Removal of the "Terms" Rule

[J3C0]

"Before an Invasion begins, Faction Leaders must convene to discuss how the Invasion will be handled by both sides to account for fairness and balance. If a compromise cannot be reached please consult a Role-play Judge."


This rule should be removed for the following reasons;


1) SWRP's base Rules are inherently fair. If they are not, then SWRP Staff would add required conditions to the Rules.
2) The current rules do not allow for surprise attacks, which can be a very fun an exciting thing.
3) If the attacking Faction asks for no additional Rules, then the situation is already fair via SWRP's Rules.
4) If the attacking Faction wants additional Rules, then discussion would obviously be needed.
5) Otherwise, an attacking Faction not imposing any additional Rules on an Invasion is creating an already fair Invasion that does not require days or weeks of discussion and Staff involvement in order to launch.

Therefore, Invasions with no additional Rules should be exempt from the Rule about discussing the terms of the Invasion beforehand and reaching an agreement with both Factions.

 

[Garza]

Less than three you and this idea.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

10/10

 

[Zion Krayt]

Never understood why there was a rule for invasion terms.

 

[Nikolas Faselli]

Surprise attacks are so cool... I support the proposal.

 

[Velok the Younger]

Opposed. I've been on many boards that didn't have this rule, and this rule is an improvement for many reasons.

I will note, however, that the process of consultation has often been a venue for bullying, strongarm tactics, and other very bad behavior. Mostly from people who don't like this rule.

 

[Louise]

Love it.

 

[Lee Astaar]

I don't see how this would make things more fair. Imo it would make it more unfair >.>

 

[Nyxie]

1) SWRP's base Rules are inherently fair. If they are not, then SWRP Staff would add required conditions to the Rules.
2) The current rules do not allow for surprise attacks, which can be a very fun an exciting thing.
3) If the attacking Faction asks for no additional Rules, then the situation is already fair via SWRP's Rules.
4) If the attacking Faction wants additional Rules, then discussion would obviously be needed.
5) Otherwise, an attacking Faction not imposing any additional Rules on an Invasion is creating an already fair Invasion that does not require days or weeks of discussion and Staff involvement in order to launch.

1) If the SWRP Rules are inherently fair, then this rule is inherently fair by extension.
2) Surprise attacks can be just as aggravating for one party as can be entertaining for the next. The potential for a perceived act of spite or hostility is too great.
3) The attacking faction is just one side of the coin, and the defending faction deserves a say; what objectives are valid, where they stand in terms of preparation and contingency, how they will be able to react, etc.
4) This statement is redundant.
5) In this case, the term 'fair' is subjective to each party and cannot be assumed.

The aforementioned rule serves one main purpose; to prevent people from exploiting their ability and authority to invade. Removing it would not regulate the potential for abuse, and quite frankly, stands a risk of causing some serious butthurt that no one should have to feel or deal with.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

All's fair in love and war.

 

[Jsc]

I asked for that Rule to be added a year ago in Staff Chat. And I'll tell you why:

• Fleeting: Yes or No. Factions Admins talk about it.
• Superweapons: Yes or No. Ask the Staff Admins for one.
• Orbital Bombardment: Yes or No. Factions Admins talk about it.
• PvP Taking Place Where: We pick targets or points of interest to be used as a backdrop for the conquest.

It wasn't about winning. It was about Fleeting back when no one Fleeted. It was about Superweapons when we all wanted to use them. And it was about agreeing on where to have our PC fight in cool PvP matches.

And it should stay.

You guys should just stop being pansies about it.

(Clarification: It had nothing to do with "Objectives" back then either.)

 

[Nyxie]

You guys should just stop being [Hutts] about it.

Don't lose your cool, man.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

Repeal.

Repeal.

Repeal.

 

[Nyxie]

Amending to what I already said, Invasions are still just collaborative roleplay. By removing the necessity of mutual agreement and discussion, you are eliminating the collaboration and simply making it about the fight. Roleplay, no matter what the circumstances, should not be primarily about the fight. It is not a PvE environment. Others should be equally considered, bottom line.

 

[J3C0]

Fleeting should be addressed completely separately in a new set of rules. This rule inhibits far more than just the fleeting aspect of an Invasion and is an overall detriment in my and many others opinions.

[member="Ashe the Reaper"] To your points. There will be butthurt when it comes to invasions no matter what happens. If one party doesn't necessarily want an invasion they will use this rule to stall, dig their feet in, and be uncooperative as possible until the enemy no longer wishes to invade. Is that in the spirit of the game of the map? No, not at all. The map is there for war, and in war people get upset, if they can't handle that then they should not be participating in a game where its inherent. And i'm sorry, but the map is a PVP environment. It is meant for Faction VS Faction to pit their members against one another.

 

[Nyxie]

There will be butthurt when it comes to invasions no matter what happens. If one party doesn't necessarily want an invasion they will use this rule to stall, dig their feet in, and be uncooperative as possible until the enemy no longer wishes to invade. Is that in the spirit of the game of the map? No, not at all.

I'm just going to say this because Jon already pretty much covered it. This rule is the glue keeping an already fragile balance in tact. If you thought it was bad now, I pity those who would witness what it might look without it. Sometimes, a bit slips through the cracks, but a thin filter is better than no filter at all.

Despite the name, this site wasn't founded on the concept of winning or losing. I've been on major sites that held such ideals, and they generate some of the nastiest players and conflicts you've ever thought possible. There wasn't permission-kill rules there, so using that alone as an example point, invading a planet without negotiation is like killing a player without consent; you're attempting to take something from someone who valued it, and it detracts from their experience without any ability for recourse. That is NOT in the spirit of the roleplay.

We're not here to take each other's planets and kill each other's characters - we're here to have fun writing collaboratively and in general, else there wouldn't have ever been such rules and regulations.

 

[HK-36]

I would have to disagree as well, and here's why,

In the Invasion of Silken Asteroids I have seen a breakdown of communications between two factions prior to engagement, i.e. there was little discussion between the factions before the Invasion as this rule would set in place.
The effects were really disheartening, plenty of bickering and OOC drama being involved into the Invasion, members leaving in frustration multiple times, harsh words being said.

Therefore,
I believe the rules requiring two factions to discuss prior to engagement and talk things out should be kept in place, if not informed more, as a result one may loose the advantage of OOC surprise but in turn, hopefully, it will allow for the factions to avoid bad blood between each other along with unnecessary dramatics.
Also, one could always clarify before hand that they want the thread to start as a surprise attack, knowledge of this OOCly should in no way affect things ICly.

I say should because the Site is not my perfect worlds where OOC affects IC in no way whatsoever

 

[Jsc]

So this isn't about fairness or compromise is it Shara. It's about you, wanting to get what you want. Which is why I asked for that rule to be included in the first place.

To stop guys like you, from running over other people and crying: "Get out of the way."

 

[Velok the Younger]

Cool it, folks.

I'm drafting a couple sets of alternate compromise rules that hopefully address both sides' issues.

 

[Ignatius]

Let's stop pointing fingers people. Just post your opinion and be done. This is a discussion. Not a measuring contest.