To the NESing Community

[EQandcivfanatic]

I couldn't say, you haven't been in an NES of mine for a good long while.

 

[Amon Savag]

Good post. As known, my style of NES would be much less moderator fiat, and more consequence based. You can surprise invade your ally of over a century (And no moderator should stop this from happening), but the consequences will be dire (Rather than the moderator just saying "No. That's absurd and unrealistic"). At the end of the day, the players are here to play a game, and letting them have at it is to me (And probably to the players...) more rewarding than having a moderator constantly over your shoulder telling you "no". That is said with things like researching death rays in the 1100s in mind that should be mod-blocked.

 

[Milarqui]

I have played at several NESes run by you, and most of them have been quite good.
- ABNW: tried to play as Greece, the game ended just before I joined.
- TWTUD2: played as Andalusia. Game lasted a couple of turns. Damn.
- ABNW2: played as Denmark. Got to put a couple of nice ideas to make the NES better, one of which you liked loads (the Olympic Games). Those traitor Icelanders backstabbed me when they should have known better and stayed with the Empire that gave them everything. When the war came, it took me only 2 turns to lose the mainland, and the only reason I managed to do anything at all was thanks to my defences at Nijeria, and even those were beset by bad moments when the bastard locals decided to backstab me even further. (I think you had something to do about it *glare*).
- ABNW3: nothing to comment on. I think I played a bit on Venezuela, but not much.
- BOTWAWKI: finally, a NES in which I was able to succeed! My Jeffersonian Libertarians became the Liberty Commonwealth, expanded, and even though I had several idiots running around *coughCachinocough* I managed to expand enough to become one of the main nations in the post-nuclear war of the Fallout Universe.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Good post. As known, my style of NES would be much less moderator fiat, and more consequence based. You can surprise invade your ally of over a century (And no moderator should stop this from happening), but the consequences will be dire (Rather than the moderator just saying "No. That's absurd and unrealistic"). At the end of the day, the players are here to play a game, and letting them have at it is to me (And probably to the players...) more rewarding than having a moderator constantly over your shoulder telling you "no". That is said with things like researching death rays in the 1100s in mind that should be mod-blocked.

I used to disagree with you, but frankly, more unrealistic than betraying a 100-year ally is even having a hundred year ally.

 

[Amon Savag]

I used to disagree with you, but frankly, more unrealistic than betraying a 100-year ally is even having a hundred year ally.

Indeed... *rubs chin*

 

[Amon Savag]

I remember a time where France in motherhen take 2 sold it's colonies and it's navy so that it could wage a continental war, which it lost and accepted a treaty that was so repulsive that it disolved into 5 different states, is more the type of thing I'm thinking of, rather than my above example of invading a long-lasted ally by surprise. You can sell your navy and you can sell your colonies... But losing the war which you sold all of your national prestige for, and accepting a treaty that would be completely ridiculous for any country to accept under the worst circumstances would obviously bring about regime (and in this case even player) change. Some mods would have said that the selling of these resources or the acceptance of the treaty accepted would have been unrealistic and mod-blocked one of these various actions. I simply let the dominoes fall, and I find it rather rewarding. Even then, though, I find myself in a fiat situation where I ask myself "What should the consequences be", and "Why would they be more dire in this situation than the last", to which I may ask myself in the end "Why didn't I just god-mod and not have to worry about the consequences?" Since I last played a NES, I have been hard at ponder thinking over the question of NES, and I've grown out of the "Crusade against the god-mod" stage I had been in for so long, and I've realised that in the end you're going to get the moderator out of the game. You're simply going to have to deal with him (or her) in either the decision process or in the consequences after the decision has been made. My personal decision is to watch consequences for stupidity, rather than telling stupidity "No".

 

[Warman17]

Even when conniving against each other, relations between players should never be determined by their actions in an NES.

Here Here. I think I've been decimated three times now by crezth and have never disliked him personally.

