comicIDIOT wrote:
I still think the most fair thing todo is put a limit of one blocker per nation.
Why have you decided that? That still favors the bigger nations, for example, A-E has such a huge nation bonus and lots of people to create new towns. Switzerland only has one town with one person. It is impossible for him to surround larger towns with giant nation bonuses, even if he decided that he was going to waste all of the plots that are in his nation on partially surrounding someone. In Edenia's case, 1/3 of our towns has been encased, and we don't have near the amount of people, nation bonus, or money to do such a cruel thing to one of their towns.
Chauronslilsis wrote:
a little thing that got blown up
Huehuehuehue!
Sorry I just read that statement late, and considering the status of the town that is being blocked it just cracked me up.

Comic said "That basically defeats the purpose of an 'expansion blocker.'" I had originally thought Comic's original proposal was to defeat the purpose of an expansion blocker, hence the suggestion.

Also, as Frozen sort of said, to put a limit of one blocker per nation would have no positive effect; for A-E to put up a second one would be ludicrous and unlikely anyway, and Edenia does not have the means and definitely not the desire to set up even one expansion blocker.
CalebHansberry wrote:
Also, as Frozen sort of said, to put a limit of one blocker per nation would have no positive effect; for A-E to put up a second one would be ludicrous and unlikely anyway, and Edenia does not have the means and definitely not the desire to set up even one expansion blocker.

Which is why I'm questioning why we are even talking about this. This happened once. It won't happen again. If it does, then we have a serious problem with the person doing it, not the nation itself (unless the nation owner is doing it then yeah there's an even bigger problem) and we should discuss things with that person privately. If the rule about one expansion blocker per nation is enacted, nothing on the server will change unless Edenia gets a ton of people within the next few weeks.
CalebHansberry wrote:
Chauronslilsis wrote:
a little thing that got blown up
Huehuehuehue!
Sorry I just read that statement late, and considering the status of the town that is being blocked it just cracked me up.

Not sure why you laughed at that; my mind wasn't communicating very well at that point.
CalebHansberry wrote:
Comic said "That basically defeats the purpose of an 'expansion blocker.'" I had originally thought Comic's original proposal was to defeat the purpose of an expansion blocker, hence the suggestion.
I thought that too.
Chauronslilsis wrote:
CalebHansberry wrote:
Also, as Frozen sort of said, to put a limit of one blocker per nation would have no positive effect; for A-E to put up a second one would be ludicrous and unlikely anyway, and Edenia does not have the means and definitely not the desire to set up even one expansion blocker.

Which is why I'm questioning why we are even talking about this. This happened once. It won't happen again. If it does, then we have a serious problem with the person doing it, not the nation itself (unless the nation owner is doing it then yeah there's an even bigger problem) and we should discuss things with that person privately. If the rule about one expansion blocker per nation is enacted, nothing on the server will change unless Edenia gets a ton of people within the next few weeks.
We are questioning this because it is an ongoing problem. Sure, this may only happen once, but it is still happening.
FrozenFire49 wrote:
We are questioning this because it is an ongoing problem. Sure, this may only happen once, but it is still happening.

How is it ongoing? I'm not seeing it. And who's we?
As long as there is still a town surrounding another town, it is ongoing, and "We" is everyone still posting on this forum, including you.
FrozenFire49 wrote:
CalebHansberry wrote:
Comic said "That basically defeats the purpose of an 'expansion blocker.'" I had originally thought Comic's original proposal was to defeat the purpose of an expansion blocker, hence the suggestion.
I thought that too.


I proposed a rule with the intent that it'd change. If I had intended to keep it along the lines of my initial proposal I would have played the veto card already. You guys are more than welcome to propose rules yourselves but let's wait until this topic of discussion is over. With any rule, it's not guaranteed to become more than a proposal.

Quote:
We are questioning this because it is an ongoing problem. Sure, this may only happen once, but it is still happening.


The problem aspect of it is a one-sided story. It's a problem for one town but a tactic for another where as I have to balance the problem with the tactics. Let me explain a bit about where I'm coming from for both sides.

What A-E has done is basically created an encirclement. It's usually done to quickly destroy an enemy by cutting off supplies and forcing individual soldiers to focus attention on multiple fronts. While the "attack" by A-E is not quick and has multiple flaws when compared to real life (i.e. teleportation in Minecraft and no perma-death) it makes the tactic more of Encirclement Campaign, again met by the same flaws as Encirclement. A campaign isn't an active battle it's basically a, in metaphorical terms, a large scale military quarantine against an enemy force with the intent of "peacefully" starving the encircled forces of supplies. Shoeblox has another option, thanks to the realm of digital lives, they can leave the Encirclement [Campaign] without facing real death and start a new town. Which, as I've read, isn't something that appears to be on the agenda. So, you can either surrender or negotiate a truce.

After I heard the arguments from both sides I less formally proposed a revision of the rule which is where we stand at the moment in this discussion. I'll admit I'm more interested in limiting "expansion blockers" to one per nation than to a specific percentage around a town. I'd still be readjusting the rules of war (as there's no limit on this in the real world that I've found) but I wouldn't be altering it too much if I did. There's also other military tactics I'm looking into as alternatives to (and in favor of) "encirclement."

This debate isn't over and at the end of the day let's realize it's a game and leave our rivalries on the server.
KermMartian wrote:
It's an extreme suggestion, but I almost might like it if something completely unfarmable was the currency in the future, like lapis. We could return most of nations' and towns' balances as gold blocks/ingots, and switch to another economy basis. That's a long-term discussion, though, to address the fact that I'm not thrilled about people being able to create giant gold farms and thence not worry about the cost of things.


