29-01-2025, 10:20 PM
You all know where Kalistan stands.
If Kalistan could have done so, Baltusia would already be part of Kalistan, and I would have done it even if other players were playing there if I could have.
Me advocating for changes to the rules to benefit me is quite self serving. If I was anyone else I would say "Thank you Doc for your opinion, though we already knew what your vote would be" and then move on.
My only real contribution to the discussion then would be to say that I would advocate against unlimited invasion. Because there would legit be some players, (not me of course) who would take way more than their fair share, and those are the people I would argue against allowing to take anything. So if you can't make a rule that is universally applicable to all, you shouldn't make the rule.
I also agree that there should be no way to force PLAYERS to participate in RPs they don't want to participate in. If Kalistan is faced by an invasion by someone who refuses to plan anything or admit loss, for example, and presents us with a no win scenario (for Kalistan that is) I have zero incentive to participate on any level, and don't think anyone should be allowed to make me.
That said, there is no "agency" per se like that in an empty country: I wouldn't be forcing Baltusian players to participate in an RP because they don't exist. That's different.
Nor is this statement necessarily accurate: "...most people can find players to participate if the scenario is interesting enough," because what is extremely interesting to me (i.e. annexing Baltusia and permanently affixing it to Kalistan) is clearly not interesting to the x-number of other players who would rather do nothing in their own countries.
I guess I can see both sides of this discussion.
If Kalistan could have done so, Baltusia would already be part of Kalistan, and I would have done it even if other players were playing there if I could have.
Me advocating for changes to the rules to benefit me is quite self serving. If I was anyone else I would say "Thank you Doc for your opinion, though we already knew what your vote would be" and then move on.
My only real contribution to the discussion then would be to say that I would advocate against unlimited invasion. Because there would legit be some players, (not me of course) who would take way more than their fair share, and those are the people I would argue against allowing to take anything. So if you can't make a rule that is universally applicable to all, you shouldn't make the rule.
I also agree that there should be no way to force PLAYERS to participate in RPs they don't want to participate in. If Kalistan is faced by an invasion by someone who refuses to plan anything or admit loss, for example, and presents us with a no win scenario (for Kalistan that is) I have zero incentive to participate on any level, and don't think anyone should be allowed to make me.
That said, there is no "agency" per se like that in an empty country: I wouldn't be forcing Baltusian players to participate in an RP because they don't exist. That's different.
Nor is this statement necessarily accurate: "...most people can find players to participate if the scenario is interesting enough," because what is extremely interesting to me (i.e. annexing Baltusia and permanently affixing it to Kalistan) is clearly not interesting to the x-number of other players who would rather do nothing in their own countries.
I guess I can see both sides of this discussion.
Primary: Institutionalist Party of Kalistan (IPoK), 5146-
Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-
Inactive:
Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK), 2591-