Also, as a former mod I'll be among the first to admit I've sometimes forced events to play in ways I want them to happen rather than as they necessarily should though on the whole I try to be impartial with RNG. In fact one of the reasons why I love moding boardgame style NESes more is they remove a lot of the capacity for me to "cheat" as mod (they're also easier to manage )

 

[Matt0088]

I remember a time where France in motherhen take 2 sold it's colonies and it's navy so that it could wage a continental war, which it lost and accepted a treaty that was so repulsive that it disolved into 5 different states, is more the type of thing I'm thinking of, rather than my above example of invading a long-lasted ally by surprise. You can sell your navy and you can sell your colonies... But losing the war which you sold all of your national prestige for, and accepting a treaty that would be completely ridiculous for any country to accept under the worst circumstances would obviously bring about regime (and in this case even player) change. Some mods would have said that the selling of these resources or the acceptance of the treaty accepted would have been unrealistic and mod-blocked one of these various actions. I simply let the dominoes fall, and I find it rather rewarding. Even then, though, I find myself in a fiat situation where I ask myself "What should the consequences be", and "Why would they be more dire in this situation than the last", to which I may ask myself in the end "Why didn't I just god-mod and not have to worry about the consequences?" Since I last played a NES, I have been hard at ponder thinking over the question of NES, and I've grown out of the "Crusade against the god-mod" stage I had been in for so long, and I've realised that in the end you're going to get the moderator out of the game. You're simply going to have to deal with him (or her) in either the decision process or in the consequences after the decision has been made. My personal decision is to watch consequences for stupidity, rather than telling stupidity "No".

hehe I don't remember the treaty being that horrible though...

 

[Azale]

TLDR

You reap what you sow. Speedy updates only get you so much goodwill.

 

[SKILORD]

lmfao, very eloquent.

Well, I always thought you were a great mod EQ, and I don't mind your style. You do lose orders sometimes, and maybe one of the reasons I never noticed any problems were because you were never vindictive to me.

And I'm sorry, but what mod here can't be guilty of some form of god-modding here and there?

lmfao, so true, you guys should have seen how OP the Lunar States in the Apolyton version of Ad Infinitum were. When I read EQ apologizing for that I thought "might as well apologize for all the updates he ever posted late while he's apologizing for the trivial stuff." When this genre was invented we were all, like, 12 dude. It was bound to happen. Who's giving you crap? We aren't 12 anymore, we can go beat them up easy.

I'm glad that people see it as more of a taboo to play as a nation in your own game now, because it does curb that, while I find that straight multiple NPC's that nobody feels inclined to god-mod still let the moderator have an input into the creative direction of the story and the strategic and cultural direction of the world. I also like the synthesis of board game balance and story driven forward motion that has developed. On the other hand I've got to ask if the self proclaimed defender of story driven games has seen the bulky statistics he developed for his latest game?

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

@SKILORD: Yeah, young me would be very disappointed lol. What a long, strange trip it's been.

TLDR

You reap what you sow. Speedy updates only get you so much goodwill.

I thought you had died. When was the last time you were in one of my NESes? 2007? Earlier?

EDIT: I don't feel good about that. If you'd care to list whatever greivances you may have, feel free to. Or don't.

 

[Thlayli]

I used to disagree with you, but frankly, more unrealistic than betraying a 100-year ally is even having a hundred year ally.

Couple more years and the 100 year anniversary of WWI will be coming up.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

And who has been allied consecutively, without any breaks, for the past 100 years? Feels a little off topic though.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Depends on your definition of alliance. The Persian/Turkish border has been peaceful for a ludicrously long time, if I recall correctly, and good relations between Britain and the United States have gone on unbroken for well over a century now.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Good relations isn't a military alliance, which is what I assumed Amon Savag was referring to. Even considering the "special relationship" between the United States and United Kingdom, that took a break between the World Wars. But if the UK still joins us in all our wars in 2041, I'll accept the premise that a 100-year military alliance has existed.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Well, a military alliance that is active in every single war a nation gets involved with is quite uncommon, so if you qualify things like that then you won't get many long-lasting alliances at all.

