Removal of the "Terms" Rule

[Dredge]

[member="Jay Scott Clark"]
My flight from long beach got rescheduled to tomorrow morning, problem with my brothers ticket. You'll be rid of me in the morn- *is shot*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=B5IjwaaRTec

*falls over dead*

 

[J3C0]

I don't think you actually read my arguments for removal in the rule as posted here. I didn't mention stalling as a reason for it to be removed, though i did in the staff critique thread. It's not my main issue with the rule however as i've stated many times.

 

[Captain Larraq]

"Hey Republic, we're attacking again."
"Orly?"
"Yup! Pure pvp, same as before."
"We did that last time. Lets do objectives this time. My writers like objectives better."
"Nope! Pvp brah. My writers like pvp."
"Yeah, but we just did pvp with you guys. Lets make this one objective based and the next one can be pvp based. Sound fair?"
"Nope! Pvp!"
"Yeah... No. Lets talk about this some more and figure this out."
"Nope! We're attacking Friday at 7pm. GG, HF."
"Dafauq?"

 

[Jsc]

Okay. That's fair and your right. Your argument is valid for many points aside from that. I'll inquire about that specific circumstance elsewhere. Good answer. Thanks.

 

[Isley Verd]

Basically, it is my humble/honest opinion that this rule does not need to be repealed. This rule Worked when the Republic steamrolled the Sith Empire. This rule Worked when the Fringe and OP duked it out. This rule Worked every single time an invasion was announced. Simply put, this ruling isn't broke, there's no need to repeal or fix it.

And now I've said my piece. Negrodamus out.

*tips hat*

 

[J3C0]

Basically, it is my humble/honest opinion that this rule does not need to be repealed. This rule Worked when the Republic steamrolled the Sith Empire. This rule Worked when the Fringe and OP duked it out. This rule Worked every single time an invasion was announced. Simply put, this ruling isn't broke, there's no need to repeal or fix it.

And now I've said my piece. Negrodamus out.

*tips hat*

When the Republic and the Sith Empire duked it out the rule was -super- loosely followed. Both Kaine and Selena can testify to that and conversations on terms was basically "Were invading." "Cool.".

Though admittedly yes, the rule has not been a huge issue. However it has been a bother in several invasions that i've been a part of planning and participating in.

 

[Jsc]

[member="Isley Verd"] Perhaps look at it this way. If the Top Rules mention respecting each other? This rule theoretically becomes redundant. With respect comes the understanding that PvP is the essence of compromise itself.

Or, here's another way to view it. If the Top Rules mention respecting each other? This rule theoretically reinforces that by asking players to come together and compromise.

Do you see how that could be viewed 2 ways? Redundant vs. Reinforced. Two sides. Same coin. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.

 

[Soeht]

My opinion on objectives is that there's no need for them to be mutually agreed upon.

Here's sort of similar situation that helps explain this:

In scholastic policy debate, there are two sides: Affirmative and Negative. If this was equated to SWRP and Invasions, the Affirmative side is Attacking and Negative side is Defending. There is a Topic for Policy Debate, which can be equated to the Planet. There is a Resolution, which includes the overarching goal of the Affirmative changing something. The Resolution can be equated to the goal of taking control of the Planet.

In Policy Debate, the Negative does not get the choice of knowing what the Affirmative is going to do before a Debate. In a Resolution requiring the Affirmative to adopt alternative energy, the Negative side cannot say that the Affirmative is prohibited from using hydroelectric power as an alternative energy before the debate begins.

This is because the Negative side has the inherent advantage of winning if the status quo prevails.

Such is the case of Invasions on SWRP. If the status quo prevails and the Defenders have managed to withstand any change to the situation (no Defenders have lost or been killed or converted, or they have protected all the princesses, etc.), then logically they are in a position to claim victory at the end of the Invasion.

For the Defenders to then say that the Attackers can only go after X, Y, and Z would rob the Attackers of their counter toward the fact that Defenders win if the status quo remains. That is: to use any means possible to change the status quo and adapt on the fly to what the Defenders do.

