Question

Non-ESUS members may register and post here to ask questions about the ESUS or establish embassies.
User avatar
Arizona Nova
GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!
Posts: 3703
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:11 pm
Prefix: The Reconstituted Kingdom
Name: Arizona Nova

Re: Question

Post by Arizona Nova »

Sskiss wrote:If Mindset does anything, it should be to enhance the features of the map, and not bothering with claims on it. As for myself, I spend my time detailing my systems and the planets therein. Why can't others spend the time doing the same thing?
Mindset is in uni right now.
[center]Wit ye well, that when no good men remain to stand against those who choose evil, what will remain to restrain them from unleashing their dark designs?[/center]
~Anikar


{Back Burner}
User avatar
Thrashia
The Mindset's Bitch
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:22 am
Prefix: The
Name: Myenyan Collective

Re: Question

Post by Thrashia »

I think you are all misunderstanding my reasoning and intentions. I'm not forbidding people from having territory wherever they want, etc, in this map. I recognize the fact that we're all a community, etc. However I was merely making the distinction for those that wish to roleplay with the Galactic Empire alliance, that this map, which was kindly provided to us by Mindset and others, is not accurately portraying the actual current situation.

We of the GE do not recognize their claims because they are not legitimate to our universe/rps. Meaning that its perfectly fine, as I said, for them to exist in alternate SWGs; but the one that has been around since practically the beginning, the one started by Sithy, is not where they have their claims; i.e. we do not recognize them. I've not asked Mindset to remove any systems and I've made no belligerent statements against people who have made claims within the map. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in the continuance of the RP timeline, for lack of a better terminology.

Which is that there is no historical RP precedent for the nations I listed to exist within "our" SWG. And, it should be noted for your education Rob that I have not made any claims on Mindset's map. I believe OG, ND, and a few others have because they have territory within the MWG. But, again, because I don't recognize this particular map as being true to the current geopolitical state of the SWG, I have refrained from planting flags and saying "mine."

Arizona, I agree completely with you. There is no need to speak with the players themselves directly, because I recognize their claims as simply being another, different, SWG to begin with. Those however that choose to be part of our SWG I welcome. In point of fact, Red Talons has already approached me with asking about territory within the SWG; and I'm more than happy to compromise and RP with people that want to be part of it.
"You served too long under Lord Vader, Captain. I have no qualms about accepting a useful idea merely because it wasn't my own. My position and ego are not at stake here."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
User avatar
Derscon
ESUS Spambot
Posts: 505
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:21 am
Prefix: The Amaranthine Imperium of
Name: Derscon

Re: Question

Post by Derscon »

Thrashia wrote:I think you are all misunderstanding my reasoning and intentions. I'm not forbidding people from having territory wherever they want, etc, in this map. I recognize the fact that we're all a community, etc. However I was merely making the distinction for those that wish to roleplay with the Galactic Empire alliance, that this map, which was kindly provided to us by Mindset and others, is not accurately portraying the actual current situation.

We of the GE do not recognize their claims because they are not legitimate to our universe/rps. Meaning that its perfectly fine, as I said, for them to exist in alternate SWGs; but the one that has been around since practically the beginning, the one started by Sithy, is not where they have their claims; i.e. we do not recognize them. I've not asked Mindset to remove any systems and I've made no belligerent statements against people who have made claims within the map. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in the continuance of the RP timeline, for lack of a better terminology.

Which is that there is no historical RP precedent for the nations I listed to exist within "our" SWG. And, it should be noted for your education Rob that I have not made any claims on Mindset's map. I believe OG, ND, and a few others have because they have territory within the MWG. But, again, because I don't recognize this particular map as being true to the current geopolitical state of the SWG, I have refrained from planting flags and saying "mine."

