Removal of the "Terms" Rule

[J3C0]

[member="Ashe the Reaper"] There were plenty of invasions before this rule was included and they ran just fine because there was open communication between faction leaders and members throughout with both sides being kind and nice to one another, because you know, were adults.

[member="Jay Scott Clark"] I don't appreciate personal insults or insinuations so i'de ask you to keep that stuff to yourself especially since youre the one posting threads against it on a weekly basis.

[member="HK-36"] That's a very good point, but to countermand it. The Invasion of the Silken Asteroids had extenuating circumstances around it with the primary leader of one of the factions having home troubles and thus throwing the faction into disarray when the invasion was actually accidentally posted too early during discussions. That was what caused most of the problems. Because of that i would say that Silken is an outlier in invasions, given that is was far more...bumpy even when terms were finally agreed upon. An as to your last comment, we both unfortunately know that OOC always effects IC, whether we like it or not.

 

[Nyxie]

There were plenty of invasions before this rule was included and they ran just fine because there was open communication between faction leaders and members throughout with both sides being kind and nice to one another, because you know, were adults.

If this is true, than repealing the rule is just as redundant as having the rule, and thus it should be of little concern or hinderance to anyone. This is obviously not the case, however, as this very discussion has taken place.

The truth of the matter is that we're quite literally not all adults here, and that fact notwithstanding or entirely relevant, humans are humans; we get edgy and emotional about things sometimes. Removing the rule perspectively only promotes war. War - I'm sorry to say - gets people edgy, because now they have to go out of their way to make sure someone else doesn't screw up all of their hard work.

This isn't about war, it's about writing. People shouldn't come here to fight, they should come here to have fun. I cannot emphasize this enough.

 

[Tefka]

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.

1. You don't grant permission to someone to fight you in an Invasion. It just happens.

2. Unlike characters, no writer owns these planets. Major Factions should not take planets they are not willing to defend, value be damned.

3. I've never really liked the rule myself, and I wrote it. The main purpose of the ruling was an incentive to make the defending Major Faction aware they were being invaded. Before it was written, there were situations where the Major Faction simply wasn't aware it was happening. I would love to see the ruling reduced to a simple "Give them a heads up you're coming."

4. Surprise attacks are cool.

I agree with OP.

 

[Captain Larraq]

There are a couple rules that are poorly worded or the 'full rules' are spread out over multiple pages, so they can be confusing.

There are a few rules that I would love to see some minor tweaks to.

There are a few rules I would like to see expanded.

And there are a few rules I would love to see added.



But on the whole, there are no rules that I feel are unfair. Every rule applies equally to all writers and characters. That is pretty much the definition of fair. True, here and there human error steps in and someone allows bias to cloud their judgement. But I can honestly say that I've never seen an RPJ "be unfair". (Sarge's occasional meta gaming aside)



So on the whole, shove it. You can't always get what you want and you can't always force someone to do what you want them to.

Deal with it or go back to screaming at people on Call of Duty.

 

[J3C0]

[member="Ashe the Reaper"] This is untrue, because as i said to Jay the rule restricts far more than just fleeting, bad behavior, etc..

My largest quarrel with the rule itself is the fact that it allows someone to completely hinder an entire invasion for as long as they want just if they don't agree with the terms laid out by the entire faction. It allows a faction to entirely stop another faction from invading them with purely OOC methos, thus completely ruining the game for one side.

 

[Jsc]

[member="Darth Shara"] Keep in mind man, that I don't see what you see. I've never seen anyone use a stall tactic in an attempt to thwart an Invasion. And if they did, a Roleplay Judge should just walk in and write the terms.

So from my perspective your last comments were an insult and an insinuation. About the whole community. So let's be fair, eh.

 

[Cira]

I agree with OP.

About removing that "leave faction" button...

 

[Nyxie]

[member="Tefka"] - Yeah, I worded that poorly. >_<
What I meant by it, to be clear with everyone, was that just hammering on in without negotiating it OOC first is like putting the sword through their gut without ample chance to defend. The chance for it to be abused, or even for people to go buckwild in an invasion because they assumed they had free reign to dump whatever in is too large.

Now, if there are a subset of new rules limiting the kinds of ridiculousness that can be done, that's a different story and I'm all for it.

 

[Ignatius]

The truth of the matter is that we're quite literally not all adults here,

Um, well then everybody should act like adults. Doesn't matter your age. you should act kind to others.

And Yes there is no rule that everyone will like or dislike. Thus this discussion.

1. You don't grant permission to someone to fight you in an Invasion. It just happens. 2. Unlike characters, no writer owns these planets. Major Factions should not take planets they are not willing to defend, value be damned. 3. I've never really liked the rule myself, and I wrote it.

War is tough, deal with it as the panda said. It's all about the Mass PVPs.

 

[Velok the Younger]

Sat down with a leading voice from the opposite side and hammered out one possible compromise.

• When an Invasion begins, either the attacker or the defender may require a reasonable list of relevant victory objectives from the other side, to help define the scale and setting of the thread. However, other objectives or flashpoints may arise spontaneously, and must be considered equal with preset objectives in the final victory decision. This means that, since threads may proceed organically, neither party may use ongoing consultation to delay or pause an invasion.
• If orbital bombardment and other air strikes occur, they must be aimed at legitimate, and legitimately known, targets. Targeting specific individuals for air strikes, without IC cause and knowledge, is not permitted.

