Suggestion: Remove the Consent rule

[Ikhan]

51 minutes ago, Eva-Beatrice said:

Only invalid cause your preferred choice is losing, hm?

Well, at least it's better than doing nothing and acting with impunity when in reality, such actions would likely bring invasion by other states...

[Just Monika]

1 hour ago, Rimski said:

Every nation has a different way of waging wars but from what I have picked up no one wrote their losses,  not even an estimate nor the army numbers. Most of the community doesn't like to take in losses and so war in their thoughts is an insta win. I have no idea at this given momment on the consent rule udpate. 

Then how are you going to solve this without consent rule? Make a suggestion that is actually workable and fair and you might get a Yes vote from me. But blindly abolishing Consent with no real thought put into whatever comes afterwards is not the way to go forward, imo.

[Rimski]

27 minutes ago, Just Monika said:

Then how are you going to solve this without consent rule? Make a suggestion that is actually workable and fair and you might get a Yes vote from me. But blindly abolishing Consent with no real thought put into whatever comes afterwards is not the way to go forward, imo.

I said at this given momment because I was tired. 

Well if we change up the consent rule to nations can only delare war if they make a valid reason for a conflict. Wether it be for the safety/protection of an opressed peoples, protection of a culture, his oens nations interest and the usual stuff we use as a CB. A Proper decleration for war has to be made to peform a conflict. It can be a public or classified one so we can either do a suprise attack or an honour battle. 

[Just Monika]

2 minutes ago, Rimski said:

I said at this given momment because I was tired. 

Well if we change up the consent rule to nations can only delare war if they make a valid reason for a conflict. Wether it be for the safety/protection of an opressed peoples, protection of a culture, his oens nations interest and the usual stuff we use as a CB. A Proper decleration for war has to be made to peform a conflict. It can be a public or classified one so we can either do a suprise attack or an honour battle. 

It's not about why you declare a war, my concern is about how you conduct a war. you can't expect two sides that did not agree on it under consent to agree on one side losing and the other winning, so how are you ever going to sort that out? There is no rule framework. And with no framework, abolishing consent is just silly. And such a framework ought to be provided when one abolishes consent. you cannot just repeal consent, you have to replace it with a workable war system that is fair and properly handled.

[Aguacenta]

As an outside observer to NatRP, but participant in the broader RP community here are a few thoughts on what's been said so far and the consent rule as a whole.

 

1. The "if we get rid of consent, people will have to develop their IC more" hypothesis being tossed around is pretty fallacious. If this were true, we'd see mass depth development in OrgRP where there isn't a consent rule. We don't, because persona development is largely a result of players wanting to do it, and nothing else. If anything, war is a political short-cut to solving problems without any real interaction or plot development. Don't like a nations internal political actions? No need to try anything else, just immediately threaten armed conflict.

2. If anything, the consent rule has actually forced the community in NatRP to deal with policies they don't like in a more creative and realistic manner. Without the ability to "go to war", the community is now faced with the problem of dealing with hostile states and policies they don't like with actions that don't involve armed conflict. From the outside, the political conundrum the consent rule has created for the NatRP community IC is a lot more interesting than anything else I've seen in the PnW RP community since I started here.

3a.Not having the ability to go to war at all is a lot more realistic than being able to go to war at the drop of the hat. In practicality, most nations shouldn't have the economic or political ability to go to war regularly due to domestic and international constraints -- particularly for humanitarian and moral causes -- which is what sparked this suggestion in the first place. Don't believe me? All you need to do is compare the number of times political and social atrocities have occurred in the last 100 years (it's more than a trivial amount) to the number of major interstate wars have been fought IRL over cultural differences or ethnic cleansing in the last 100 years or so (you probably only need one hand to count them all).

3b. Ultimately the PnW RP's are not "war RP's" and shouldn't be treated as such. If anything, we should strive to de-emphasize war and emphasize character and plot development.

4. Pariah states are a thing IRL and exist largely because the international community is helpless to do anything about them. The nation that has spurred this suggestion is pretty effectively RPing a pariah state similar to North Korea. Their RP is consistent and it's caused plot development, I'm not sure why you would want to stop it.

