The GM's Court

[King Timmy]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1313872855' post='2785244']
None of the three has exclusive right to RP the people of Ireland, they are all claimants in this dispute. Sal can RO a rebellion but he should use his stats rather than use the population as a base for rebellion.

And Timmy while you can always politically support Sal, to contest the claim you need to do some RP to actually contest it.
[/quote]
Well surely because of Sal's claim that makes it still contended? If not, I'll just do something stupid, that's always gone well for me in the past. Oh wait...

[Centurius]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1313872855' post='2785244']
None of the three has exclusive right to RP the people of Ireland, they are all claimants in this dispute. Sal can RO a rebellion but he should use his stats rather than use the population as a base for rebellion.

And Timmy while you can always politically support Sal, to contest the claim you need to do some RP to actually contest it.
[/quote]

I second this ruling and the one that Sal has to rp his in-game numbers, as some clarification.

Yes the land is still disputed, that said when the current parties defeat the rebellion the dispute ends and the territory belongs to the victors if noone else has boots on the ground.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1313872855' post='2785244']
None of the three has exclusive right to RP the people of Ireland, they are all claimants in this dispute. Sal can RO a rebellion but he should use his stats rather than use the population as a base for rebellion.[/quote]

The difference for me is that I have nothing else to RP. I'm not part of the dispute between two players over Ireland. I am a non-player rerolling in Ireland.

To me, control of the people is more important than control of the land, and it would seem that the rules reflect this as well. A military can occupy a territory in a war, but the occupying player doesn't own the land or control the people until the war is resolved. Importantly, the player owning the territory still has control over the people while the land is occupied.

If an area becomes white space, as Ireland has, then anyone can claim it. When one player claims it uncontested, that player gets the land and can RP the people living there. I've noticed people will often use this right to RP the people agreeing to be annexed. And when a player holds a protectorate for a while but then decides to annex the protectorate, this too is often done by RPing the people in the protectorate.

When two players without nations claim white space, rights to RP go to whoever made the claim first, yes?

When two players [i]with[/i] nations claim white space, however, those rights are not conferred. They remain disputed until the issue is resolved IC. If this were not the case, then a player could claim IC legitimacy by RPing the actions of the people in the disputed territory. For example, in the Ireland case, if players were allowed to RP the people in the disputed territories, Vektor could have RP'd that all the people in Ireland welcomed his arrival and threw rotten potatoes at PresidentDavid's troops, while PresidentDavid could have RP'd the opposite. As such, RPing people in disputed territory is a practical impossibility and thus disallowing this an important part of rules surrounding such territory.

That is at least my interpretation and extrapolation of the relevant rules.

As Ireland is disputed though, it is not anyone's land or anyone's protectorate and so it is white space. Vektor and PresidentDavid had no right to RP the people of Ireland because they are established nations and their claims were IC disputed. My claim to Ireland is not from an IC dispute, but is derived from the fact that I am rerolling. So my claim is based on the fact that Ireland is white space (the right to RP people cannot be given to either Vektor or PD because of their dispute) and that I was the first player without a nation to claim it.

If I have a claim, as you agree Cochin, then how can I contest that claim IC if I don't have a right to RP anybody in Ireland? Either I have the right to RP the people in Ireland (while no one else does) or I have no right whatsoever and all my actions in the thread should be wiped.

[Sal Paradise]

According to the rules, if Ireland was my nation, I would be allowed to RP as many civilians as I wanted. I am well aware that I would have to RP my military according to my IG military, but I haven't RP'd a single person at arms yet. The ruling that I should keep to my IG game levels is not necessary and misses the point entirely.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Sal Paradise

[Centurius]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1313881155' post='2785308']
According to the rules, if Ireland was my nation, I would be allowed to RP as many civilians as I wanted. I am well aware that I would have to RP my military according to my IG military, but I haven't RP'd a single person at arms yet. The ruling that I should keep to my IG game levels is not necessary and misses the point entirely.
[/quote]

The ruling cochin made is a compromise towards you actually. While the land is disputed its citizens are basically in a state of limbo, as was established when Slavorussia and the USI were in a dispute over land. The ruling allows you to rp a resistance force equal to your ig capacities because you have no other land. That said noone controls the citizens of Ireland until all disputes are solved.

[Sal Paradise]

I also ask that any RP be frozen in Ireland until I can get a clear ruling on who is allowed to RP the people of Ireland.

