Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
|
talk:nations:alphas_realm_nationhood [2013/12/24 22:00] p.p.a Dual citizenship? v1ad and Rosen pls resbond |
talk:nations:alphas_realm_nationhood [2020/11/08 04:02] (current) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| What do yo think, v1ad, Rosenmann? I'm inclined to interpret “active citizens with no other citizenship” as players who spend the majority of their time on the server with projects related to that nation, but I can see that this might be too harsh. | What do yo think, v1ad, Rosenmann? I'm inclined to interpret “active citizens with no other citizenship” as players who spend the majority of their time on the server with projects related to that nation, but I can see that this might be too harsh. | ||
| + | >“active citizens with no other citizenship” is addressing what a nation requires. That's why I'm saying "it just won't add to the 5 minimum citizens required for nationhood." As it stands, as far as I know, there's nothing stopping someone from being a citizen of more than one nation as long as there are 5 additional, unique citizens in each of the nations. I don't see any problem with dual citizens if they don't add to the requirements (if they did then the same 5 people could make 30 nations, but they don't so they can't). There have been dual citizens since the 1.7 server, I don't see any reason we shouldn't allow it. I don't even think this requires any special notation, except maybe to explicitely allow it. The implications seem fairly obvious to me and I don't think they necessarily need to be spelled out at all: If one of the nations enters a war, he's part of the war; if both nations declare war on eachother, he should probably pick a side or I guess both sides can just kill him. -vlad | ||
| - | ====== P_P_A ====== | + | >>All right, I can live with that. I don't think this needs to be further specified in the rules then. What about players who run independent one-man settlements and are primarily active there, but are also citizens of a nation? I don't think they should be included counting towards the minimum 5 players either, since they aren't actually committed to the nation. Could this be exploited to allow a nation to effectively control land outside of its borders, if these settlements belong to their citizens but are not formally part of the nation? Should, in such a situation, the settlement be annexed to the nation the settlement leader is a citizen of? Or should we just ignore it until it actually becomes a dispute? -P.P.A. |
| - | ==== Nations ==== | + | >>>"Or should we just ignore it until it actually becomes a dispute?" I vote for that, but if we had to decide I would WANT to say that active means active in the nation, but that's ridiculous and impossible to enforce. So I would just ignore the problem and <del>the politburo will hire some mercenary nation</del> let someone war them and when no one shows up to defend the nation then problem solved. -v |
| + | |||
| + | >I think that activity of citizens in nations are pretty unmeasurable, and I think making people living in the nation is somewhat unreasonably punishing. I think being in nation is more a connection between people, not binding people to clay. I try to think about situation that could abuse this system but I can't think about any. Dual citizenship is more of a problem, since in the end it will be hell to decide to who is actual citizen of nation X. | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>"Dual citizenship is more of a problem, since in the end it will be hell to decide to who is actual citizen of nation X." But remember this is only really a problem for the first 5 people of each nation, and is therefore easy to track. Deciding who is an actual citizen only then becomes important for wars. In that case they can drop in and out whenever anyway, so again, it doesn't matter. -v | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>>"But remember this is only really a problem for the first 5 people of each nation," It is also problem when citizens leave country and it might be under 5 when you doesn't count citizens with double citizenship and it is over 5 when you count people with double citizenship. The point is we are supposed to want to know to know exact number of citizens any time. -r | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>>>I really don't think it will be a problem because it never has been. Let's just make a ruling when or if it ever does become one. -v | ||
| + | |||
| + | >>>>>Well, if we are going just to try out new things I am ok with it. I just wanted to predict possible problems -r~ | ||
| + | |||
| + | <hidden old shit> | ||
| + | **P_P_A** | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Nations** | ||
| Nations only make sense if where is a sufficient number of people to maintain and defend them; otherwise they become a way for single players to claim disproportional amounts of land and to play themselves up to unwarranted importance on the wiki. Nations should require five //active// players to retain its status. | Nations only make sense if where is a sufficient number of people to maintain and defend them; otherwise they become a way for single players to claim disproportional amounts of land and to play themselves up to unwarranted importance on the wiki. Nations should require five //active// players to retain its status. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 55: | ||
| - | ==== War ==== | + | **War** |
| The rules for war stem from a time when this server was much more active. Raids and skirmishes, and their distinction from battles, are in particular an anachronism. A nation with only five players cannot continuously defend itself against raids; and neither is there much of a point to organise proper battles if raids are possible without repercussions.\\ | The rules for war stem from a time when this server was much more active. Raids and skirmishes, and their distinction from battles, are in particular an anachronism. A nation with only five players cannot continuously defend itself against raids; and neither is there much of a point to organise proper battles if raids are possible without repercussions.\\ | ||