Arizona, I agree completely with you. There is no need to speak with the players themselves directly, because I recognize their claims as simply being another, different, SWG to begin with. Those however that choose to be part of our SWG I welcome. In point of fact, Red Talons has already approached me with asking about territory within the SWG; and I'm more than happy to compromise and RP with people that want to be part of it.
A voice of reason in II? I think I fell in love <3
We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France. ~ Sir Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington
"Everywhere you prod it, even with the shortest stick, the established system isn't simply corrupt, it's unequivocally putrescent. The law is created by demonstrable criminals, enforced by demonstrable criminals, interpreted by demonstrable criminals, all for demonstrably criminal purposes. Of course I'm above the law. And so are you." (L. Neil Smith) "
La perfection est atteinte non quand il ne reste rien à ajouter, mais quand il ne reste rien à enlever.
Image
Image
User avatar
Thrashia
The Mindset's Bitch
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:22 am
Prefix: The
Name: Myenyan Collective

Re: Question

Post by Thrashia »

Uh...should I be worried? :gonk: [/sarcarsm]

But yeah, thanks for the compliment Derscon.
"You served too long under Lord Vader, Captain. I have no qualms about accepting a useful idea merely because it wasn't my own. My position and ego are not at stake here."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
User avatar
Arizona Nova
GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!
Posts: 3703
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:11 pm
Prefix: The Reconstituted Kingdom
Name: Arizona Nova

Re: Question

Post by Arizona Nova »

Thrashia wrote:We of the GE do not recognize their claims because they are not legitimate to our universe/rps. Meaning that its perfectly fine, as I said, for them to exist in alternate SWGs; but the one that has been around since practically the beginning, the one started by Sithy, is not where they have their claims; i.e. we do not recognize them. I've not asked Mindset to remove any systems and I've made no belligerent statements against people who have made claims within the map. I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in the continuance of the RP timeline, for lack of a better terminology.
If you know me, you know that, probably more than anyone else in this game, that I deeply respect consistent history. I have kept a meticulous record of my own RPs, and have often (very often... just ask Central Facehuggeria) put a bug in people's ears to pour out their history onto the ESUSWiki, no matter the form they do it in.

As well, since we first considered adding the SWG, I've been eager to have the GE on board, because no matter what our inter-alliance history, your alliance is one of the few in the game - save Yut - that could be considered a peer to our own in terms of size and influence. Which is why I'm confused at your gregariousness toward the map; what functionality does it lack that you need to express the history of the NS-SWG?
Thrashia wrote:Which is that there is no historical RP precedent for the nations I listed to exist within "our" SWG.
Historical RP precedent is well and fine, but it can be taken too far. If we demand everyone have RP precedent for territories they claim, it becomes impossible for people to join the game; it's a chicken and the egg problem.
Thrashia wrote:And, it should be noted for your education Rob that I have not made any claims on Mindset's map. I believe OG, ND, and a few others have because they have territory within the MWG. But, again, because I don't recognize this particular map as being true to the current geopolitical state of the SWG, I have refrained from planting flags and saying "mine."
Derscon, what are you smoking? This isn't good reasoning, unless you mean circular reasoning. Check it:

"I don't stake my current geopolitical claims on the NS-SWG map, because it doesn't reflect the current geopolitical state, because I don't stake my current geopolitical claims on the NS-SWG map..."

Try again. : /
Thrashia wrote:Arizona, I agree completely with you. There is no need to speak with the players themselves directly, because I recognize their claims as simply being another, different, SWG to begin with. Those however that choose to be part of our SWG I welcome. In point of fact, Red Talons has already approached me with asking about territory within the SWG; and I'm more than happy to compromise and RP with people that want to be part of it.
You're sending mixed signals here. You're giving this indication that you've withdrawn the SWG from the community to be your alliance's own private playground, which is both impossible and wrong. ICly it's impossible for a single player - or a single group - to police an entire galaxy; just look at IRON, who get barked down for trying to do it with just half of one. OOCly it's wrong and impossible, because like it or not, the continuity of your galaxy is entwined with our own. Kanuckistan has gates at Kyoto, and I myself went on an expedition to the NS-SWG and was chased off by Unified Sith himself. I escaped with a scion of a species (kaleesh) that has since grown numerous within my own territories; they do, however, remember their roots. This is to say nothing of the activities of myriad other players, not the least of which including Allanea and TFU. You say you respect history, and our two galaxies have a mutual history, whether you like it or not. This map is an attempt to express that relationship and make it easier for new players to join into the story.