So, the need for defining objectives should not be a requirement as it creates an unfair situation for the Attackers - limiting what they can do despite the burden of winning being upon them. The overall goal of gaining control of the planet is enough of a scope to keep the Invasion on track while the Attackers push for what subgoals they want for their own reasons while all the Defenders need to do is simply respond to what the Attackers attempt to do.

Add that to the fact that SWRP's Rules for Invasions are fair - fleeting not being inherently bad - and that PVP is what decides the outcome of an Invasion regardless, I feel as if there is no need for discussion on Invasion Terms so long as the Attackers do not impose any Rules unilaterally (as in, saying no more than X meters of ships or that Y Invasion occurs at the same time as well).

There is no way a more fair situation can come from additional Rules to SWRP's Rules. If I'm wrong about this, then I question why such conditions aren't already under the Warring Factions Rules. Therefore, to compel an Attacking Faction to spend outrageous amounts of time discussing the terms to an Invasion and then compel them to use a set of Rules not in the Warring Factions tab sounds like the very Rule that causes this is creating a situation opposite of what it intends to make.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Nobody said that the defenders dictate terms of engagement. Both sides are to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to both sides. If this cannot be achieved, a RPJ steps in and tells BOTH sides what is fair.

This is the simplest rule there is and is one of the best. The only reason it has come up is because the Sith refused to budge and kept trying to force the republic into a "pvp only" battle. The key word here is -force-. The republic, to my understanding, presented numerous alternative options to balance out the terms of the engagement to make them more fair for each side. When the RPJ was called in the suggestion made by the RPJ was very similar to one f the suggestions made by the republic.

The Sith then continued to ignore the republic and the RPJ and continued to try and -force- their pvp only battle onto the republic. And now that their thread is locked for ignoring the existing rules, they are stomping their feet and demanding that a rule be changed that has only (to my awareness) become an issue due to their refusal to compromise.

 

[J3C0]

[member="Captain Larraq"] You're speaking entirely out of second hand word of mouth knowledge probably born from frustration and have no clue as to the actual happenings of the discussion and conversation that has taken place. I ask you not to slander myself or anyone in my faction without actually knowing all the facts about what has happened, thank you.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Perhaps you're unaware of who I've spent 40 hours a week locked in an ambulance with for the past 8+ months, but I'm actually fairly up to date on the issue and have been in discussions on the matter for about a week now. If you'd like though, I can review the chat logs myself and present a more specific counter-argument. Also, say what you want about slander, but you are spewing plenty of passive-aggressive slander yourself about the opposing side of this argument.

I'm just a fan of the direct approach.

 

[Jsc]

[member="Captain Larraq"] There appears to be a conflict of interest. Even I can assume that. However, Shara's right bro. We probably shouldn't be bringing up a topic that has not been resolved. I've PMed Shara and I believe that his interest in this rule is completely separate from his Faction's and his character's IC agenda. I think for the duration of this thread, it's best that we assume his heart is in the right place.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Fair enough. But I simply see too much room for abuse. Invasion threads already have so much potential for angst. Opening the doors to more angst and less regulation simply throws up far too many red flags for me. Invasions, regardless of their pvp nature, are still collaborative threads between writers. Like a boxing match or a sports game. There needs to be clearly stated rules and agreed upon restrictions on both sides to ensure a fair engagement that can still be fun for both sides without competitiveness getting the best of us all.

 

[J3C0]

I've stated multiple times throughout this thread that any passive aggression that is read into my words is only perceived. I harbor no ill will towards any of the Republic admins nor any RPJ's involved in the invasion of Carida. I am not a petty person, nor am i one to hold a grudge. This is a game, i don't get upset because of it.

 

[Jsc]

Fair enough.

Thanks. Shara and I might be on opposing sides of this specific discussion. But I can immediately testify that he retains his honor in good standing. (Even if this discussion comes at a very strange time. Lol.)

Thanks Larraq.