| Line 49: | Line 65: | ||
| Griefing should not be allowed, not even in war; but certain buildings and structures—like walls, towers, and castles—that are defensive in nature may be razed during warfare. Torches may be destroyed too, and fields burned down; but civilian buildings and infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.) are to remain untouched. Withers may be used during battles, but the damage they have caused by them will be rolled back after the dust has settled | Griefing should not be allowed, not even in war; but certain buildings and structures—like walls, towers, and castles—that are defensive in nature may be razed during warfare. Torches may be destroyed too, and fields burned down; but civilian buildings and infrastructure (roads, railways, etc.) are to remain untouched. Withers may be used during battles, but the damage they have caused by them will be rolled back after the dust has settled | ||
| - | -==== Replies ==== | + | **Replies** |
| ><wrap em>and only if someone goes full buttmad and starts griefing on a large scale would mods be called in to ban the offender.</wrap> | ><wrap em>and only if someone goes full buttmad and starts griefing on a large scale would mods be called in to ban the offender.</wrap> | ||
| >>I don't think that should change from how it is now: if someone is killing people then the killed person can either make dealings or complain for a ban. If that's basically what you mean then ok. | >>I don't think that should change from how it is now: if someone is killing people then the killed person can either make dealings or complain for a ban. If that's basically what you mean then ok. | ||
| Line 96: | Line 112: | ||
| >>>>Ok that's fine then -vlad | >>>>Ok that's fine then -vlad | ||
| - | ==== Settlements ==== | + | **Settlements** |
| Settlements have, in the past, been treated like lesser nations, entitled to claim land—but less land than nations—, but without participating in wars—unless their leader wanted to, temporarily. Others have used them just to give their village an identity and presence on the wiki, to add fluff and lore. Under the new ruleset, I opine that the former usage be suppressed, and the latter be left intact. | Settlements have, in the past, been treated like lesser nations, entitled to claim land—but less land than nations—, but without participating in wars—unless their leader wanted to, temporarily. Others have used them just to give their village an identity and presence on the wiki, to add fluff and lore. Under the new ruleset, I opine that the former usage be suppressed, and the latter be left intact. | ||
| Line 109: | Line 125: | ||
| Settlements can continue to use the Wiki as they have done in the past, creating flags, emblems, maps, histories, lore, and whatever else they want on their pages, as this adds to the server's rich history and ensures a lasting memory. However, settlements do not //need// a wiki page to be recognised (unlike nations), and exist as (even unnamed) in-game entities too. | Settlements can continue to use the Wiki as they have done in the past, creating flags, emblems, maps, histories, lore, and whatever else they want on their pages, as this adds to the server's rich history and ensures a lasting memory. However, settlements do not //need// a wiki page to be recognised (unlike nations), and exist as (even unnamed) in-game entities too. | ||
| - | ==== Citizenship ==== | + | **Citizenship** |
| We should add a section stating that players can only be citizens of one nation, and dual citizenship is not possible. If it was, it would allow for players to maintain each other's otherwise underpopulated nations, and things like that. Perhaps reword the part that was “five active members” to “five active and exclusive members”. | We should add a section stating that players can only be citizens of one nation, and dual citizenship is not possible. If it was, it would allow for players to maintain each other's otherwise underpopulated nations, and things like that. Perhaps reword the part that was “five active members” to “five active and exclusive members”. | ||
| - | ======V1adimirr====== | + | **V1adimirr** |
| Ok now that we've had some discussion and I think we all see where the others stand, I think we all kind of want the same things. Here is a short list: | Ok now that we've had some discussion and I think we all see where the others stand, I think we all kind of want the same things. Here is a short list: | ||
| * The vast majority of specific, micromanagement decisions made by people (politburo) not by a set of rules | * The vast majority of specific, micromanagement decisions made by people (politburo) not by a set of rules | ||
| Line 143: | Line 159: | ||
| >>And as for the 3 battles, that's how it's always been so it's sensible to keep that as the default, but you'll note that immediately after that is an allowment for the nations or the political officer to change that number, so I don't see a problem. -vlad | >>And as for the 3 battles, that's how it's always been so it's sensible to keep that as the default, but you'll note that immediately after that is an allowment for the nations or the political officer to change that number, so I don't see a problem. -vlad | ||
| >>>>>My changes consist on reducing the rules, not just changing the existing ones. We can submit it to vote, I don't care if I lose although I honestly don't believe we even tried the first option. There's always been a lot of moderation intervention in these matters. --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/16 23:25// | >>>>>My changes consist on reducing the rules, not just changing the existing ones. We can submit it to vote, I don't care if I lose although I honestly don't believe we even tried the first option. There's always been a lot of moderation intervention in these matters. --- //[[nicabst@hotmail.com|caBastard]] 2013/12/16 23:25// | ||
| + | </hidden> | ||