5. Even if the consent rule was removed, and the nations that would like to "go to war" due the incidents that have sparked this suggestion, most of them have no IC reason to actually do so. The vast majority don't have established super-strong religious beliefs or histories of humanitarianism that would spur such an action.

6. The "war doesn't matter anyway to your 'in-game' nation, so therefore it should be allowed without consent in RP" hypothesis being tossed around is also silly. If that's your preferred line of logic, why bother with RP at all since it has no affect on your in-game nation.

7. The consent rule allows new RPers to get into the RP without fear of outside threat and without having to worry about RPing something as complex as a major war when they first start out.

8. The consent rule is present to insure people can develop their RP without outside interference and to prevent groups of nations from brigading a single nation they don't like. Currently, it's doing a pretty effective job.

9. By eliminating the consent rule, you've effectively created to parallel versions of OrgRP. In which case there's no real reason to have both.

10. The "the consent rule is killing the RP" hypothesis is also silly. There are lots of RP communities that have similar rules and have super in-depth and lively RPs. If anything, it's lack of creativity and a migration to OrgRP that caused the decline of NatRP.

11. To co-opt Monika's idea, if you're not going to have consent, what mechanism are you going to use to determine victors and losers, especially when one or both parties have no interest in a negative outcome. As an aside, this is something we should consider discussing as a community for OrgRP as well, since it's bound to come up eventually.

12. Let's call a spade and spade. I fear that ultimately this suggestion is brought about by OOC differences rather than genuine concerns about NatRP.

 

 

[Tali]

6 hours ago, Just Monika said:

Look at ORP. It's a clusterfrick. Thanks to an absence of enforcement of "staying within your means"

Who gets to decide that? You? Don't make me laugh ?

 

6 hours ago, Just Monika said:

Even less regulation.

Want less regulations, stop going to the mods. Each time the mods added more regulations and rules is a direct result of us, the 0layers whining and crying because someone didnt get their way, or that's how it seems anyways.

 

4 hours ago, Just Monika said:

Are there any rules to determine the outcome?

Why add more rules? Seriously, RP should be fluid, able to move freely. Someone enters your lands? Destroy them or talk to them and see if you can help expand their story. #MRPGA

 

4 hours ago, Just Monika said:

loltechlevels that prevent it from happening

Tech barriers were created probably because someone cried to the mods, so point is moot ? 

We as players need to stop relying on moderation, and moderate ourselves, and if the community as a whole thinks someone isnt playing fair, take them out via warfare or isolation, cutting off their trade to the world, but of course I'm sure that wont happen because we have a group of players ready to DM the mod and Alex at a moments notice to cry how they dont like someone and their RP, and the rules will be redesigned once again and we have even more restrictions. 

1 hour ago, Aguacenta said:

what mechanism are you going to use to determine victors and losers, especially when one or both parties have no interest in a negative outcome

We could have an independent group of players not involved in the war and wouldn't be biased to determine the outcomes, except that wouldn't really work if their is a global war where every player is at war. 

 

We could do a point system

Aggressive points and defensive points 

[Rimski]

There shouldn't be a system of Victor or Loser. Someone that has lost the will and has been pushed will either accept peace and the demands and work on them or if declined all of the nation will be rolled. Simple

[Mogar]

2 hours ago, Aguacenta said:

As an outside observer to NatRP, but participant in the broader RP community here are a few thoughts on what's been said so far and the consent rule as a whole.

 

1. The "if we get rid of consent, people will have to develop their IC more" hypothesis being tossed around is pretty fallacious. If this were true, we'd see mass depth development in OrgRP where there isn't a consent rule. We don't, because persona development is largely a result of players wanting to do it, and nothing else. If anything, war is a political short-cut to solving problems without any real interaction or plot development. Don't like a nations internal political actions? No need to try anything else, just immediately threaten armed conflict.

2. If anything, the consent rule has actually forced the community in NatRP to deal with policies they don't like in a more creative and realistic manner. Without the ability to "go to war", the community is now faced with the problem of dealing with hostile states and policies they don't like with actions that don't involve armed conflict. From the outside, the political conundrum the consent rule has created for the NatRP community IC is a lot more interesting than anything else I've seen in the PnW RP community since I started here.