I love what the GE (as an alliance) has done; more effectively than any other group on NationStates - including us! - , they have created a coherent collective geopolitical history and been the face of the Star Wars universe on NS. You are perfectly right in asking new players to respect that history when settling in; where you are going wrong is refusing to accept their claims on the basis they do not immediately knock on your door first. Your philosophy here is tremendously short-sighted, and in the long term will lead to the stagnation and ruin of your alliance.

What I think the real shortcoming is, here, is one of functionality. The map doesn't do something for you, the GE, that you need it to do. What is it? Once Mindset gets some free time, I am sure his attention will turn back to the map, and adding features of it. How can it be improved to suit your needs?
[center]Wit ye well, that when no good men remain to stand against those who choose evil, what will remain to restrain them from unleashing their dark designs?[/center]
~Anikar


{Back Burner}
User avatar
Thrashia
The Mindset's Bitch
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:22 am
Prefix: The
Name: Myenyan Collective

Re: Question

Post by Thrashia »

Arizona Nova wrote: If you know me, you know that, probably more than anyone else in this game, that I deeply respect consistent history. I have kept a meticulous record of my own RPs, and have often (very often... just ask Central Facehuggeria) put a bug in people's ears to pour out their history onto the ESUSWiki, no matter the form they do it in.

As well, since we first considered adding the SWG, I've been eager to have the GE on board, because no matter what our inter-alliance history, your alliance is one of the few in the game - save Yut - that could be considered a peer to our own in terms of size and influence. Which is why I'm confused at your gregariousness toward the map; what functionality does it lack that you need to express the history of the NS-SWG?
It does not lack any functionality in any respect to my needs regarding historical-rp continuance. I think it fits perfectly with what any person could possibly need as far as maps go. I add, that this is one of the greatest advancements in a single person/group in doing their best to define the worlds we here on NS have chosen to create. I think you're stilling missing the essence of my objections, which I'll explain in further detail bellow in response to other points you made.
Arizona Nova wrote: Historical RP precedent is well and fine, but it can be taken too far. If we demand everyone have RP precedent for territories they claim, it becomes impossible for people to join the game; it's a chicken and the egg problem.
I disagree on principle, though at the same time I recognize what you are saying. I myself started as a nation on a made up continent on one of the many Earths in MT and then transfered myself to the SWG when I met Sithy and others through my old friend Parlim.
Arizona Nova wrote: Derscon, what are you smoking? This isn't good reasoning, unless you mean circular reasoning. Check it:

"I don't stake my current geopolitical claims on the NS-SWG map, because it doesn't reflect the current geopolitical state, because I don't stake my current geopolitical claims on the NS-SWG map..."

Try again. : /
What I mean by this statement goes back to the question about precedent. Because our SWG has such a rich and vibrant history that involves many nations and has become a bedrock for our characters and nations, I take it as an affront to that time and effort spent writing and experiencing those RPs when I look at the mindset map and see thirty-odd systems plotted down in the SWG, appearing, apparently, out of the blue without forthwith explanation or RP-legitimizing.

If it's as little as including in their factbook history section "and we arrived when the Great Plague wiped out most of the known galaxy and our colonists discovered these emptied worlds and settled on them," then I would say, 'hey, there's a bit of background that fits with the continuity of our world.' I can totally comprehend that and go with the segue that that particular person presented; and thus accept it as a valid reason for him/her being present.
Arizona Nova wrote: You're sending mixed signals here. You're giving this indication that you've withdrawn the SWG from the community to be your alliance's own private playground, which is both impossible and wrong. ICly it's impossible for a single player - or a single group - to police an entire galaxy; just look at IRON, who get barked down for trying to do it with just half of one. OOCly it's wrong and impossible, because like it or not, the continuity of your galaxy is entwined with our own.
I think you misunderstood me here again. The Galactic Empire Alliance has not withdrawn the SWG from the NS community. (I mean, as I write, I'm in the middle of conquering a small system in the MWG so that a stable warp gate system can be made to link the two of the galaxies.) And I would never be so arrogant as to claim that the SWG was the GE's private playground. That might has been Sithy's SOP in the past, but things have definitely changed.

