Yawoo Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1310000291' post='2750897'] Yawoo that it is OOC is not what is the main argument here, when I give another player a protectorate or piece of my land it's an ooc deal, I decide OOCly who gets my land. Here we have 2 very legal scenario's a player merging into another country as seen by your own example and when merger became part of the GNED or Maelstrom of the UFE. In addition to that we have the scenario where one player gives land to another for a new nation. There is nothing illegal about this move and I honestly do not see why any of you make a problem out of it. I challenge you to find a single example where a player did not get a piece of land to form a nation in through ooc means. [/quote] It was not Zoot's to give, Cent. Once he planned to re-roll and did that he could not give Timmy land. Beyond this, he could not give Timmy land even while in England without some sort of IC RP since it was the entirety of his territory and he was rerolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) If you really want to split hairs I gave Timmy a character which just so happened to be the Prime Minister. Furthermore it has been a constant RP of mine to return power to parliament away from an absolute monarchy. The PM was given the power in the Administratum thread, and I buggered off to Siberia. The fact of the matter is no land has been given to an existing, active participant in CNRP. It's just under new management. No territorial transfer took place, I simply gave away a character which so happened to be the prime minister. Oh and just a point, until I posted a DoE for Siberia, I could do whatever the bloody hell I wanted with that land, so yes, it was my land "to give" as you so tactfully put it, even though your blatantly ignoring the GM who has made a ruling based on the guidelines/rules. Sargun said he isn't going to make a big deal out of it, and frankly yawoo, it's not your problem anymore so I fail to see why your even arguing his case when he has already said he doesn't really care so much. Edited July 7, 2011 by Zoot Zoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 You guys should just shut up and go to war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Obviously this is a case of someone restricting one's right to RP. I just don't know who. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 In regards to Zoot: Sargun said he's not making a big deal out of it because of time restraints. Luckily, I have no such restrictions and as a member of CNRP I have the right to question, debate, and ultimately seek a greater ruling from all GMs instead of accepting just one GM's ruling. If you have a problem with that then I guess you should take it to the Mods. Now, to go on to your points - I really don't see how 'give' is not tactful, so do explain that to me. Moving beyond that - you can not give away the entirety of your territory while also re-rolling that is purely an OOC land transfer. You gave Timmy the PM power without any RP and then immediately re-rolled. You, yourself, admitted to OOC transfer in this very thread so I have no idea why Cent ruled in your favor hence I requested the other GMs look into this as well so I can get their opinion and their ruling on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 The way I see it, Zoot did not dissolve his nation, rather he transferred RP controls of it to Timmy. It is just like the character of James Bond which was first portrayed by Sean Connery and then portrayed by Roger Moore. The character does not change , just the person portraying the character changes. While in general we have an understanding that every player has absolute right of what happens to characters he or she created and RPs so that random incidents dont just kill them, this absolute right also permits the character to be given away for another player to RP out if he or she so chooses. In the case of England, I believe Zoot OOCly gave the RP rights for it to Timmy who did not RP any nation immediately prior to that and thus was not been gifted additional OOC territory. Since the nation England that Zoot rpd was not dissolved and territory transferred there is no loss of IC continuity and thus no OOC gifting abuse. That is my take on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shan Revan Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 [quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1310000291' post='2750897'] I challenge you to find a single example where a player did not get a piece of land to form a nation in through ooc means. [/quote] The Omniscient Empire of Naboo, and debatably its successor state, RdlL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Thank you for your input, Cochin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted July 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) Dropping in here quickly, perhaps on the subconscious level to dispel any notions that I am an errant, contrarian GM- We combat OOC-land gifting because it is an unfair way for an existing IC nation to obtain land via purely OOC means. This has nothing to do with barring rpers themselves to be 'behind the wheel' of a nation. Of course, Zoot's former nation must operate under the IG limitations of its new owner - Timmy, this is certain. I cannot invade Mogar, then relinquish control of the Aeon to Lynneth while simultaneously taking over Ceylon, so that he may crush my enemies with his tech like some OOC mercenary in a temporary exchange. England has gained nothing in the sense of land, it simply has a new person holding the reigns. Same nation, same characters (for now), same IC entity. Only the OOC has changed. Edited July 7, 2011 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Thank you, GMs, for your input. To dispel what seems to be some confusion here - the reason why I requested all GMs weigh in is to get a better understanding of the situation via their input. This practice that we have of just taking one GM's ruling to heart, imo, needs to cease. We have a team of GMs for a reason - so that we may get all their input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king of cochin Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 [quote name='Yawoo' timestamp='1310009051' post='2751095'] Thank you, GMs, for your input. To dispel what seems to be some confusion here - the reason why I requested all GMs weigh in is to get a better understanding of the situation via their input. This practice that we have of just taking one GM's ruling to heart, imo, needs to cease. We have a team of GMs for a reason - so that we may get all their input. [/quote] I understand your point, Yawoo. The reason why most issues are decided based on one GM's words is only because in those times, the other GMs concur in that decision too. Usually only when there are conflicts of opinion it is posted here and if it is serious we discuss it amongst ourselves in PM and the most contentious issues are then discussed here openly. Here as it was explicitly requested we posted our takes on the situation, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizzydog Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 