EI public relations

[DGNT]

Any questions, comments or EI-related discussion should take place here. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Burton K Wheeler]

What exactly is this? Is there a FAQ or website somewhere we can look at?

[DGNT]

Right now, no. Weve been doing this for so long with the same group that, well, everybody involved knows pretty much everything.

I'll explain though :)

Essentially, you pick a nation, pretty much any coloured bit on the map that isnt already taken. You can then RP as that nation, declaring war, establishing colonies, executing random people for the hell of it. Provided, of course, that is plausible for your nation to be doing that. China, for example, would hardly establish a liberal democracy during this period (IE: one of a horribly bloody civil war), and the United States President doesnt generally execute people just because hes had a bad day.

However, we are dedicated more to fun than observing history to the letter. On occasion our Rp's have gotten quite a-historical. We once had the United States declare war on Russia in 1870 for economic reasons, the Russians were getting too competitive and threatening to ruin the US economy.

However, we prefer to keep our start points in a range where, on a clear day, history is visible from the top of a mid-sized building ;)

[Burton K Wheeler]

So this was a game that was being played on another forum? I'll just watch the gameplay for a little bit before I ask any more stupid questions, then.

[Muse_Of_History]

The Mexican War is still on? WTF? That thing started seven years before, and occurred because Texas broke away, gained international recognition as a nation, and then got annexed by America. This means that Texas, a rogue state by Mexican Standards, gain international recognition DESPITE Mexico's whining. As a matter of fact, Texas threw off The Mexican Army not ten years before the War started. How is the Mexican War dragging on for 7 years, when America (significantly more powerful then Texas) is at war with it?

[DGNT]

Bald Imposter:
Fine with me. I like stupid questions, theyre usually easier to answer ;)

Muse of History:
Alt-hist. Mexico was far more stable in this history than IRL, their leaders were not quite so wasteful and didnt change quite so often. And the Mexican-American war didnt drag on, it only started last year, but hasnt broken into open warfare just yet. America is only supporting the Texans for now, and that in secret.

[Muse_Of_History]

Ah. So your saying the Americans are gun running for the Texan Revolutionaries? That makes significantly more sense. I thought the TL had the Texans (magically) breaking away from Mexico, but America didn't have the power to kick the crap out of Mexico after it had lost Texas.

Sorry, I'm a Texan, and I've studied A LOT about the Texan break away. I take it Santa Anna is not in the picture (man that guy just plain sucked as a military leader)? Man I'm such a nerd. I think I wanna join this...

[DGNT]

Aye, some of the Texans are trying to break away, and the Americans are supporting them.
However, the USA is getting nervous over Mexican troops and their evil oppression of right-thinking English-speaking white people, and is considering direct intervention.

[Mexico]

Mexico is going to be a reactionary government that looks suspiciously like the Ancien Régime, so much less Santa Anna going on (I think he will die in a particularly pleasing fashion...). I'm waiting on approval from the French player *coughFScough* to approve my using of French Bourbons who got booted out by Napoleon... Yes, the great Bourbons live on in the rising star of the Americas! :p

[DGNT]

Mexico has bee appointed as the 'High Official of Yelling at People', his job is to ensure historicalacity is preserved to a degree. Hes very good at yelling at people.
You will respect and fear the shiney red button on his hat.

[Mexico]

For my first act in my new position, I would like to officially yell obscene things at FS for not being on enough to give me nobles ;)

ATTENTION EUROPEANS WITH EXCESS NOBLES:
Mexico is looking for nobility to fill the void in its government. Nobles dating back to the Mexican Revolution needed, along with family members. Reactionaries prefered, moderates with open minds accepted. Bourbons or Habsburgs only please - Russians, Swedes, etc need not apply.

[Muse_Of_History]

What? You too good for my fleeing British folk?

[Mexico]

What? You too good for my fleeing British folk?
British nobility in general is FAR too liberal. I'm looking for ultra-royalist style nobles, not people who demand the King sign things like the Magna Carta.

[Muse_Of_History]

Dude. Fascist isn't Mexico?

[DGNT]

Viva la Fascista!

[Mexico]

Dude. Fascist isn't Mexico?
Fascism isn't around yet. Try reactionism. Quite popular in Europe until that business with the sweeping revolutions and remaining Monarchs desparately signing Constitutions to keep their heads.

[AaronH]

Heh there will be some Hapsburgs freeing Austria after the split which has occured take some of them.

[General_Paul]

Any questions, comments or EI-related discussion should take place here. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

...I've got a few dozen comments to start making.