3a.Not having the ability to go to war at all is a lot more realistic than being able to go to war at the drop of the hat. In practicality, most nations shouldn't have the economic or political ability to go to war regularly due to domestic and international constraints -- particularly for humanitarian and moral causes -- which is what sparked this suggestion in the first place. Don't believe me? All you need to do is compare the number of times political and social atrocities have occurred in the last 100 years (it's more than a trivial amount) to the number of major interstate wars have been fought IRL over cultural differences or ethnic cleansing in the last 100 years or so (you probably only need one hand to count them all).

3b. Ultimately the PnW RP's are not "war RP's" and shouldn't be treated as such. If anything, we should strive to de-emphasize war and emphasize character and plot development.

4. Pariah states are a thing IRL and exist largely because the international community is helpless to do anything about them. The nation that has spurred this suggestion is pretty effectively RPing a pariah state similar to North Korea. Their RP is consistent and it's caused plot development, I'm not sure why you would want to stop it.

5. Even if the consent rule was removed, and the nations that would like to "go to war" due the incidents that have sparked this suggestion, most of them have no IC reason to actually do so. The vast majority don't have established super-strong religious beliefs or histories of humanitarianism that would spur such an action.

6. The "war doesn't matter anyway to your 'in-game' nation, so therefore it should be allowed without consent in RP" hypothesis being tossed around is also silly. If that's your preferred line of logic, why bother with RP at all since it has no affect on your in-game nation.

7. The consent rule allows new RPers to get into the RP without fear of outside threat and without having to worry about RPing something as complex as a major war when they first start out.

8. The consent rule is present to insure people can develop their RP without outside interference and to prevent groups of nations from brigading a single nation they don't like. Currently, it's doing a pretty effective job.

9. By eliminating the consent rule, you've effectively created to parallel versions of OrgRP. In which case there's no real reason to have both.

10. The "the consent rule is killing the RP" hypothesis is also silly. There are lots of RP communities that have similar rules and have super in-depth and lively RPs. If anything, it's lack of creativity and a migration to OrgRP that caused the decline of NatRP.

11. To co-opt Monika's idea, if you're not going to have consent, what mechanism are you going to use to determine victors and losers, especially when one or both parties have no interest in a negative outcome. As an aside, this is something we should consider discussing as a community for OrgRP as well, since it's bound to come up eventually.

12. Let's call a spade and spade. I fear that ultimately this suggestion is brought about by OOC differences rather than genuine concerns about NatRP.

 

 

1. Most people are uninterested in any sort of in depth RP

2. This is certainly not the first person to RP a retarded nation, get blockaded by the entire planet, and then proceed to completely ignore the fact everyone wants to attack them, nor is trading with them, and RPs a fully functional and super awesome society where nothing bad ever happens. Eva has done this repeatedly in NatRP. There is no "political conundrum" as much as there are people unwilling to RP the consequences of not having any sort of foreign trade in a modern society. North Korea is not exactly a place anyone who currently lives in the west would be leaping at a chance to move to.

3. The United States, as well as several other countries have fought many wars over fictional attacks, it's rather silly to pretend that political willpower for genocide is not a justification that has been used in war, Iraq 1 and the Balkans conflict in the 90s come to mind as examples of global willpower allowing the pariah state to get rolled. This is also working under the assumption that nations being RP'd are exactly the same as IRL versions, and in most cases that is not accurate. Character and plot development is fine, but extreme actions receive extreme reactions, that's just the reality of RPs.

4. If the US embargoed China in 1996, NK would not have nukes right now, Pariah states primarily exist due not to lack of political will, but rather lack of economic will, and this world is not anything like reality when it comes to economics.

5. Considering I'm a continuation of pre map reset, my primary export is weapons, whether arriving in a crate, or raining from the sky. 

6. No Opinion

7. There is very few new RPers who actually end up getting attacked, primarily it is due to extremism.

8. Developing their RP is fine, but again negative actions tend to have consequences, and that's the core issue of this topic.

9. By resetting the map we did the same exact thing.

10. Migration happened due to two specific players using the consent rule to not have to worry about any negative actions against them while also explicitly RPing provocations at every turn, where the majority of the playerbase is coherent enough to grasp what was occurring.