We figure that'll help reduce a lot of the worry and angst about including a fleet element, remove the problem with forced delays, keep some kind of a role for consultation and compromise, and allow organic victory conditions and settings to evolve. And, as someone said once, the true sign of a compromise is that everyone's a little bit unhappy. What do folks think?

 

[Tefka]

What I meant by it, to be clear with everyone, was that just hammering on in without negotiating it OOC first is like putting the sword through their gut without ample chance to defend.

I agree. This is the ruling's intent.

But more often than not the ruling is twisted to stall Invasions due to both factions adopting a "my way or the highway" attitude.

 

[Jsc]

Love it. Rather than taking a step backwards, that is a step forwards. Way to go Merrill. No baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Awesome.

 

[Nyxie]

I feel like this site's losing touch with what's made it grand; if it becomes another one of those murder death kill sites, it's going to discomfort a lot of players. I know, I know, 'too bad for them,' but what makes them lesser than the ones who are all for true war and fighting?

I speak from years of experience when I say that straight PvP sites are hell. I'm going to be clean and honestly here, and no, I'm not referring to any of you; they were all [expletive ]s there and people did as much OOC bickering as they did IC roleplaying. When they did, almost half of it was killing other people or fighting battles they didn't ask for or want all for the sake of survival. It's a horrible thing to be obligated to roleplay anything just to be able to continue to do it peacefully and happily. I get that major factions should have both the means and the desire to defend what is theirs, but what this thread is promoting in general is the free ability to raze people and factions until there's nothing left of them to enjoy. Will it happen? Probably not. The friction it creates is - at least in my opinion - not worth it though. People will take negatively to it.

War is tough, deal with it as the panda said. It's all about the Mass PVPs.

The problem is, it's not. This thread is proof that it is not. If it was all about Mass PVP, it would be Mass PVP and people wouldn't be debating it from both sides. I feel like that needs to really be put into perspective here. This thread is clearly a sign that it is not so simple.

 

[Velok the Younger]

Love it. Rather than taking a step backwards, that is a step forwards. Way to go Merrill. No baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. Awesome.

It's not perfect, but if I plugged every loophole it'd be a page long, lol.

 

[Darth Carnifex]

murder death kill

Mhmmmmm.

Delicious.

 

[J3C0]

I want to make this clear first of all. This is not a snipe at anyone. This is not a passive aggressive move against anyone i am currently in negotiations with about invasions. This is my opinion on the fact that i think the rule doesn't belong.

As for your suggestion [member="Rave Merrill"] one of my other biggest things about this rule is the fact that it breeds objective based invasions, something that i despise. In my own personal opinion Objectives are inherently flawed and broken, though your solution actually solves some of my issues with Objectives(smaller evolving objectives throughout an invasion appeals to me) it also breeds a host of other problems. Chief among them the creation of more and more rules and thus restrictions on things i and other members can do in an invasion. I also think that Invasion are inherently PVP threads and should stay that way.

 

[Velok the Younger]

[member="Darth Shara"]

In my own personal opinion Objectives are inherently flawed and broken, though your solution actually solves some of my issues with Objectives(smaller evolving objectives throughout an invasion appeals to me) it also breeds a host of other problems. Chief among them the creation of more and more rules and thus restrictions on things i and other members can do in an invasion.

I agree to an extent. The flipside, then, is that since the clause Kaine and I whipped up is a de facto reduction of the board's current focus on objectives, and a much less restrictive rule than what it replaces, it's probably less likely to provoke over-legislation than the previous state of affairs. Glass half full, when it used to be empty.

 

[Nyxie]

Bottom line, and I'm withdrawing beyond that because my comments are becoming repetitive; It's not all just about the war. If factions become all about the fight, then (using myself as an example) I won't join one and I'll end up missing out on all the lore and opportunities it has to offer, all to avert the potential for disaster. It's never as simple as "getting over it."

Deuces, I'm out. *drops mic*

I could talk about why I also disagree with objective-based invasions, how they set a single-track mindset, overlook substance, only promote the do-or-die concept, and just keep going on and on from branch to root, so I won't. xD

 

[Tefka]

I also think that Invasion are inherently PVP threads and should stay that way.

They are, and they will. Nothing's changed in this respect.

The problem is getting people to agree with each other.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Sat down with a leading voice from the opposite side and hammered out one possible compromise.

• When an Invasion begins, either the attacker or the defender may require a reasonable list of relevant victory objectives from the other side, to help define the scale and setting of the thread. However, other objectives or flashpoints may arise spontaneously, and must be considered equal with preset objectives in the final victory decision. This means that, since threads may proceed organically, neither party may use ongoing consultation to delay or pause an invasion.
• If orbital bombardment and other air strikes occur, they must target legitimate, and legitimately known, objectives. Targeting specific individuals for air strikes, without IC cause and knowledge, is not permitted.

We figure that'll help reduce a lot of the worry and angst about including a fleet element, remove the problem with forced delays, keep some kind of a role for consultation and compromise, and allow organic victory conditions and settings to evolve. And, as someone said once, the true sign of a compromise is that everyone's a little bit unhappy. What do folks think?

I feel that I could easily utilize this rule to simply "show up" with "plot convenience number of ships and have an unfair impact on the thread as compared to other writers and characters.