Two GMs have said Ireland remains disputed, and that my claims are relevant, but PresidentDavid has already started RPing the people of Ireland as if his treaty with Vektor wipes out my claim.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Sal Paradise

[Centurius]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1313881880' post='2785313']
I also ask that any RP be frozen in Ireland until I can get a clear ruling on who is allowed to RP the people of Ireland.

Two GMs have said Ireland remains disputed, and that my claims are relevant, but PresidentDavid has already started RPing the people of Ireland as if his treaty with Vektor wipes out my claim.
[/quote]

PD is in the wrong there, the current resistance movement of yourself must be dealt with before ownership belongs fully to them. As such any rp with the people of Ireland at large is considered frozen.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Centurius

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1313881741' post='2785312']
The ruling cochin made is a compromise towards you actually. [/quote]

That wasn't clear in Cochin's post, but I'll address that. I don't want to RP just a resistance force. I want to RP people and stories.

I want to know what I'm allowed to do with Ireland based on an application of the rules, not a compromise of them. If I can't RP civilians in Ireland, then I don't want to RP in Ireland.

Like I said, when two nations claim white space, no one can RP the people until the dispute is resolved. When non-nation rerolling players claim white space, the right to RP goes to the first person who made the claim. I am a non-nation rerolling player and the only such player to have RP the people in Ireland, when Ireland was white space and no other player had a right to the people.

No compromise. I don't want the resistance force. If my interpretation is wrong, then I'll move on.

[Kankou]

You could just ask PresidentDavid for some land, unless PD is stubborn about holding onto all of his new territories.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1313882818' post='2785325']
That wasn't clear in Cochin's post, but I'll address that. I don't want to RP just a resistance force. I want to RP people and stories.

I want to know what I'm allowed to do with Ireland based on an application of the rules, not a compromise of them. If I can't RP civilians in Ireland, then I don't want to RP in Ireland.

Like I said, when two nations claim white space, no one can RP the people until the dispute is resolved. When non-nation rerolling players claim white space, the right to RP goes to the first person who made the claim. I am a non-nation rerolling player and the only such player to have RP the people in Ireland, when Ireland was white space and no other player had a right to the people.

No compromise. I don't want the resistance force. If my interpretation is wrong, then I'll move on.
[/quote]

Well compromise probably was the wrong word, it was a decision to compensate players without a nation on a claim. As it currently stands you can not rp the citizens of Ireland. That said if, like Kankou said, either PD or Vektor be willing to share the land or you win a war against them you can rp them.

[Sal Paradise]

Could you link to me to this ruling? I'm curious to see how such a ridiculous decision could have been made. Surely someone else would have noticed the same problems that I immediately noticed and protested the calculated stifling on decent RP it generates.

What kind of story could I possibly write involving a resistance movement in an occupied territory where I couldn't RP the actions of civilians? Nothing could be more divorced from reality. It must be symptomatic of the military-stats-dump mentality that passes for role playing around here.

[king of cochin]

Let me see if I understand your perspective right, Sal. According to your interpretation if two existing nations presented a claim over white space their claims would be contested and if a non player places their claim over white space it gets higher priority? No. All three of you have equal priority of claims. It does not matter whether PD and Malatose have nations and you dont, all it matters is that three of you have placed conflicting claims to a common white space. Now the contest has to be solved through RP.

In order for you to RP the entire population of Ireland ICly you need to get your claim settled. Otherwise you would be permitted to RP a number of people commissurate with your IG stats. Just like PIRA who though they claimed to be representative of Ireland was not always understood to be.

Now ICLy USI and Dalmatia has won greater political legitimacy for the time being while you are also getting some amount of IC support. Now with that you have to ICly settle the issue.

I understand you want to do RP involving the people of Ireland and you can do that, but only after you have ICly legitimized your claim. And the three of you can not ignore each other's RP and wish it away, you have to RPwise solve it to really RP the people of the land.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1313914061' post='2785511']
Let me see if I understand your perspective right, Sal. According to your interpretation if two existing nations presented a claim over white space their claims would be contested and if a non player places their claim over white space it gets higher priority? No. All three of you have equal priority of claims. It does not matter whether PD and Malatose have nations and you dont, all it matters is that three of you have placed conflicting claims to a common white space. Now the contest has to be solved through RP.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with priority. It's a question of the proper application of the rules governing claims by established nations and claims by new/rerolling nations.