11. I'd have no issues with discussing this idea.

12. There is plenty of OOC differences, and both sides of that have done nothing but provoke the other for several months, don't pretend there's anyone without blood on their hands there. Regardless of the allotment of guilt, this RP community has spent the past year and a half or so slowly working towards a more actionable community. The issue is just a few players don't wish to play in a collaborative sandbox, rather we all have our own separate ones without any interactions between them, and that's not how a beach tends to work.




 

[Aguacenta]

Quote

 

We could have an independent group of players not involved in the war and wouldn't be biased to determine the outcomes, except that wouldn't really work if their is a global war where every player is at war. 

 

We could do a point system

Aggressive points and defensive points 

 

That's definitely a workable solution. An alternative one might be a DnD or Risk style system, it could be done using a pre-set RNG over discord, so that takes out the work of having any given player determining the outcome. It's definitely worth its own discussion and broad input. If something winds up getting sussed out, we should also consider implementing the same system in OrgRP, regardless of what form it takes.

Quote

There shouldn't be a system of Victor or Loser. Someone that has lost the will and has been pushed will either accept peace and the demands and work on them or if declined all of the nation will be rolled. Simple

So, your solution is to essentially berate a player until they stop wanting to play anymore? That hardly seems like a good idea, both mechanically and for the community.

In this case, there's really no "rolled". Even without a consent rule RPing a conflict requires a certain degree of cooperation. Otherwise, you're going to repeatedily get this scenario:

Smalltopia: Invades Bigtopia 

Smalltopia: Army takes the capital.

Bigtopia: No it didn't. We defended the capital successfully.

Smalltopia: Army slaughters all resistance

Bigtopia: No it didn't. All YOUR troops were lost.

Repeat ad naseum.

 

1 hour ago, Mogar said:

1. Most people are uninterested in any sort of in depth RP

2. This is certainly not the first person to RP a retarded nation, get blockaded by the entire planet, and then proceed to completely ignore the fact everyone wants to attack them, nor is trading with them, and RPs a fully functional and super awesome society where nothing bad ever happens. Eva has done this repeatedly in NatRP. There is no "political conundrum" as much as there are people unwilling to RP the consequences of not having any sort of foreign trade in a modern society. North Korea is not exactly a place anyone who currently lives in the west would be leaping at a chance to move to.

3. The United States, as well as several other countries have fought many wars over fictional attacks, it's rather silly to pretend that political willpower for genocide is not a justification that has been used in war, Iraq 1 and the Balkans conflict in the 90s come to mind as examples of global willpower allowing the pariah state to get rolled. This is also working under the assumption that nations being RP'd are exactly the same as IRL versions, and in most cases that is not accurate. Character and plot development is fine, but extreme actions receive extreme reactions, that's just the reality of RPs.

4. If the US embargoed China in 1996, NK would not have nukes right now, Pariah states primarily exist due not to lack of political will, but rather lack of economic will, and this world is not anything like reality when it comes to economics.

5. Considering I'm a continuation of pre map reset, my primary export is weapons, whether arriving in a crate, or raining from the sky. 

6. No Opinion

7. There is very few new RPers who actually end up getting attacked, primarily it is due to extremism.

8. Developing their RP is fine, but again negative actions tend to have consequences, and that's the core issue of this topic.

9. By resetting the map we did the same exact thing.

10. Migration happened due to two specific players using the consent rule to not have to worry about any negative actions against them while also explicitly RPing provocations at every turn, where the majority of the playerbase is coherent enough to grasp what was occurring.

11. I'd have no issues with discussing this idea.

12. There is plenty of OOC differences, and both sides of that have done nothing but provoke the other for several months, don't pretend there's anyone without blood on their hands there. Regardless of the allotment of guilt, this RP community has spent the past year and a half or so slowly working towards a more actionable community. The issue is just a few players don't wish to play in a collaborative sandbox, rather we all have our own separate ones without any interactions between them, and that's not how a beach tends to work.




 

1. That's kind of my point. Removing the consent rule wont change that, as suggested by others.

2. Consequences should be had, it's really not one or two people at this point and spans both RP's. Removing the consent rule doesn't resolve the underlying problem. Without a reasonable replacement we're only likely to see more drama. 