 

[Dachs]

Depends on your definition of alliance. The Persian/Turkish border has been peaceful for a ludicrously long time, if I recall correctly,

Since the Ottomans were involved in an undeclared war in Iran between 1915 and 1918, that's probably not a good example.

They had a reasonably good nineteenth century, though.

On-topic, I've never actually been in an EQ NES that I can recall, and I haven't particularly felt the desire to, since many of the things that are apparently considered to be virtues in such a NES are, in my opinion, anything but.

Good to have a public Airing of Grievances, although it would've been more appropriate to do it five-ish months from now.

 

[Amon Savag]

You kids... lol. I'm sorry, EQ. I had no idea that my little comment would get this thread so far off topic.

 

[Luckymoose]

I could have sworn Georgia's downfall in ABNW2 would have made that list, btw! It still seems to good to be true for me.

The most heinous act to ever grace NESing! The downfall really pissed me off and made absolutely no sense.

@EQ: Good for you in standing up and writing this. However, as a historian I must argue that the events of OTL should never be used as the basis for the events in an alternative timeline for the reasoning that most of the events in our own history are solely dependent on that history. Making their existence in another timeline, without the prerequisites, nearly impossible.

Furthermore, NESers should chill with the Euro-American-centrism. The world is a vast and amazing place, Europe isn't god. :3

And who has been allied consecutively, without any breaks, for the past 100 years? Feels a little off topic though.

Portugal and England for 625 years :3

 

[Immaculate]

To make it clear, I did NOT say that you were a railroad mod. I merely stated that when I told others I was joining your NES they told me not to bother because they thought you were a railroad mod. I only mention this to clarify a point you make which I feel leaves the impression that I said you were a railroad moderator.

Anyway, the reason I left your NES was because I was unable to get orders in on time, not because of your moderating style. I made that clear to you. I have included the conversations we’ve had on this point below and drawn attention to the relevant sections with red bolded type.

I hope you will edit your introductory post to indicate that Immaculate brought to your attention that you were being referred to as a railroad moderator, or some such thing, instead of saying that I referred to you as such.

Immaculate referred to me on my thread as a “railroad mod.” Others have stated through private messages and instant messaging conversation (I’ll respect their rights to remain anonymous) that some individuals refer to me in this manner in their own less than constructive criticism (It’s only constructive if you tell me!) of how I moderate.

Domestic Politics:
Elections take place this year and the population, eager for a strong hand in the face of what they fear could be spontaneous re-ignition of the ‘civil war’ at any moment, vote in a conservative, military-minded president, Miguel Angel Moreno. And one of the first things that Moreno takes on is the run-away despotic rebels of the break-away Venezuelan provinces.

He immediately orders mobilization of the economy for war (represented by taking economic control to 45%) and the training of new soldiers and construction of new ships.

SHAM ELECTIONS RAISE ANGER IN NEW GRANADA. Bogota, Republic of New Granada. Simon Bolivar, hero of the war of independence against Spain, was ousted in what many believe to be rigged elections by his conservative opponent, Miguel Angel Moreno. The great popularity of Bolivar and the obvious support for him made the election results all the more unpopular among the people of New Granada. Regardless, President Moreno immediately announced the movement of the nation to a "war footing," seizing businesses, many of which were frequently owned by political opponents of his faction, and raising taxes to pay for an increase of the military. He has called for the reclamation of the provinces of Venezuela to the larger Republic. Regardless, his actions have led to an effective dictatorship of the presidency, and ending a true republic in New Granada as a war begins to rise. (-2 Stability)

Why did this happen?

I tried to add fluff about why the people would support a war and you turn it into a 'sham election' and the end of a republic.

@Immaculate: Well I wouldn't say it's the end of the republic, but while you did give a perfectly legitimate reason for war, that doesn't mean that your people have to buy it. Wanting have money is a perfectly good reason to take it all from someone else in a robbery. Doesn't mean that other people have to like it. As for why, well, it all plays into the fact that I've taken most of the choices out of my hands. I simply determined a number of possible results and that is what occurred.

I'm sorry but i wrote for my people to hold an election and vote in a conservative pro-military government.

Instead you have basically a coup take place. Where, oh where, did this come from? It simply doesn't make any sense. I can understand my complete failure in all things military- that stuff happens, but you basically ignored my orders and wrote your own.

I'm still waiting for an answer to this.

When i started this NES, i'd never played with your previously but the NES itself looked really interesting. I said as much to several players who will remain anonymous and they told me not to bother playing because you are a 'railroad' mod and you'd just ignore most of the orders and do your own thing. I said, "Well, it can't be that bad... lets give it a try." I want to have faith in you and i want to continue playing this NES but i don't really want to be involved in a game where my orders, which take some time to thoughtfully research and write out properly, are completely ignored or maliciously misinterpreted.

Anyway, if you want to explain what happened, thats great... If you don't want to bother, or you want to just say 'it is the way it is' or something similar, thats fine too. But the current explanation is very unsatisfactory. Sham elections? What the heck?

@Immaculate: You can write in whatever the hell you want. Won't make it true. Other moderators might give players 100% control over what their people think and do, but I have never done that. If that's the sort of NES you want to play, I suggest you look elsewhere.

Regardless, let's break it down step by step from my perspective. You sent me orders asking for a conservative government. I roll the dice to see the reaction of the population towards the establishment of a conservative government, this is something I'd do (and did) with any nation. The reaction of a large segment of your population, according to your dice, was highly negative towards the new government. This is part of removing such judgements out of my hands as they were in prior NESes. Now, you may notice that I said in the update "many believe" that the elections were rigged, not "they were rigged." Likewise, did you see any protests or an actual military rebellion? If you recall in 2000 (and in 1960, and several other occasions), there were acusations of fraud in the United States, didn't make it true. That covers the negative reaction to the election.

Now, the change from Republic to Presidential Dictatorship. I had to pondor over this. This was less random than the prior description, mostly because there was no way to randomize it. I had to take into account several factors. First, the above mentioned results of the election. Second, the change of control from 15% to 45%. This isn't just taxes. This is seizing stores, factories, and farms for the betterment of the war effort. Those resources have to come from somewhere. The authority to do so, while perhaps justified with a war, gives the president quite a bit more power. Therefore the "Presidential Dictatorship" stat. This doesn't mean that you can't (or won't have elections) when they come around again in 1834. It simply means that your president has extreme levels of executive control. For comparison, if I were doing the stats for 1863 United States, that would be a Presidential Dictatorship under Lincoln much like your own (Same goes for Roosevelt in WW2). Throughout history many dictators have started this way, and the real test is if you choose to return power to the masses upon the conclusion of the crisis.

Lastly, about military orders. I don't believe you were asking about this, but yes, as I discovered with my updating process, no plan survives making contact with the enemy.

thank you for taking the time to explain the process.

I don't really have time to submit any orders tonight after all (i havn't even read the update yet )

I want to apologize for the open comments i made after the first update. I should have written them in a private message.

Anyway, yeah, this is my withdrawal.

Have fun,
Immac.


EDIT: in response to the comment below i PMed you.

That said, i appreciate the candor of your post and the insight into the mind of a very good story-writer. I hope that when i have more free time i can rejoin either your current NES or your next one. I also hope that you and i can put this unpleasantness behind us. Certainly, your post suggests that you would be appreciative of my honesty, though i realize i should i have posted you privately instead of publicly (which i have apologized for).


EDIT: I applaud you for your courage in posting this. I don't currently have the guts to do so- maybe with more experience.