impossible to get troops into a certain region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 You don't need troops to claim an an area or claim to protect an area. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' timestamp='1307707499' post='2728560'] You don't need troops to claim an an area or claim to protect an area. Just sayin'. [/quote] This, the transfer of land happened through ic means so for all intents and purposes the land and citizens on it are Voodoo's. The only scenario where actual forces are needed is when you wish to oppose a claim. So in this scenario the land simply is owned by Voodoo. To negate the ownership another party will need to send in forces ic and launch an ic war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307720185' post='2728643'] This, the transfer of land happened through ic means so for all intents and purposes the land and citizens on it are Voodoo's. The only scenario where actual forces are needed is when you wish to oppose a claim. So in this scenario the land simply is owned by Voodoo. To negate the ownership another party will need to send in forces ic and launch an ic war. [/quote] [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307723278' post='2728666'] While that's a nice and respectable opinion the precedent was set during the annexation of Espana that diplomatic opposition is not enough to conflict a claim. [/quote] The existence of military forces was a very different point compared to Xinyan. In Xinyan's case, there is no way that Voodoo could have had any forces moved there. While it's nice for you to say that we should recognize IC agreements and such, having Xinyan go to a nation that it never had any previous engagement halfway across the continent to protect itself is just lunacy. In fact, how is Voodoo's case any different from previous near-instant land transfers that caused so much uproar among the general players? Is it because of bias? Simply put, there has never been any substantial RP behind Voodoo's protection, no military forces to uphold, no possible way for this to have occurred in the first place. Any argument against this is just sophism. Can either Cochin or EM say their opinions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307720185' post='2728643'] This, the transfer of land happened through ic means so for all intents and purposes the land and citizens on it are Voodoo's. The only scenario where actual forces are needed is when you wish to oppose a claim. So in this scenario the land simply is owned by Voodoo. To negate the ownership another party will need to send in forces ic and launch an ic war. [/quote] Her point (I think) is that Voodoo would have needed permission from other nations to [b]actually get[/b] forces there in the first place, which he didn't get. Since Voodoo can't get forces there and Zargathia hasn't got forces there, then the land is owned by neither and is conflicted. Edited June 10, 2011 by Sargun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1307724133' post='2728676'] Her point (I think) is that Voodoo would have needed permission from other nations to [b]actually get[/b] forces there in the first place, which he didn't get. Since Voodoo can't get forces there and Zargathia hasn't got forces there, then the land is owned by neither and is conflicted. [/quote] That's correct. But it seems Cent's point is that a player does not need any forces on the ground when there has been a IC transfer, [b]even if it's a pretty flimsy RP[/b]. This basically goes against the current trend toward having substantial RPing to allow land gifting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser Martens Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 I've a noob question. If I'm selling weapons and gear to a nation with much lower technology, then I must sell them things that are within the reach of their tech zone, right? Otherwise, although they could technically get my normal stuff, they would not be able to do maintenance, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 I would like to request that the GMs open an official discussion/poll/ritual relating to land conflicting processes. I think it is a mistake to go on precedent based on war and leave out diplomacy as a way to conflict the land. I very well could be in the minority in this opinion, but I feel we should at least have a community discussion on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 In my opinion, regarding the Xinyan issue, Voodoo could very well proclaim to enforce protectorate. That is the sort of proclamation that is based on bluff. Yes, dotcom violated agreement with amyante and Zargathia is obviously much better placed to reclaim it. In my suggestion Zargathia should call the bluff. Voodoo has not so far RPd ANY military movement to Xinyan, so it should indeed be a cakewalk for zargathia to reclaim it. Voodoo has two options, one acknowledge his inability to project power in a region far beyond his realm and call it a day or seek help of his allies like me or Triyun's UFE in deploying his forces to Xinyan. It is a roleplay conundrum and an IC matter. A game of bluff like what CNRP politics always has been. I fail to see any requirement for any rule to be made for this situation, just a bit of moderation, which I suppose I am providing. If there is some angle I am missing, please do point it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 Cochin's thoughts are on the same lines as what I believe should be the case for the current dispute. However, it was Centurius's opinion that a mere agreement would mean Zargathia has no options except pure war to reclaim what was his. This I believe is the basic conflict, and I hope people would be willing to go with Cochin's opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggressivenutmeg Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 [quote name='Kaiser Martens' timestamp='1307735189' post='2728753'] I've a noob question. If I'm selling weapons and gear to a nation with much lower technology, then I must sell them things that are within the reach of their tech zone, right? Otherwise, although they could technically get my normal stuff, they would not be able to do maintenance, yes? [/quote] No, you can sell them whatever you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307739508' post='2728785'] Cochin's thoughts are on the same lines as what I believe should be the case for the current dispute. However, it was Centurius's opinion that a mere agreement would mean Zargathia has no options except pure war to reclaim what was his. This I believe is the basic conflict, and I hope people would be willing to go with Cochin's opinion. [/quote] Considering Amy recognized my troops in the area, it is a different story than what many of you are saying. [quote