I still fail to see why this is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1310013334' post='2751156'] I still fail to see why this is a problem. [/quote] That's because it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yawoo Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 [quote name='Fizzydog' timestamp='1310013334' post='2751156'] I still fail to see why this is a problem. [/quote] Less of a problem more I needed to understand why the ruling was made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarah Tintagyl Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 Just a question to the GMs, recently, like always there are a lot of treaty RPs, many of which do not have the diplomatic meeting before the signing. I believe that many of these meetings are held via IRC where the discussions can be much more realistic happening in real time. My problem however with IRC meetings is that the logs or conversations are not posted afterwards showing that a meeting did in fact take place. I had believed this was a requirement that all IC moves had to take place on the forum, even if they were just being transplanted. I'd like the GMs opinions and then if logs or some form of conversation is required on the forums then I would like to see it enforced. Otherwise, diplomacy should be as easy as asking in a query, do you want to be an ally, y/n. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 [quote name='Sarah Tintagyl' timestamp='1310152691' post='2752728'] Just a question to the GMs, recently, like always there are a lot of treaty RPs, many of which do not have the diplomatic meeting before the signing. I believe that many of these meetings are held via IRC where the discussions can be much more realistic happening in real time. My problem however with IRC meetings is that the logs or conversations are not posted afterwards showing that a meeting did in fact take place. I had believed this was a requirement that all IC moves had to take place on the forum, even if they were just being transplanted. I'd like the GMs opinions and then if logs or some form of conversation is required on the forums then I would like to see it enforced. Otherwise, diplomacy should be as easy as asking in a query, do you want to be an ally, y/n. [/quote] In the current situation it simply is that easy, there is no rule saying treaties need to be rp'd out, as such there is nothing to enforce. Having a meeting at all is optional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 That's a bit disconcerting to say the least. Nations that have no real attachment to each other via heritage of strategic interests just post a treaty without any proper rp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 I'm sorry, but I've got to bring this up. I have a major, massive problem with what has happened in Korea. We're just letting someone advance forward in time and not RP out the end of a war? Nuke effects weren't RP'd by Kankou, responses weren't RP'd out by Kankou, NOTHING was done. Even though they were promised, they haven't happened. This, to me, sets a dangerous precedent. What's to stop other people from doing this in the future? I'm asking the GMs to wipe Kankou's current nation from the map until she RP's out the effects of the attacks of her to a proper conclusion to the end of the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaiserMelech Mikhail Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1310175885' post='2753007'] I'm sorry, but I've got to bring this up. I have a major, massive problem with what has happened in Korea. We're just letting someone advance forward in time and not RP out the end of a war? Nuke effects weren't RP'd by Kankou, responses weren't RP'd out by Kankou, NOTHING was done. Even though they were promised, they haven't happened. This, to me, sets a dangerous precedent. What's to stop other people from doing this in the future? I'm asking the GMs to wipe Kankou's current nation from the map until she RP's out the effects of the attacks of her to a proper conclusion to the end of the war. [/quote] Stop kicking the poor girl when she's down. She already made a post where her nation collapsed and is now back with the UFE. Everyone knows that she lost the war, so just deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 [quote name='KaiserMelech Mikhail' timestamp='1310176477' post='2753011'] Stop kicking the poor girl when she's down. She already made a post where her nation collapsed and is now back with the UFE. Everyone knows that she lost the war, so just deal with it. [/quote] This isn't about kicking someone when they're down. This is about someone forcibly moving the RP timeline forward to avoid RPing damage and to frankly avoid RPing at all. I didn't lob a single nuke in the war. I made a thought out invasion with ground forces. She hasn't responded to those attacks in at least a week, probably more. She has said multiple times "the war will be finished", both on the forums and in PMs. Well, where is it? Where is the conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103122&view=findpost&p=2753080 I'd like to challenge this post by Ty, as there is no way his forces could get all the way to areas such as Toronto without me noticing and taking action prior to that, and especially not taking whole cities that way. I'd ask the post be edited to give me a chance to respond as I am closer to the area, more familiar with the area, and would have a faster reaction time. There's simply no way he's take over every major city before I even moved a muscle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 [quote name='Pravus Ingruo' timestamp='1310176814' post='2753015'] This isn't about kicking someone when they're down. This is about someone forcibly moving the RP timeline forward to avoid RPing damage and to frankly avoid RPing at all. I didn't lob a single nuke in the war. I made a thought out invasion with ground forces. She hasn't responded to those attacks in at least a week, probably more. She has said multiple times "the war will be finished", both on the forums and in PMs. Well, where is it? Where is the conclusion? [/quote] I vote we just consider the matter closed, Korea defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 When I got nuked to hell I wasn't able to just reroll with out the effects of nukes against me. I was being made forced to carry the effects with any new nation I made (Hence why I took a bit of a break) and not just because it was lolnuking. Should this not be the case for Kankou too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103348&view=findpost&p=2749741]It is[/url], she's just trying to get out of it by not posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Timmy Posted July 9, 2011 Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 [quote name='Sargun' timestamp='1310194326' post='2753153'] [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=103348&view=findpost&p=2749741]It is[/url], she's just trying to get out of it by not posting. [/quote] Never mind :V 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.