What I meant, and continue to state, is simply that if a person is going to claim a spot on the map, at least try to give their presence some legitimacy by RP and thereby establishing a basis for their nation so that if my nation encounters them they don't say something along of the lines "the great spaghetti monster god appeared and poof we existed." Especially if they are claiming territory that I or others already own or have influence in. You wouldn't like it if you woke up one day and found a trailer in your backyard and the occupants said that they were there because they thought no one would mind or that no one owned it. You'd want a damned good reason and maybe a tenets fee. But that's a bit of an extreme example, but hopefully you get my point this time.
Arizona Nova wrote: I love what the GE (as an alliance) has done; more effectively than any other group on NationStates - including us! - , they have created a coherent collective geopolitical history and been the face of the Star Wars universe on NS. You are perfectly right in asking new players to respect that history when settling in; where you are going wrong is refusing to accept their claims on the basis they do not immediately knock on your door first. Your philosophy here is tremendously short-sighted, and in the long term will lead to the stagnation and ruin of your alliance.

What I think the real shortcoming is, here, is one of functionality. The map doesn't do something for you, the GE, that you need it to do. What is it? Once Mindset gets some free time, I am sure his attention will turn back to the map, and adding features of it. How can it be improved to suit your needs?
And again, just to stress and clarify again, I have no problems with the functionality of the map. I think it's awesome. Better than when twinkies were invented. All I am objecting to is the blatant and rather disparaging planting of random flags/dots on the map and players saying that that is their territory when it is placed in a location that is obviously not theirs or is in a location that would require them to give a good explanation as to how they got there in the first place.

So long as you give me that explanation, then I'm hunky-dory.
"You served too long under Lord Vader, Captain. I have no qualms about accepting a useful idea merely because it wasn't my own. My position and ego are not at stake here."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
Balrogga
ESUS Testicle Monster
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Question

Post by Balrogga »

User avatar
Thrashia
The Mindset's Bitch
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:22 am
Prefix: The
Name: Myenyan Collective

Re: Question

Post by Thrashia »

Balrogga wrote:I loved the Zombieland reference...

...Twinkies!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BdXZPcE3eA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwpgJVyD_Cs
Who doesn't love Zombieland? :D
"You served too long under Lord Vader, Captain. I have no qualms about accepting a useful idea merely because it wasn't my own. My position and ego are not at stake here."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
User avatar
Arizona Nova
GENTLEMEN, BEHOLD!
Posts: 3703
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2004 8:11 pm
Prefix: The Reconstituted Kingdom
Name: Arizona Nova

Re: Question

Post by Arizona Nova »