name='Amyante' timestamp='1305368197' post='2711701'] [b]After receiving reports of Novakian soldiers in the Xinyan Republic[/b], a brief and non-covert investigation was carried out. At learning that the Novakians were keeping the peace in Hulunbuir's New Barag Right Banner, a message was sent out to Novak itself. [/quote] Edited June 11, 2011 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 Not really, since I can write about how British troops are in certain area when the move never happened. In that case, did the troops exist or not? You figure it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amyante Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' timestamp='1307750554' post='2728876'] Considering Amy recognized my troops in the area, it is a different story than what many of you are saying. [/quote] Unfortunately for you Voodoo, Kankou's right. The reports i would be talking about aren't necessarily official ones. In fact, they are more likely to be unofficial since i sent in troops to check it out. Given that you never moved troops into the region, we can OOCly assume these reports to be false, wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 I believe that we had an issue with Kaiser Martens where he said one thing ICly but it wasn't true - Amyante would be doing the same thing, which was allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 I request that all RP within Xinyan be put on hold until the GMs decide whether there were any Novakian troops within the former land of Xinyan. Furthermore, I request that GMs with indirect interest in the situation be not allowed to rule unilaterally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1307752232' post='2728894'] I request that all RP within Xinyan be put on hold until the GMs decide whether there were any Novakian troops within the former land of Xinyan. Furthermore, I request that GMs with indirect interest in the situation be not allowed to rule unilaterally. [/quote] All GMs are assumed impartial, that said. I honestly see no reason why we are to rule on the matter, it was established years ago that ic posts can be considered propaganda, likewise we have always allowed people to have troops in their land without specifically placing them there. I do not see why Amyante and Voodoo can't solve it themselves without outside interference of any party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 All GMs are assumed impartial and unbiased, and there is no reason to believe that there is any difference now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307752762' post='2728902'] All GMs are assumed impartial, that said. I honestly see no reason why we are to rule on the matter, it was established years ago that ic posts can be considered propaganda, likewise we have always allowed people to have troops in their land without specifically placing them there. I do not see why Amyante and Voodoo can't solve it themselves without outside interference of any party. [/quote] If I claim land in Asia as a protectorate, I won't magically have troops there just because I say there are. I don't know when we've ever been allowed to magically have troops except for in directly owned land, like if someone invaded Ireland and I hadn't officially RP'd an army yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1307752961' post='2728906'] If I claim land in Asia as a protectorate, I won't magically have troops there just because I say there are. I don't know when we've ever been allowed to magically have troops except for in directly owned land, like if someone invaded Ireland and I hadn't officially RP'd an army yet [/quote] You would be right in your example as that still would require the rp, the establishment of a protectorate area by forces. The thing is the transfer in Mongolia happened through a rp thread so the citizens in essence became voodoo's citizens which does make it different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kankou Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307753104' post='2728909'] You would be right in your example as that still would require the rp, the establishment of a protectorate area by forces. The thing is the transfer in Mongolia happened through a rp thread so the citizens in essence became voodoo's citizens which does make it different. [/quote] And where is the substantial RP which had made the people of Xinyan so familiar with a communist regime halfway across the continent, so that they would readily accept protection when there is someone much closer next to the country? dotCom essentially did an OOC land gift, which should be under stricter RP rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1307753104' post='2728909'] You would be right in your example as that still would require the rp, the establishment of a protectorate area by forces. The thing is the transfer in Mongolia happened through a rp thread so the citizens in essence became voodoo's citizens which does make it different. [/quote] The problem being that the land was contested, and as we know through the Slavorussia-Torun debacle that contested citizens don't belong to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted June 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 If the issue is between allowing Voodoo to gain this land as a protectorate without conflict and someone conflicting his claim, then I say we conflict it. Its not like Voodoo cannot still obtain the land later on anyways. Just RP out the consequences of the conflicting protectorate and be done with it. I fail to see the issue here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted June 11, 2011 Report Share Posted June 11, 2011 [quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1307760762' post='2728972'] If the issue is between allowing Voodoo to gain this land as a protectorate without conflict and someone conflicting his claim, then I say we conflict it. Its not like Voodoo cannot still obtain the land later on anyways. Just RP out the consequences of the conflicting protectorate and be done with it. I fail to see the issue here. [/quote] The [b]issue[/b] is that Voodoo is saying that he has forces in the area while Amyante is contesting that by saying Voodoo would have needed to gain permission from other nations to get troops in the area, and because he didn't get the permission or RP the troops actually getting to the protectorate, then Voodoo shouldn't have any troops there. Thus, if Voodoo doesn't have troops, then he can't fire on Amyante's soldiers while they cross into the area, and thus also couldn't do the whole "allies, help us our troops are under attack" thing as well (though he could go "help this is conflicted" but that's an entire different IC thing). 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.