3. Eh, I'm not going to get into an argument with you over the merit of specific stated reasons for conflicts, since here is not the place. The point still stands, there have been way more ethnic conflicts and genocides that have been ignored than there are ones where others got involved. Most involvement occurs long after fighting starts to die down rather than prior to the event. NATO action in the Balkans is the exception, not the rule.

4. Lack of economic will is lack of political will. Differences aside, maybe it should be. If it shouldn't be, your point made in response to 3 is moot.

7. Maybe so, but it's useful to have reassurances for prospective players. I'll give you that it's hard to know whether or not they even care about such things, since they don't tend to comment.

8. I agree. How often is armed conflict an actual solution to an actual problem? Not often. You can make the argument, that the existing RP world is different, but I don't think having the ability to "roll" a nation is actually going to have the effect you think it will, especially without cooperation or some form adjudication there's really no consequence if you choose to ignore the fact that you are being attacked. Which is the same problem that exists with actions short of armed conflict.

9. Perhaps that wasn't a good idea, but what's done is done at this point.

10. OrgRP isn't immune to such things, even without the consent rule. The solution is to encourage good RP and fair-play. I don't see how removing the consent rule does either, given that most people here seem to prefer to RP military actions as a list of equipment followed by an outcome. Especially especially given that without some form of impartial adjudication all that is going to happen is people are going to get more heated.

11. Let's do it then.

12. Just because everyone deserves a certain degree of blame doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage everyone to be less shitty to each other.

I got lost tracking the numbered list about half-way through, so it's entirely possible that certain ones don't correspond to their original thoughts.

I think my general thought process can be dumbed down to:

- Realistic RP is a good thing. This includes consequences and negative outcomes. This includes actions short of war.

- Since "wars"  or any type of economic/social conflict actually require two combating parties to cooperate even without a consent rule, it wont actually cause consequences or negative outcomes unless there's some sort of adjudication system or one/both parties are interested in such things. Removing the consent rule without having a supplemental war system in place is bound to cause problems.

- Really the only way to have realistic RP with balance is to have players actually want to do that. We should encourage that.

- Creativity is good for the RP, we should encourage that too.

- I like lists with five points better than I like lists with four points.

 

[Just Monika]

3 hours ago, Natalia Poklonskaya said:

Something

Whether it's the mods or the players, you need something to sort out wars. Saying "destroy them" with no means to determine when something was destroyed is just utterly ridiculous. If you have an issue with people going to the mods, a. it was not me, so complain elsewhere, b. find a solution among players that doesn't make people go whine to mods.

3 hours ago, Rimski said:

There shouldn't be a system of Victor or Loser. Someone that has lost the will and has been pushed will either accept peace and the demands and work on them or if declined all of the nation will be rolled. Simple

This makes no sense at all.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

Combining competition and story writing is a supreme act of stupidity. What will happen is bickering, and arguments, and a slow heat death of the community. I rule the husks of several dead few. Trust me. I've seen this before. The only way I'd play in a non-consent forum is if it were purely based on game statistics with no modifications. The reason is simple, the game is the only unbiased measure of national development and power. Everything else will be abused in abstraction.

If people genuinely want to write good stories they will. Otherwise.. don't interact with them. 

The only kind of people who want non-consent policies are bullies who don't like being questioned and like social gang-bang attacks that drive others out of a community. Pick your side carefully. One's full of jerks, the other's not.

Remember folks.. you might end up on the outside one day with your clique not in power. (In fact I know a number of you that have before and I can't believe you're repeating the same mistakes again. You know who you are.)

Edited May 4, 2018 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Tali]

2 hours ago, Just Monika said:

Whether it's the mods or the players, you need something to sort out wars

Yet you don't post your suggestion how to sort them. Not surprising tbh? 

 

[Maelstrom Vortex]

If Non-consent rules go into effect I'll wait to see what happens, but there is a high probability I'll yank myself off the map and just let this forum become another burnt out crater destroyed by egos. (Of which, my ego is bigger than any of yours anyway.. so you may s well just stop comparing :P)

Edited May 4, 2018 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Maelstrom Vortex]

On 5/2/2018 at 1:52 AM, Mad Max said:

I think the RP community especially NatRP has its 'top players' that kinda just dictate what rules should be in order to further their own RP progression. This was why I was so for Organic RP a while back when it was being created. 

its RP - iit isn't real, it doesn't actually change your in-game nation. Too many rules just restrict creativity and deter people from contributing.