Any nation can claim the right to RP the people of a white space. If more than one nation claims that right, then it is disputed and no one can RP the people until the dispute is resolved IC.

Any player without a nation can claim the right to RP the people of a white space as well. If more than one player claims that right, then the right passes to whoever claimed it first.

In the case of Ireland, three people are claiming the right. Two nations, who according to the first rule do not have the right to RP those people because they have competing claims, and one non-nation (me), who falls under the second rule. Because I don't have a nation it would be impossible for me to resolve the dispute IC. As a non-nation, under the second rule, my dispute is resolved because I was the first person to claim it. If I do not gain the right to RP the people of Ireland because my claim is disputed then I have no means to dispute my claim IC, thus my claim is void.

You said that I did have a claim. My request for a ruling revolves around the question of there being a third rule governing disputes between established nations and new/rerolling nations over white space. Apparently there is precedent where the non-nation is given the right to RP only military in the territory.

The rules are supposedly meant to facilitate the community's role play. I'm saying that you can't role play a resistance movement without civilians. If you insist on this, then the ruling is deliberately creating bad RP, where we pretend that military operations can occur in a country without any acknowledgement of the civilian population. I know a lot of people around here are only interested in playing power politics with military stats and pixels on the map, but I was drawn to this community on the possibility of actually creating interesting stories.

I'm not demanding you accommodate me in Ireland. All I'm saying is that if you insist on restricting my RP in Ireland to only military actions without any mention of civilians then I'm not interested. Vektor and PD can go ahead and consider the issue resolved if this is the case.

So, one last time, you're saying that my understanding is wrong and that if I want to maintain my claim over Ireland, the rules restrict me to crap RP?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1313920136' post='2785528']
It has nothing to do with priority. It's a question of the proper application of the rules governing claims by established nations and claims by new/rerolling nations.

Any nation can claim the right to RP the people of a white space. If more than one nation claims that right, then it is disputed and no one can RP the people until the dispute is resolved IC.

Any player without a nation can claim the right to RP the people of a white space as well. [b]If more than one player claims that right, then the right passes to whoever claimed it first.[/b]

In the case of Ireland, three people are claiming the right. Two nations, who according to the first rule do not have the right to RP those people because they have competing claims, and one non-nation (me), who falls under the second rule. Because I don't have a nation it would be impossible for me to resolve the dispute IC. As a non-nation, under the second rule, my dispute is resolved because I was the first person to claim it. If I do not gain the right to RP the people of Ireland because my claim is disputed then I have no means to dispute my claim IC, thus my claim is void.

You said that I did have a claim. My request for a ruling revolves around the question of there being a third rule governing disputes between established nations and new/rerolling nations over white space. Apparently there is precedent where the non-nation is given the right to RP only military in the territory.

The rules are supposedly meant to facilitate the community's role play. I'm saying that you can't role play a resistance movement without civilians. If you insist on this, then the ruling is deliberately creating bad RP, where we pretend that military operations can occur in a country without any acknowledgement of the civilian population. I know a lot of people around here are only interested in playing power politics with military stats and pixels on the map, but I was drawn to this community on the possibility of actually creating interesting stories.

I'm not demanding you accommodate me in Ireland. All I'm saying is that if you insist on restricting my RP in Ireland to only military actions without any mention of civilians then I'm not interested. Vektor and PD can go ahead and consider the issue resolved if this is the case.

So, one last time, you're saying that my understanding is wrong and that if I want to maintain my claim over Ireland, the rules restrict me to crap RP?
[/quote]

The first bolded part, my friend is not a valid rule. There is no rule saying that a player without a nation has greater priority than a player with a nation. Just because you claimed first does not mean you get undisputed claim over the land. It is precedence that in multiple claims placed over a short period of time, first comes first is not applicable due to various time zones we all are in.

And no it is not impossible for you to resolve your dispute ICly. You can RP a number of revolting civilians commisurate with your own IG stats, just not the entirety of population in the region. I am not restricting you to military actions and not civilian population, I am restating the existing rule that you need your claim to be undisputed to be able to RP civilian population of the region.

Once you have wrested control over Ireland militarily you are free to RP the population in any way you want.

[Centurius]

In line with the proposal here: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=104617 as of now nations under 20,000 NS can not be targeted by nuclear weapons unless they meet one of the following criteria:

1. Develop and/or have weapons of mass destruction and/or area-effect EMPs in RP
2. Have a Manhattan Project and/or nukes in-game
3. Request a larger player to use WMDs on another player

[Triyun]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90657&view=findpost&p=2785582

I'd like to draw attention to this post.