 

[Jsc]

1) SWRP's base Rules are inherently fair. If they are not, then SWRP Staff would add required conditions to the Rules.

• I might counter that specifically the current rules Reinforce the fairness and spirit of this community. Rather then render this Invasion Rule as Redundant. Perhaps asking for compromise on a Faction Level is a good example to set before requesting it on an individual level for your members.

2) The current rules do not allow for surprise attacks, which can be a very fun an exciting thing.

• This is an opinion. I do not understand how a 'surprise attack' would work. Lol.

3) If the attacking Faction asks for no additional Rules, then the situation is already fair via SWRP's Rules.

• See 1.

4) If the attacking Faction wants additional Rules, then discussion would obviously be needed.

• Current rules support this argument already. Change is unnecessary.

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.

• Agreed. However the Defender's must be allowed their opinion of 'What are we both defining as fair'. Not all 'fair' is created equal. And that's an American talking. O.O''

 

[Soeht]

Nobody said that the defenders dictate terms of engagement. Both sides are to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to both sides.

Since, as the Rule stands, the agreement must be mutual, a Faction can take a hard-lined stance and either delay the Invasion until an RPJ is involved or all their demands are met. Therefore, the Defending side has an opportunity to restrict the Attacker's actions preemptively or deny novel suggestions for objectives until the Attackers cave or an RPJ makes a ruling.

If RPJ's automatically ruled in favor of the more fair set of Rules, it would be the one with the least amount of extra provisions and the one closest to SWRP's base Rules. This conclusion is drawn because if SWRP's base Rules were judged to not be the more fair option compared to something else, then the written Rules would be changed to provide for a more fair situation. Yet, RPJ's are human and won't always make that decision for one reason or another.

Using very soft math, here is the probability of how an unfair situation can be added:

The Attacking team desires to use no additional Rules. The Defending team wants to add Additional Terms and will not consider any compromise.

• Situation 1: The Attacking team concedes. Additional Terms are added.
• Situation 2: The Attacking team resists. RPJ's are contacted.
• Situation 2.A: The RPJ's declare that the Base Rules are more fair. Additional Terms are not added.
• Situation 2.B: The RPJ's declare that the Additional Terms are more fair. Additional Terms are added.

For two out of three possible conclusions, Additional Terms are added and in one of those moments it's without a Faction's consent. If RPJ's are involved, I then have to question why are these Additional Terms not already apart of the Base Warring Faction Rules. If such Additional Terms are deemed to be a requirement, why are they not required via the Rules?

Now, let's pretend that SWRP changed the Rules. Now, Attacking Factions may start an Invasion without prior discussions only in the event that they are not using Additional Terms. If Additional Terms are asked for, they must be mutually agreed upon. If there is no agreement, no Additional Terms may be used.

All possible conclusions not only cut out the need for SWRP Staff but also include mutual consent on whether or not to use Additional Terms. There is no possible situation in which one Faction will be forced to use Invasion Rules not required by SWRP Rules and Staff has one less thing to do.

Both Major Factions and Staff win with such a Rule change.

 

[Jsc]

You are assuming that communication is 'mandatory' before an Invasion is posted. If communication was not 'mandatory', an Invasion would get posted. And 4 pages in a Faction Admin would call baloney and ask for terms.

(Remember that one Dominion that one time, Daella. Lol.)

Asking for mandatory communication is not a mistake in my opinion. It is an extension of demanding respect.

 

[Alexandra Feanor]

I think that this rule provides for less of the OOC hate that we all grow far too close to already and if things are not talked over before hand then someone is bound to get pissed and cause nothing but a pain in the ass of a time after. In short i support the rule staying.

 

[Captain Larraq]

If in 2 out of 3 conclusions involve you either agreeing that something is fair or being told that something is fair, they it was probably fair to begin with and you should succeed the point.

Every argument I hear just sounds more and more like "I want it my way and I don't see any reason why I should have to change it."

That works in some cases. Not in most. Especially not in cases that involve interacting with other human beings.