Your statement seems contradictory with your logic. You do realize if non-consent goes into effect the net result is the requirement to develop an entire system of rules to replace 1?

[Just Monika]

3 minutes ago, Natalia Poklonskaya said:

Yet you don't post your suggestion how to sort them. Not surprising tbh? 

 

I'm not the one asking for a repeal of consent. It is not my responsibility to come up with something. It'd be responsible of those who want to repeal the status quo. I'm sure, if I were to come up with something it'd just die in some debate that goes nowhere because there is no consensus as to what should come afterwards.

Some "user-friendly" system of roll the dice, given we aren't graduates from West Point?

Some "skill-based" system whereby the one who comes up with the more functional plan wins?

How are militaries managed? Limits that rise per province, to promote blobbing empires? Just up to the player? Based on ingame stats (oh, please no)?

Personally, I do not have high hopes of these matters to be resolved without a lot of bickering and likely negative consequences for the community, as we work out rules. And because I want to spare myself the headache and want other people to not screw this place needlessly over, I vote no.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

18 hours ago, Olive said:

Seems the winner is clear. Gonna give this 24 hours, if the votes for yes is still higher, than Consent will be removed.

Utoh, not so clear vote rusher. Seriously, what is the probability everyone's going to be present within a 24 window to cast their votes? People have lives.

Heck, I was not even AWARE this vote existed because I don't usually bother checking OOC. I stumbled across it by pure accident. So what action has been taken to inform the community of such an important vote?

6 hours ago, Natalia Poklonskaya said:

Who gets to decide that? You? Don't make me laugh ?

 

Want less regulations, stop going to the mods. Each time the mods added more regulations and rules is a direct result of us, the 0layers whining and crying because someone didnt get their way, or that's how it seems anyways.

 

Why add more rules? Seriously, RP should be fluid, able to move freely. Someone enters your lands? Destroy them or talk to them and see if you can help expand their story. #MRPGA

 

Tech barriers were created probably because someone cried to the mods, so point is moot ? 

We as players need to stop relying on moderation, and moderate ourselves, and if the community as a whole thinks someone isnt playing fair, take them out via warfare or isolation, cutting off their trade to the world, but of course I'm sure that wont happen because we have a group of players ready to DM the mod and Alex at a moments notice to cry how they dont like someone and their RP, and the rules will be redesigned once again and we have even more restrictions. 

We could have an independent group of players not involved in the war and wouldn't be biased to determine the outcomes, except that wouldn't really work if their is a global war where every player is at war. 

 

We could do a point system

Aggressive points and defensive points 

Point systems, aka, the death of all creativity. Welcome to a dead husk of a forum. Because that is where this inevitably leads guaranteed.. no questions asked.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Maelstrom Vortex]

5 hours ago, Mogar said:

1. Most people are uninterested in any sort of in depth RP

2. This is certainly not the first person to RP a retarded nation, get blockaded by the entire planet, and then proceed to completely ignore the fact everyone wants to attack them, nor is trading with them, and RPs a fully functional and super awesome society where nothing bad ever happens. Eva has done this repeatedly in NatRP. There is no "political conundrum" as much as there are people unwilling to RP the consequences of not having any sort of foreign trade in a modern society. North Korea is not exactly a place anyone who currently lives in the west would be leaping at a chance to move to.

3. The United States, as well as several other countries have fought many wars over fictional attacks, it's rather silly to pretend that political willpower for genocide is not a justification that has been used in war, Iraq 1 and the Balkans conflict in the 90s come to mind as examples of global willpower allowing the pariah state to get rolled. This is also working under the assumption that nations being RP'd are exactly the same as IRL versions, and in most cases that is not accurate. Character and plot development is fine, but extreme actions receive extreme reactions, that's just the reality of RPs.

4. If the US embargoed China in 1996, NK would not have nukes right now, Pariah states primarily exist due not to lack of political will, but rather lack of economic will, and this world is not anything like reality when it comes to economics.