First let me say, that space based weapons were banned by both the mods and the community. It is my understanding that this was allowed by the GMs, but the reaction by pretty much every non-GM in #cnrp has been in opposition to it. I think that something like this needs to at minimum require a community poll to allow in rather than the GMs just arbitrarily deciding on it.

The fact is that the argument about nothing firing above 30 kilometers is ridiculous, because it allows you to position forces ABOVE 30 kilometers. The thing here is is that its basically the same thing as stationing any missile system in space except it has an extra piece. Your able to use one of these carriers to fly over any nations, air space and determine the point of re-entry. If I were to use one of these things to attack the Kingdom of Cochin for example, I could calculate it so Earth to space based weapons could only hit me at a certain point, and thus bypass most of Cochinese air defenses to launch drones against New Delhi or another major industrial up deep inside Cochinese territory to maximize my damage effectiveness. Its functionally the same damn thing as firing the weapon from out of space, with slightly more risk.

Additionally "Not entirely the same as an AI, as it can't gain sentience or sapience, but it's capable of learning the things it needs to survive." Now I have some learning on my planes too, but an unmanned fighter that learns what it needs to survive, for all intensive purposes of combat, how is this not exactly a banned AI? Isn't the point of most rules not to restrict what goes on in a nation but that nations ability to use anything it develops to impose its will upon other nations. It seems Lyn stripped the AI of most things except for its combat capabilities, the very thing the rules are actually meant to protect against.

Lastly I would question if this entire thing is in anyway feasible by 2030. I remember people said that though carbon nanotubes can be made in small quantities by 2020 when that was the time period, you couldn't have them on a large scale. Well thats mainly presumably because of time but most importantly money. It seems that at some point these constant space mega projects have to fall under that exact catagory. Even if the technology kinda may be there to do it in 2030, is it concievable that a nation really could? I think not.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Triyun' timestamp='1313943699' post='2785591']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90657&view=findpost&p=2785582

I'd like to draw attention to this post.

First let me say, that space based weapons were banned by both the mods and the community. It is my understanding that this was allowed by the GMs, but the reaction by pretty much every non-GM in #cnrp has been in opposition to it. I think that something like this needs to at minimum require a community poll to allow in rather than the GMs just arbitrarily deciding on it.

The fact is that the argument about nothing firing above 30 kilometers is ridiculous, because it allows you to position forces ABOVE 30 kilometers. The thing here is is that its basically the same thing as stationing any missile system in space except it has an extra piece. Your able to use one of these carriers to fly over any nations, air space and determine the point of re-entry. If I were to use one of these things to attack the Kingdom of Cochin for example, I could calculate it so Earth to space based weapons could only hit me at a certain point, and thus bypass most of Cochinese air defenses to launch drones against New Delhi or another major industrial up deep inside Cochinese territory to maximize my damage effectiveness. Its functionally the same damn thing as firing the weapon from out of space, with slightly more risk.

Additionally "Not entirely the same as an AI, as it can't gain sentience or sapience, but it's capable of learning the things it needs to survive." Now I have some learning on my planes too, but an unmanned fighter that learns what it needs to survive, for all intensive purposes of combat, how is this not exactly a banned AI? Isn't the point of most rules not to restrict what goes on in a nation but that nations ability to use anything it develops to impose its will upon other nations. It seems Lyn stripped the AI of most things except for its combat capabilities, the very thing the rules are actually meant to protect against.

Lastly I would question if this entire thing is in anyway feasible by 2030. I remember people said that though carbon nanotubes can be made in small quantities by 2020 when that was the time period, you couldn't have them on a large scale. Well thats mainly presumably because of time but most importantly money. It seems that at some point these constant space mega projects have to fall under that exact catagory. Even if the technology kinda may be there to do it in 2030, is it concievable that a nation really could? I think not.
[/quote]

On the first part.

The call to allow the bombers and fighters was not an easy one however as the ban on space based weapons was intended to avoid a weapon to be used with no possible way to defend against. In essence like rods from god or lasers in space. However there always has been an unwritten exception used in weapons such as ICBMs which for a large part are in or near space. Under the very strict interpreation of rules these would be banned too however as they have a phase where they can be destroyed they were allowed. These bombers have the same weakness, that being as soon as they enter orbit they could be targeted and destroyed by existing defenses. Especially by the later 5th generation and 6th generation fighters.

