|
Post by peter on Dec 1, 2015 8:31:15 GMT -5
Congrats everyone, it's 1951. This means the tech year is not 1913, the following nations will have 1913 tech:
abha peter yuk alex trapmuse rose
The rest, which right now isn't anyone, will begin at 1912. It's not much a difference.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 2, 2015 8:52:52 GMT -5
Now that we have the Russians waging war on the Ukrainians, it's appropriate that I remind everyone that for war, we are currently using battle points. We still haven't gotten any good ideas to replace them.
|
|
|
Post by President Abha Kawale on Dec 2, 2015 21:08:43 GMT -5
And having battle points is a good idea? I have offered plenty of alternatives, but you haven't accepted any of them. I stand by my statement where a moderator should oversee the randomization of the outcome. Based on factors such as tactics, technology, etc. they will choose a set of numbers between 0-100, for example, 0-70 and 71-10. They will use an online application to randomly select a number 0-100, and, if it falls between one of these bounds, it is either a win or a loss for the country. Its distance from the middle determines the severity of the victory or defeat. I know I'm not explaining it well, but battle points are ridiculous, boring, and pointless.
Other ways, will, of course, lead to disagreements, I feel.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 2, 2015 21:45:47 GMT -5
Hmm, I believe Abha is right in that aspect. His randomization with random sets of numbers are more simplistic, easier to understand, and more efficient than battle points. But peter you are, of course, the admin for the forum so it's your call.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 2, 2015 21:46:26 GMT -5
The above is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 2, 2015 21:48:10 GMT -5
New war policy: battles are at the rpers discretion, with a Gm acting as moderator. That's the entirety of War rules right there.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 3, 2015 19:33:21 GMT -5
Just want to clear some things up.
"New War policy: battles are at the rpers discretion, with a Gm acting as moderator. That's the entirety of War rules right there." So does that mean the whole battle points system is gone, RPers decide the rules, and the Game Moderators "moderate"?
"To annex, go into the annexation subsection and make a thread. You will need to make a minimum of seven posts for the annexation, and must have some level of resistance to your annexation. There is no time limit for annexations, however the Admins may determine that the annexation has been inactive too long and reset it, however this rarely ever happens. As a general rule, you cannot make an annexation if your nation is less than 1 month (or 1 in-game year) old." What does it mean that there has to be a level of resistance to your annexation? Do I have to show resistance towards my annexation? Furthermore, how can an annexation been too inactive? It becomes part of the person who annexed that land, right? What's the different between "Request permission to claim a protectorate from another player." and "Request permission to claim a piece of land from other player."?
In both cases, you would be claiming land from another player and protectorate means a state that is controlled and protected by another. Therefore, that would mean you are requesting permission, to claim a state that is controlled and protected by another, from another playar. Peter claimed a "protectorate" of Switzerland. However, Switzerland wasn't owned by another player. Wouldn't you call that annexing?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 19, 2015 18:22:10 GMT -5
Uh, so I guess UnThinkable is dormant for now...?
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 20, 2015 20:01:58 GMT -5
Just want to clear some things up. "New War policy: battles are at the rpers discretion, with a Gm acting as moderator. That's the entirety of War rules right there." So does that mean the whole battle points system is gone, RPers decide the rules, and the Game Moderators "moderate"? "To annex, go into the annexation subsection and make a thread. You will need to make a minimum of seven posts for the annexation, and must have some level of resistance to your annexation. There is no time limit for annexations, however the Admins may determine that the annexation has been inactive too long and reset it, however this rarely ever happens. As a general rule, you cannot make an annexation if your nation is less than 1 month (or 1 in-game year) old." What does it mean that there has to be a level of resistance to your annexation? Do I have to show resistance towards my annexation? Furthermore, how can an annexation been too inactive? It becomes part of the person who annexed that land, right? What's the different between "Request permission to claim a protectorate from another player." and "Request permission to claim a piece of land from other player."? In both cases, you would be claiming land from another player and protectorate means a state that is controlled and protected by another. Therefore, that would mean you are requesting permission, to claim a state that is controlled and protected by another, from another playar. Peter claimed a "protectorate" of Switzerland. However, Switzerland wasn't owned by another player. Wouldn't you call that annexing? 1) Yes. 2) When we say resistance, it means you can't just waltz into the region and annex it. You have to rp your troops actually having to get involved in battles with groups resisting your annexation. There are exceptions few and far, such as if for some bizarre reason you felt like annexing Franz Joseph Land, which is uninhabited by humans. An annexation becomes inactive when the person annexing it halts on annexing the land for lengthy amount of time. I believe you are thinking that when I say "annexation" i'm talking about the land after you have completed annexing it. That is not the case. When I use the term "annexing," it refers to the land in which you are annexing during the annexation. Remember, annexation requires more than one post, in fact, many more posts than one. For example, if I made one post of an annexation of Ireland, then didn't make a second post rping the annexation for 2 months, the GM's would have reason to declare that annexation project a failure, because the annexation has gone inactive. Protectorates are when you are protecting a piece of land from foes. Annexed land is land that is officially integrated in your country. Switzerland is not part of France. I didn't annex it, I am protecting it. It doesn't, and 99 percent of the time won't, be land claimed by another player. And when you annex, generally speaking you're not annexing land that someone else claims.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 20, 2015 22:10:15 GMT -5
Could you edit the OP? (original post). It may cause some confusion in the future (and it is now) whether or not we are using 'battle points' or whether battles are at the RPers discretion. Also, I nominate myself for a Game Moderator. (Nominations end in ~3 hours, so nominate yourself quick
|
|
|
Post by President Abha Kawale on Dec 21, 2015 18:01:13 GMT -5
I nominate myself as well, since we have not voted yet, I do not believe a time limit is necessary until that takes place.