5. Considering I'm a continuation of pre map reset, my primary export is weapons, whether arriving in a crate, or raining from the sky. 

6. No Opinion

7. There is very few new RPers who actually end up getting attacked, primarily it is due to extremism.

8. Developing their RP is fine, but again negative actions tend to have consequences, and that's the core issue of this topic.

9. By resetting the map we did the same exact thing.

10. Migration happened due to two specific players using the consent rule to not have to worry about any negative actions against them while also explicitly RPing provocations at every turn, where the majority of the playerbase is coherent enough to grasp what was occurring.

11. I'd have no issues with discussing this idea.

12. There is plenty of OOC differences, and both sides of that have done nothing but provoke the other for several months, don't pretend there's anyone without blood on their hands there. Regardless of the allotment of guilt, this RP community has spent the past year and a half or so slowly working towards a more actionable community. The issue is just a few players don't wish to play in a collaborative sandbox, rather we all have our own separate ones without any interactions between them, and that's not how a beach tends to work.




 

Complexity of the system does not encourage depth.. it encourages number crunching though, lots of that.

[Tali]

7 minutes ago, Just Monika said:

It is not my responsibility to come up with something. 

It is your responsibility to explain your reasoning of no and offer an alternative solution. Only voting no and whining about it makes it lazy and not contributing to the discussion.

[Just Monika]

9 minutes ago, Natalia Poklonskaya said:

It is your responsibility to explain your reasoning of no and offer an alternative solution. Only voting no and whining about it makes it lazy and not contributing to the discussion.

I explained my reasoning. I vote no, I don't need to offer an alternative when I'm not even voting for replacing the status quo with said alternative. Stop trying to make it my responsibility to come up with a solution to your problem. 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Just Monika

[Tali]

1 minute ago, Just Monika said:

Stop trying to make it my responsibility to come up with a solution to your problem

Then get out of the conversation. It really isnt my problem. I'm not the one who started this thread. Either contribute to the conversation or leave.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

1 minute ago, Natalia Poklonskaya said:

Then get out of the conversation. It really isnt my problem. I'm not the one who started this thread. Either contribute to the conversation or leave.

Stop trying to be the boss you aren't. People have a right to express their minds regardless as to reasoning. She did so. Leave it at that.

[Tali]

3 minutes ago, Maelstrom Vortex said:

Stop trying to be the boss you aren't. People have a right to express their minds regardless as to reasoning. She did so. Leave it at that.

Never said I was the boss m8. I'm just saying stop complaining and whining if you aren't going to be apart of the solution. 

 

[Maelstrom Vortex]

4 minutes ago, Natalia Poklonskaya said:

Never said I was the boss m8. I'm just saying stop complaining and whining if you aren't going to be apart of the solution. 

 

Yeah, that's being a boss. You don't even get to say that. This is an open discussion, even to complaining and whining. People have a right to disagree with you in ways that make you discontent.

Everyone please note, before the conversation even progressed this far, I indicated this kind of behavior would occur.

You are one of the bullies Natalia.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Tali]

Just now, Maelstrom Vortex said:

Yeah, that's being a boss. You don't even get to say that. This is an open discussion, even to complaining and whining.

Nah, it really isnt. More like making a suggestion. Whining and complaining is a waste of time for everyone, so let's cut the bullshit and start working in either improving it together and each side making compromises and finding something better for each side or leave. 

 

Dont want to apart of the solution? That's fine and dandy, but dont !@#$ and complain when you had full opportunity to join in and help create a better system that everyone could agree on.

[Just Monika]

4 minutes ago, Natalia Poklonskaya said:

Then get out of the conversation. It really isnt my problem. I'm not the one who started this thread. Either contribute to the conversation or leave.

I'm also not one who started this thread. But as the results concern us all, it should be a legit option that I can say "I do not think there is a viable alternative and I can live with the status quo, even if it is not perfect, so I vote no. Convince me otherwise, but please do not repeal the system without taking into consideration what comes thereafter." I do think that I made a contribution to this conversation by not just saying no, but by willing to offer to take a step if a viable alternative comes up and cautioning of being careless. It just may not be the kind of contribution you might have wanted.

Which just makes me even more pessimistic about finding an alternative solution, when already now I get these kind of hostile responses just for disagreeing.