| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| World War Puppets; For the discussion of puppet wanking | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 14 2006, 03:18 PM (204 Views) | |
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 14 2006, 03:18 PM Post #1 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
We have never really allowed a person with two or more nations to use them together to achieve the same aim. This is puppet wanking. It's one of the most hated things on NS - I believe Quaon found this out when trying to found his Empire of Ji region or whatever it was. In fact such "zerging" or "multi-abuse" is frowned upon in just about every online game out there - and for good reason. As it stands, nations controlled by the same person are only allowed to ally when everyone invovled consents and the mod team doesn't think it'll cause a problem - by which, typically the word of a general mod or admin is enough so long as it doesn't effect another nation adversely. In a world war... things get a little tricky. To use the orginal example here's a hypothetical: Free Britian controls Union America. Union America sends troops to Free Britian to fight CE. Now even if Free Britian and America consent, here's what happens next: Jordan is having trouble... and can't rely on troops from Catholic Europe to help them. TC gets annoyed. Paradise knows this and invades the Holy Land. Nag Ehgoeg, not wanting to see the Holy Land fall to Muslim extremists now has to fight Paradise. I get annoyed The CNNP - looking for any excuse - refounds the IFP to counter Paradise. Paradise gets annoyed. From a decision made by CE and FB a lot of nations are forced into doing something they really wouldn't want to do. Now all is fair in war one might think - but does it tell a good story to annoy other players by changing the rules we've played with for so long? If Free Britian wants to contact CE, Paradise, all members of the Holy League and all former IFP states are effected. With IFP states effected, former BP states are effected. With the BP effected, the whole world is effected. If Free Britian wants to go to everyone who will be effected by (what is in effect, rule breaking) to make sure that we are telling a good story - not griefing other players - and he gets everyone's consent, then I say let him use his puppet. If it tells a good story and doesn't hurt any players (not nations, players) - then I support it. If your quote unquote "role playing" harms the carefully laid storylines of other players then that's not fair. That's why we have rules. That's why any socioty has rules - to prevent people being victimised. And that works both ways. People like CE will always object to every little thing that harms them in any way - directly or indirectly - whether it tells a good story or not. (No offense there CE, there have been worse examples but we've forced them out of the region :P ) So what do you do then? I say: ask the rule makers. The best solution is to ask everyone what they think. Practically speaking, this isn't possible - not in your real life nation, not here. But there are those (for good or ill) who have been put in a possition of power to make the rules. This is the important bit So I suggest this: If you want to use puppets (or break any "rule") first contact the people you will be effecting directly. In the above example, that would be Free Britian contacting CE. If the other person agrees to you breaking the "rule", then PM me saying what you want to do, and why it tells a good story worth breaking the rules for. I'll then post it up in the mod board for 72 hours with a simple poll - Allow or Disallow. Mods will debate and vote. I will PM you and the person you're fighting back giving you a yes or a no along with reasons why we've said no. If you think this is logical then vote for the 5th option on this poll. If you disagree, say why you disagree and what you would prefere. |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Jul 14 2006, 03:51 PM Post #2 |
|
Spammer
|
Okay, I voted before I read that. I voted for the middle option but now I agree with the last option. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 14 2006, 03:57 PM Post #3 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Vote confirmed. Only one person has voted for the last option (me). All parties invovled, in a world war, is every user in the forum. |
![]() |
|
| Free Britain | Jul 14 2006, 10:30 PM Post #4 |
![]()
1st Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think there might be a misunderstanding here... When I said "send UA troops to help Free Britain" I meant like the following scenario- Free Britain is pushed off the continent, al la Britain WWII CE makes preparations to invade (or what not) Arrival of new troops in Free Britain discourages CE from attacking. Hence creating a potential stalemate- an incomplete victory, a narrow win. My intention was never to use UA troops to attack CE forces on the continent- only to act as another line of defense of the home island. |
![]() |
|
| Catholic Europe | Jul 15 2006, 06:34 AM Post #5 |
|
Spammer
|
But this point still stands regardless of what you planned to do. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 15 2006, 09:05 AM Post #6 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Indeed. Your example is irrelevent - save as an example. This is a wider issue. I appologise if it seems like I'm victimising you, or taking your plans out of context - it's just easier to use real nations than "Nation A", "Multi 1", etc. |
![]() |
|
| Free Britain | Jul 15 2006, 01:32 PM Post #7 |
![]()
1st Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yeah, it does kind of feel like I'm the one at the end of the hot iron here. I also think that what someone plans to do with this is important. If the plan is to lead a crusade into the enemy's homeland with uncounted amounts of troops, then hell yeah it's wanking. But not everyone who wants to use multiple nations wants that. The major reason I want to is because I would find it hard to believe that nations of similar ideology would let others fall to oppression- that's the whole point of a global war, that one continent is effected by another. The continents will no longer be independent regions with no effects spilling over. |
![]() |
|
| The CNNP | Jul 15 2006, 02:32 PM Post #8 |
|
Enforcer
|
It is so beautiful, I think I am tearing up... ^_^ :cry: , but I am touched. Although personally I would be hard pressed to form such a large international alliance, your point is taken. I do enjoy the publicity. :gnarkgnark: Although I will be honest, I was thinking on concentrating my efforts in this war in Africa and the Middle East, due to my location. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Jul 15 2006, 02:33 PM Post #9 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Good point. But can't political effects spill over without military crossover? |
![]() |
|
| The CNNP | Jul 15 2006, 02:35 PM Post #10 |
|
Enforcer
|
Oh you better believe it. I do consider myself politically inclined to do so. If Paradise and I were to go at it, it would definately be interesting. However, I would have to concede all purpose defeat -- although I would put up one hell of a fight. :P |
![]() |
|
| Free Britain | Jul 15 2006, 04:33 PM Post #11 |
![]()
1st Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They can, but in our world, military tends to follow political. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |










3:55 AM Jul 11