On the second part.

I agree such an AI system is over the top and against the rules. While advanced AIs are acceptable for purely civilian uses their military use should not be allowed.

[Triyun]

However Cent, when I asked about stationing nuclear weapons in space over the Polar regions, I was told by the GMs, Cochin as I recall, that no nuclear weapons could be permanently stationed in space over the North Pole and South Pile. Now as far as re-entry speed and range of attack etc, these would all be the same as a conventional ICBM. The issue is that the weapons themselves WOULD be stationed in space as an originating point. By this same logic, you'd have to say the same thing about Lynneth's fighter squadrons. They WOULD be stationed in space even if they aren't deployed there. Would a nuclear weapons system such as the one I'm describing then be legal now, or do I merely have to add a secondary re-entry vehicle to make it legal?

[king of cochin]

I do not think that Lynneth's space based bombers/fighters should be permitted. Yes they have their vulnerabilities but they flout the margin of existing rules too much. Giving allowances for character RP and storyline is alright but this type of space combat technology should not be permitted. In my opinion Lynneth should be asked to retcon this particular post and cease weaponising space.

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1313931881' post='2785547']
There is no rule saying that a player without a nation has greater priority than a player with a nation.[/quote]

Who said that? I didn't say it. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. Why are we imagining things here?


[quote]And no it is not impossible for you to resolve your dispute ICly.[/quote]

I never said it was. I said that it would be if I didn't have any rights to RP people in Ireland, but there was a rule that gave me the right to RP military in Ireland.

I'm not sure how I'm going to get a clear answer from you if you can't read my posts.


[quote]You can RP a number of revolting civilians commisurate with your own IG stats, just not the entirety of population in the region. I am not restricting you to military actions and not civilian population, I am restating the existing rule that you need your claim to be undisputed to be able to RP civilian population of the region.[/quote]

So they don't have to be soldiers. I can RP 10,000 civilians with my IG stats which allow 10,000 soldiers?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

To clarify Sal, if my understanding of the rules is correct, you may rp your soldier count in troops present as part of a rebelling population in an area you have laid claim to that was white space at the same time other claims were laid by other active players seeking expansion. It does not guarantee success of the rebellion of course, but it does permit you to try to take the land by force. It does not, however, force the world to recognize your rebellion as any more legitimate than any other claim, that is up to the foreign policy and decisions of those nations as to whether or not you are "legitimate". So you have a two fold challenge, gaining political support and seizing/holding territory for your rebellion to survive upon.

What you need to do is RP claiming a specific part of the isle as sovereign territory and fight for it.. although there is a possibility your rebellion movement will be annihilated by the occupying powers if it resorts to use of arms.

There have been many rebellions throughout history.. and the largest challenge has always been claiming an area of control and obtaining political support/recognition.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Sal Paradise]

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1313962361' post='2785773']
To clarify Sal[/quote]

You clarified nothing. Most of what you tried to explain has absolutely nothing to do with what I was asking.

[Centurius]

[quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1313957389' post='2785732']
Who said that? I didn't say it. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. Why are we imagining things here?




I never said it was. I said that it would be if I didn't have any rights to RP people in Ireland, but there was a rule that gave me the right to RP military in Ireland.

I'm not sure how I'm going to get a clear answer from you if you can't read my posts.




So they don't have to be soldiers. I can RP 10,000 civilians with my IG stats which allow 10,000 soldiers?
[/quote]

1. You argued there was a rule that stated players without a nation when dealing with contested land get the right to rp the citizens. This is in fact not a rule and never was.

2&3. The rule means you can rp up to a total of your ig forces, be it soldiers or militia or simply civilians.

[iKrolm]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1313965457' post='2785804']
1. You argued there was a rule that stated players without a nation when dealing with contested land get the right to rp the citizens. This is in fact not a rule and never was.

2&3. The rule means you can rp up to a total of your ig forces, be it soldiers or militia or simply civilians.
[/quote]

Just to clarify: total with multipliers, correct?

Edited August 22, 2011 by iKrolm

[Maelstrom Vortex]

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1313965457' post='2785804']
1. You argued there was a rule that stated players without a nation when dealing with contested land get the right to rp the citizens. This is in fact not a rule and never was.

2&3. The rule means you can rp up to a total of your ig forces, be it soldiers or militia or simply civilians.
[/quote]

In other words, exactly what I said.. and that you ignored, Sal.