I don't want to be the first person to annex. We've been able to do so since Thursday, if you didn't know already.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 21, 2015 22:19:01 GMT -5
Technically, nominations ended on Sunday and you were about 17 hours overdue. Personally, I believe that we should put me automatically as a GM, because I actually followed the guidelines and nominated at the correct time. (I understand that "Life happens" but you had 72 hours!). Then, for the next 72 hours, we have an election for the other two GM's and then vote in a 72 hour period. So, until 12/24/2015, we'd nominate, and from 12/25/2015 to 12/27/2015, we'd vote. These GM's would be the GM's for the IC 1952.
Also, I may annex, depending on the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by President Abha Kawale on Dec 21, 2015 22:26:40 GMT -5
Wait, why you and Peter?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 21, 2015 22:32:58 GMT -5
Edited.
|
|
|
Post by President Abha Kawale on Dec 21, 2015 22:47:07 GMT -5
Technically, nominations ended on Sunday and you were about 17 hours overdue. Personally, I believe that we should put me automatically as a GM, because I actually followed the guidelines and nominated at the correct time. (I understand that "Life happens" but you had 72 hours!). Then, for the next 72 hours, we have an election for the other two GM's and then vote in a 72 hour period. So, until 12/24/2015, we'd nominate, and from 12/25/2015 to 12/27/2015, we'd vote. These GM's would be the GM's for the IC 1952. Also, I may annex, depending on the circumstances. You actually followed the guidelines, but who made the guidelines? It was you, right? I knew nothing about this until after it happened, and several of us who've kept the forum going for this time were unable to vote, so I think that nobody should "automatically" be a GM. I wish for the vote that was promised, for while you say we had 72 hours, I had no idea until hours after the event. We can't all comply with your time constraints, and I'm sure you know all about having other obligations.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 21, 2015 22:53:35 GMT -5
I never made those guidelines! Peter did! Please check your facts before you attempt to 'insult' me.
To respond to your points: 1) It's your fault for not reading these posts and not properly managing your time. If you had properly read each and every post, you would've known that PETER made those guidelines and so did you actually. You can look in the logs yourself if you'd like to comb through them. 2) We haven't even had a vote yet. What are you talking about? Again if you properly read the post that peter posted, then you know that voting (if it had worked out) would be occuring from today to 12/24/2015. 3) I was the ONLY one to follow the guidelines that YOU and PETER created, not myself. (See point 1) 4) They aren't MY TIME CONSTRAINTS! YOU and PETER set them up, and YOU and PETER didn't follow your own time constraints. You are just adding insult to injury when you say that "I'm sure you know all about having other obligations."
|
|
|
Post by President Abha Kawale on Dec 21, 2015 23:01:41 GMT -5
My apologies, you did not make the time constraints, you reintroduced them. Peter made them, which thinking back, was a far more rational conclusion. That being said, this roleplay, like you said, was dormant for quite a while. You were the only one who remembered the rules from over a month ago, and I commend you for that: you deserve a juice box and a ribbon for participating if not an automatic GM status, yet I am sure me and Peter did not even think they would still be followed. Anyway, let us end our petty disagreement. I am sure we both understand the necessity for a vote. Right now, I do believe that you would be an excellent choice, and am definitely considering giving you my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Dec 21, 2015 23:03:29 GMT -5
Yes, yes. We should just see who will nominate themselves third and then we can begin a vote until January 1st, I propose.
We shall use the 'old' time constraints in the future...Hopefully people remember them. We may have to edit them if necessary.
|
|