Then we'll agree to disagree. Nobody RPs a claim and then makes a claim when starting - nobody I know, and not myself - they make a claim and then build RP around it; and if necessary, defend from the repercussions of walking into a certain area. I basically stuck a pin in the M103 star cluster when I began, regardless of what anyone was doing at the time, and I've built from there. Your demand that people RP first then make claims is not newb-friendly, and mark my words is going to hurt your alliance in the long-term. Even if it legitimizes things IC, OOCly it basically states "you can't play here unless you run your existence by us first," which new players wishing to do SW RP are not necessarily going to see or care about, and your demand that they do is likely going to provoke the opposite reaction and encourage them to casually ignore you while doing their own thing. Take the ESUS for example; the RP test is a barrier to entry to try and keep out noobs, but it doesn't demand people include what amounts to a disclaimer in their history; it's totally canon-optional.
Thrashia wrote: If it's as little as including in their factbook history section "and we arrived when the Great Plague wiped out most of the known galaxy and our colonists discovered these emptied worlds and settled on them," then I would say, 'hey, there's a bit of background that fits with the continuity of our world.' I can totally comprehend that and go with the segue that that particular person presented; and thus accept it as a valid reason for him/her being present.
If it's such a little thing, why demand it? It makes no difference whatsoever if someone includes that from the get-go or discovers this fact later on, ICly or OOCly.
Thrashia wrote:What I meant, and continue to state, is simply that if a person is going to claim a spot on the map, at least try to give their presence some legitimacy by RP and thereby establishing a basis for their nation so that if my nation encounters them they don't say something along of the lines "the great spaghetti monster god appeared and poof we existed." Especially if they are claiming territory that I or others already own or have influence in. You wouldn't like it if you woke up one day and found a trailer in your backyard and the occupants said that they were there because they thought no one would mind or that no one owned it. You'd want a damned good reason and maybe a tenets fee. But that's a bit of an extreme example, but hopefully you get my point this time.
Emphasis mine; I get your point perfectly fine, it's just that it's a bad point. I highlighted the sections that betray your mentality; that, somehow, the space of the NS-SWG is *yours* as the Galactic Empire; I've already stated that, ICly, it's functionally impossible to effectively claim a swath of galaxy as being under any one nation's or group's control.

It all comes down to this: individual history comes about as a byproduct of action. Maybe 1%, if not less, of everything in my history can be attributed to pre-construction; everything else in there has been facets added by one RP or another over the six years I've played the game. What you're asking is an unreasonable amount of pre-construction in order to ensure that the collective history (but implicitly, the ego) of the GE is sufficiently stroked; it's not player-friendly and is only likely to provoke the opposite reaction. On some subconscious level, I am sure you recognize this, which is why you feel it's necessary to post these complaints with us, rather than the people making the claims.

As well, look at this from a long-term standpoint. Aside from my point that you're crippling your own community by demanding this pre-construction, then consider that, in all likelihood, those people making the claims and then not backing them up with RP or otherwise are likely going to eventually lose interest in the game, and CTE, at which point their claims just become interesting footnotes on the map that could provide for interesting avenues of RP for you later on.

Always remember this: NationStates is free-form RP, and the barriers you set down are reasonable insofar as players are willing to accept them. If you see a lot of players ignoring your barrier, it means the problem is on your end, and you should rethink the exact terms of its functionality. There are ways to get what you want - recognition of the crafted history of the NS Galactic Empire - aside from demanding a pointless disclaimer before the nation even begins roleplaying.
[center]Wit ye well, that when no good men remain to stand against those who choose evil, what will remain to restrain them from unleashing their dark designs?[/center]
~Anikar


{Back Burner}
User avatar
Thrashia
The Mindset's Bitch
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:22 am
Prefix: The
Name: Myenyan Collective

Re: Question

Post by Thrashia »

I think we'll just agree to disagree then. My basis for rp-legitimacy in the claiming of territory is simply the unwritten rule that I and the rest of the GE and most members of the SWG use and prefer. In no way is it meant to be a standard for all of NS. I implied this rule as a necessity for debunking the mindset map claims, and making it clear that we of the GE do not recognize it and its claims as legitimate; and to make it clear that, for it to continue being a viable map, that it should be made clear that it is a separate SWG and not the "true" one which we presently reside in.
Arizona Nova wrote:There are ways to get what you want - recognition of the crafted history of the NS Galactic Empire - aside from demanding a pointless disclaimer before the nation even begins roleplaying.
We already have recognition as you yourself proved and therefore I can attest to the statement that my or my alliance's ego is not at stake here. And there is always a point in trying to gain an understanding of a fellow player's background and history.
"You served too long under Lord Vader, Captain. I have no qualms about accepting a useful idea merely because it wasn't my own. My position and ego are not at stake here."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn
Locked