Since 1.8 changed the villager trading system, they can now trade emeralds for lapis. They did it because you need lapis to enchant in 1.8. So if you want to change you need to pick something else than lapis.
ComicIDIOT wrote:

I'll admit I'm more interested in limiting "expansion blockers" to one per nation than to a specific percentage around a town.


Honestly, that would solve most of the issue of having a bunch of expansion blockers pop up everywhere. If there needs to be a rule put in to prevent abuse such as that, then I'd think it'd be okay. Perhaps this is the ground that would need to be settled on.
Merch wrote:
Since 1.8 changed the villager trading system, they can now trade emeralds for lapis. They did it because you need lapis to enchant in 1.8. So if you want to change you need to pick something else than lapis.


Thanks for the heads up! When I post in the 1.8 topic I'll be sure to include this, but in this topic let's focus on rules.

Charles, I still think there's even more middle ground to be made but I don't want this to go on too much longer.
charlessprinkle wrote:
ComicIDIOT wrote:

I'll admit I'm more interested in limiting "expansion blockers" to one per nation than to a specific percentage around a town.


Honestly, that would solve most of the issue of having a bunch of expansion blockers pop up everywhere. If there needs to be a rule put in to prevent abuse such as that, then I'd think it'd be okay. Perhaps this is the ground that would need to be settled on.

I'm with you on that one. I can't see how there would be a boom on expansion blockers though.
There likely won't be a "boom" of expansion blockers. The only reason it has happened once is because a powerful and merciless nation wanted to torture an already struggling town out of existence.
FrozenFire49 wrote:

There likely won't be a "boom" of expansion blockers. The only reason it has happened once is because a powerful and merciless nation wanted to torture an already struggling town out of existence.


Let's drop the politics, and at least state facts rather than speculating theories, since especially speculated theories are not constructive. In my opinion, if expansion blockers are to be, then I feel it is more than fair if the oppressor offers a reasonable deal to remove either the entire thing, or plot by plot related to price per plot pricing in towny, rather than leaving a town to suffer indefinitely as you make it out to be. Suppose we allow 1 town per nation to act as an expansion blocker-- maybe they decide... oh hey, lets just leave forever and never come back. That I feel is something that isn't alongside any PvP of any form, and was never for games sake. But if they play the game and are willing to negotiate something to allow a way out for a town via monetary gain and goods/services, then it's much more fair.
charlessprinkle wrote:
FrozenFire49 wrote:

There likely won't be a "boom" of expansion blockers. The only reason it has happened once is because a powerful and merciless nation wanted to torture an already struggling town out of existence.


Let's drop the politics, and at least state facts rather than speculating theories, since especially speculated theories are not constructive. In my opinion, if expansion blockers are to be, then I feel it is more than fair if the oppressor offers a reasonable deal to remove either the entire thing, or plot by plot related to price per plot pricing in towny, rather than leaving a town to suffer indefinitely as you make it out to be. Suppose we allow 1 town per nation to act as an expansion blocker-- maybe they decide... oh hey, lets just leave forever and never come back. That I feel is something that isn't alongside any PvP of any form, and was never for games sake. But if they play the game and are willing to negotiate something to allow a way out for a town via monetary gain and goods/services, then it's much more fair.

That's my take on this which is why I don't understand all the trouble with making a rule for it
I've reached a wonderful solution for events such as this. This will become a "rule" of the server with no votes or discussion in this matter.

I would rather we go back and fourth to find an amicable solution to our problems but it's clear that game politics are bleeding into the discussions and diluting posts so any reasonable compromise we could have reached is out the window.

Any nation, town or person can surround any number of towns; border to border and abiding by rules set within Towny. The construction of such a town must be created in the span of 3 real world days. If the victimized town wants to negotiate, you must comply but you are not required to stop obtaining plots around their town during this process.

If (active) negotiations are not progressing after a week, I will act as a mediator. I will ask questions to both parties in private and try to mediate the negotiations publicly. If there is no resolve in an appropriate amount of time, I will decide it for you. My word is final.

Progress can be defined as having "construction" paused for 3 days while the victim tackles a school project, opening up a one chunk wide hole to the wilderness, or whatever else you guys come up with. Do not start a negatiation and leave for 7 days expecting me to mediate after the week-period is over. I will consider the negotiations abandoned and rule against you, if you need to leave due to real world events ask someone to negotiate on your behalf.

If there are terms during a pause of negotiation (such as no plot buying) all parties must respect those terms outside of any PvP actions. If a party breaches any terms, they are nullified and the offender must concede to my verdict. Thus, you should make clear to all members of your nation the terms of any pause of negotiation as any of them can void your agreement.

Such terms will be temporary. Once the negotiation resumes between the users initially involved (or otherwise substituted) the terms are void. No terms will be part of any final negotiation transaction and the agreement is permanent.
Comic has spoken. This seems like a fair way to resolve things that doesn't require making a ton of new, extremely-specific rules.
Thanks Comic; like Kerm I think it's fair and am relieved to have resolution.
"No cursing, harassment or homophobia."

This is too general. For example, you've excluded homophobia, but transphobia, racism, and sexism are not explicitly excluded. Change this to:

"No cursing, harassment, or hate speech."
Well, "hate speech" may be too general though. Actually what "homophobia" was was too /specific/, not general. I really dislike the term "hate speech" (though if we understand what it means to us here I'm fine), due to the stupid usage it's gotten from the media, but again it can be used if it's clearly defined.
Yes, you're right, I meant specific--my bad.

This seems like an okay operating definition:

Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic  
Page 5 of 7
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement