Free Consent of War Guidelines

[Lee Young-suk]

I was thinking that we need to set other guidelines or likely rules about this free consent. As i am not a moderator, i began to post about it right here.

And these are some of my ideas about the guidelines:

1. No God Modding

Yeah. Same as what has written on the NatRP guidelines and i guess all of you have undersand about this. This rule means that none of us has god or likely-god abilities.

In case of war, you cannot summon wild animals to help you, summon earthquake or any natural disasters to attack your opponents.

This would also mean that you and your troops are not bulletproof and immortal. Eventhough you may owned nuclear bunker, armors or etc it doesn't mean you are not able to be killed.

Is this mean that we will be killed and death?

Yes or No, it depends on your skill to plan "how to avoid from assassination atempts". You may owned a lot of bodyguards with snipers, build strong vehicles like Air Force One or Caddillac One, build bunkers and etc. This means you have to prepare strategies to counter any kind of assassinations.

2. You cannot use weapons or technology that you have never built 

If you want to launch missiles across the Atlantic Ocean that means you must have ICBM technology and test first. If you want to have Nuclear weapons means you have to began Manhattan Project first. If you want to strike a nation means you have militarized first. 

This to avoid stupid super weapons that immediately appear when a nation is almost defeated by his opponent.

If someone said "I have built this weapons since my nation founded"

Then, why didn't you announce it and let everyone knew. This might cause global Militarization but it is fine since this is a part of politics. Don't militarize if you don't want other nations compete against you.

P.S. Don't forget that there is a rule said that you cannot build technology overnight. Means you have to militarize earlier. 

3. Determination of the Winner and Loser on a war

We don't need this really. Then, how if both sides declare theirself as the winner? 

It is fine, in the Korean War both North and South declared as the winner but actually none of them gained "victory". So, let them playing politic by lobbying with international community to gain recognition as the victory.

Just like Israel, they won the war and rule Palestine but some Arab and Muslim states are not recognized it. They won the war but they got no recognition from some states and this doesn't become a serious problem for them.

But i believe that if you fight-fight and keep fighting, the International Community can know "who deserves to be the winner and the legal authority of your territory".

Is this mean that the War will last for a long time?

Yes, but there are a lot of options such as cease-fire, peace agreement or you may ask other nations to help you to finish the war. This may help you to make shorter the time of war.

4. Occupation and Colonization

If you're being occupied it doesn't mean the world has ended. You may resist and fight as long as possible until you get your homeland back. 

Just like Polish government when the Germans occuppied them in World War II. They established underground government and you can do the same as this one.

If the the nation that occuppied you give you "vassal" status means you are allowed whether to be a vassal or keep fighting as rebels. 

The other nations are allowed to help the rebels to gain independence by supplying weapons as what the guideline number second stated "You cannot use weapons that you have never built". Thus, you may ask weapons or technology to declare "War of Independence".

5. Roleplay about action not reaction

You have to roleplay like this

The Republican Air Force launched 34 P-51 Mustang targeting a military facility of the Empire.

Not like this

The Republican Air Force launched 34 P-51 Mustang. The aircrafts equipped with a heavy bomb and dropped it on a military facility of the Empire. Kaboom. Everyone in the facility killed including Gen John Doe.

If you didn't get any response from your opponent within a day means you won the battle and destroyed your target. But if your opponent responsed by launching counter-attack means you are failed.

Is this mean that the defender is always win?

No, if the defender have no weapons to counter your strike it means you won the battle (Remember "You cannot use the weapons that you have never built"). And you are still able to win if you are attacking with 10 F-35 eventhough your enemy owned 100 P-51.

So, keep modernize and equipped your military if you don't want to be a loser.

6. The same rules for espionage and covert operations

You cannot do espionages if you don't even have agents. And you cannot counter any kind of espionages if you don't have counter intelligence capabilities.

You can do assassination atempts to a leader by using your agents and any other operations such as supplying freedom fighters or sabotages. But if you don't have it you cannot do that.

The guidelines for espionage is the same as war guidelines. 

That’s all my ideas for guidelines. Perhaps you can add or edit that guidelines.

Thanks,

P.S. I don't mean to take over Sven Arnav's job and i withdrew because the rules were not completed so let's begin to set up the rules. 

NatRP will be great if there are a lot of interactions

 

 

 

[Lelouch Vi Britannia]

*Waits for Mogar to say something*
I otherwise feel inclined to like some of it.
Don't forget TACTICS!

[Ikhan]

I'd just like to add something to rule No #1. If it's in your lore, the technology can be used to a certain degree. Also, the technology must have at least one flaw in it to be properly used.

Otherwise, I like this.
waits for the flame war

[Mogar]

I have no issues with any of this for the most part!

[Lee Young-suk]

I am waiting for Moderator (Erin Brokovich) and the others

[Olive Penderghast]

14 hours ago, Lee Young-suk said:

1. No God Modding

Yeah. Same as what has written on the NatRP guidelines and i guess all of you have undersand about this. This rule means that none of us has god or likely-god abilities.

In case of war, you cannot summon wild animals to help you, summon earthquake or any natural disasters to attack your opponents.

This would also mean that you and your troops are not bulletproof and immortal. Eventhough you may owned nuclear bunker, armors or etc it doesn't mean you are not able to be killed.

There is no reason to have two rules that are essentially the same. Everyone is still required to follow every rule and Guidelines found here:

The only except is the consent rule, and that only applies to people who have signed up for the Free Consent Signup that strips the need for consent. You can find the people on this list here:

 

14 hours ago, Lee Young-suk said:

If you didn't get any response from your opponent within a day means you won the battle and destroyed your target. But if your opponent responsed by launching counter-attack means you are failed.

Too short of a window, some people have lives outside of PnW. Three days is where I'll accept a time limit.

 

14 hours ago, Lee Young-suk said:

6. The same rules for espionage and covert operations

You cannot do espionages if you don't even have agents. And you cannot counter any kind of espionages if you don't have counter intelligence capabilities.

You can do assassination atempts to a leader by using your agents and any other operations such as supplying freedom fighters or sabotages. But if you don't have it you cannot do that.

The guidelines for espionage is the same as war guidelines. 

That’s all my ideas for guidelines. Perhaps you can add or edit that guidelines

Wouldn't this follow the Godmodding rule in the Official Rules and Guidelines...?

[Mogar]

2 minutes ago, Erin Brockovich said:

Too short of a window, some people have lives outside of PnW. Three days is where I'll accept a time limit.

Ok, I skipped over that section, I'd rather it was a week or two than even 3 days, since that affords people little time to actually take an hour or whatever to actually look into the wall of text that could be written, analyze it, and think of a potential counter strategy.

[Olive Penderghast]

8 minutes ago, Mogar said:

Ok, I skipped over that section, I'd rather it was a week or two than even 3 days, since that affords people little time to actually take an hour or whatever to actually look into the wall of text that could be written, analyze it, and think of a potential counter strategy.

I'm fine with it being a week. I just don't agree with it being only 1 day.

[Mogar]

I had assumed of course, just saying I also disagree with the day part, since I missed that sentence my first read through.

[Lee Young-suk]

21 minutes ago, Erin Brockovich said:

There is no reason to have two rules that are essentially the same. Everyone is still required to follow every rule and Guidelines found here:

The only except is the consent rule, and that only applies to people who have signed up for the Free Consent Signup that strips the need for consent. You can find the people on this list here:

Yes, there is no reason to have two rules that are essentially the same. But it is essential to re-stated it and make it more clear on how to interpret this rule on Free Consent arena. 

Too short of a window, some people have lives outside of PnW. Three days is where I'll accept a time limit.

I was thinking that "If you cannot active everyday and aren't smart enough, don't go to war" but it is no problem to change it since it was just a suggestion and idea

Wouldn't this follow the Godmodding rule in the Official Rules and Guidelines...?

It was mean that in covert and espionage operations, you must also no god-modding, roleplay about action not reaction, and you cannot use the weapons that you have never built. 

 

Edited July 5, 2017 by Lee Young-suk

[Olive Penderghast]

2 minutes ago, Lee Young-suk said:

Yes, there is no reason to have two rules that are essentially the same. But it is essential to re-stated it and make it more clear on how to interpret this rule on Free Consent arena. 

Not really. People will have their threads locked and possibly be given a verbal/warning for violating the rules the Moderation team have already set into place. Theres no reason for it. If they violate the rule, the Mod team will redirect them to the Rules and Guideline post. 

 

3 minutes ago, Lee Young-suk said:

I was thinking that "If you cannot active everyday and aren't smart enough, don't go to war" but it is no problem to change it since it was just a suggestion and idea

There is no reason to exclude members who can't be as active as you, or what you believe to be "smart" enough to be included. I don't appreciate you making comments implying that you are more intelligent than the person who may be a full time student or a full time worker, that has barely any time to be on PnW. Life > PnW and I will not have a rule that will exclude anybody. 

 

5 minutes ago, Lee Young-suk said:

26 minutes ago, Erin Brockovich said:

It was mean that in covert and espionage operations, you must also no god-modding, roleplay about action not reaction, and you cannot use the weapons that you have never built. 

 

In my opinion, it still falls in the God-modding guidelines. 

Literally still does not need a separate thread for Free-Consent players. The only thing the free-consent slip does is take away your right to report when someone attacks or includes you in their RP without your direct consent, the rest of the rules still apply, and will be enforced either way.

[Lee Young-suk]

3 minutes ago, Erin Brockovich said:

There is no reason to exclude members who can't be as active as you, or what you believe to be "smart" enough to be included. I don't appreciate you making comments implying that you are more intelligent than the person who may be a full time student or a full time worker, that has barely any time to be on PnW. Life > PnW and I will not have a rule that will exclude anybody. 

 

 

I didn't say that i am more intelligent than anyone here and i didn't suggest to exclude any members who cannot be active. 

And whatever you decide about this idea, i will accept it. 

[Cheonsa]

I'm okay with that. Any suggestion I had in mind has already been said by Mogar and Saarai.

[Olive Penderghast]

I'm not going to approve a separate set of  guidelines. Like I have said, the original guidelines still are in effect, even for the Ayers that signed the Free Consent waiver. That only makes it where I can be lazy and not give out warns to players in that list for consent reasonings.