Mexico: I'm happy that you've tried to make them more stable, however the Mexican-American War would not have just started last year. It would have been an 1844/45-47/48 affair, not 1854-whenever. The Mexicans after breaking away may have been pseudo-stable in OTL, and even in TTL they would have been pseudo-stable, not fully stable, good decision making, good choir boys. The Mexican government was totally corrupt and no ammount of stability or good decision making is going to stop that. You've made them way too powerful, and unrealistic IMHO.

Russia: Is this just one giant Russiawank scenario? Russia in Alaska is one thing, but Alaska in the PNW is another entirely. They got as far as Northern BC in OTL because of monetary restraints. No matter how badly Napoleon might have defeated Europe, Russia wouldn't be going farther than OTL Vancouver, BC. Washington, and Oregon were too far away to maintain total communications with any settlers. The fort in Northern California was one thing, but Russian cities in the PNW is just outrageous.

Great Britain: Here's where I get technical. WTF happened to GB!? You've got them turning into spineless dumbshits! The Danish event is so totally out of British character, its not even funny. A loss @ Trafalgar would have been a blow to British morale, but you've got Napoleon "Effing" Bonaparte enacting a BLOCKADE!? The British Empire was a worldwide empire, and she had a navy to match that. The British Navy had dozens of coastal guarding ships, as well as a majority of the European fleet deployed to blockade Napoleon's ports. Napoleon's fleet, even after a victorious Trafalgar, still has to regroup and sail out of Gibralter and into the N. Atlantic, and engage a still undefeated British Home Fleet. The French/Spanish navy may have been alright, but they were nowhere near the level of professionalism or experience that the British Navy was at.

To add insult to injury, you totally forgot the ineptitude of the Spanish Navy, and the genius that was Admiral Lord Nelson, and the "Crossing of the French T" at Trafalgar! Then, you've got in your preview that French forces land in the isles. Buddy, you need to pick up a history book, the British had thousands of soldiers in the isles as a garrisoning force and were just waiting for Napoleon to try to invade after 1800. This is the British Isles here, not some backwater island archipellago. A loss at Trafalgar is one thing, but an invasion of the isles!? It's a technical infesability for one thing, and for another, the British mentality had been, and always would be, in their mind, "Thank god we're not French. God is an Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, Englishman!" They would have gone down fighting and taken every Catholic-loving Frenchman with them that they could have. The British Isles campaign would have cost Napoleon so much in manpower that he would have had the military potential of modern Lebanon.

The British would also never sign over their colonies to the Dutch. No matter how bad the situation may have been, the colonies were more of an economic outlet than the isles were. They need the colonies badly, and would have gone down fighting in every colony they owned.

The United States: Like the Brits, are they just spineless idiots or something? After a Napoleonic victory in Europe, the USA would have taken advantage of the situation and gone into Canada, not let Napoleon's forces march into Quebec. Again, your history is a tad sketchy on that. If the Brits lost @ Trafalgar, and by some miracle of miracles, lands an army in the isles, the USA is going to take advantage of the situation and march an army into Canada and get the land they want, not let France take control of a vital, strategic colony in the new world. It'd be like the British selling Cape Colony to the Spanish, or Scotland to Germany, it just doesn't work.

And another thing, the USA would have targetted Mexico much earlier in TTL for a war of expansionism after Napoleon's defeat, not later on. If they don't go after Canada, the USA needs an outlet for expansion, and the Louisiana purchase only goes so far. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and most of the California coast is the most valuable piece of real estate on the Pacific coast for the USA. Remember this little thing called "Manifest Destiny," the whole Western Expansion period, and the "It's God's will that the United States shall spread from Sea to Shining Sea, Atlantic to Pacific, no one will stand in our way," mentality at work. You've got them turning into a spineless version of El Salvador. And, even worse, you'd then assume that they wouldn't have the economic/industrial/military potential to topple Mexico? The USA has enough industrial potential in 1840 to go into Mexico and topple the Mexican government, no matter how stable they are. Plus, they had a professional, well trained army that was experienced in fighting on the frontier that could have stomped on the Mexicans any time, anywhere.

US troops were volunteers, and conscripts (only at some times in the 19th Century) who knew what they were fighting for. The Mexican Army was a bunch of conscripts given basic training and told to go out and kill Yankees. They're going to go down hard.

As a final note, I understand that you've been doing this for a while, so my criticism of the TL may not be much to you, but for those of us who have posted on these boards for a while, it means something. I mean, you've got to understand our... hesitation and questioning of this whole thing. You kind of showed up out of nowhere, and got a sub-forum of your own from Ian and you're the only mod for this game.

I would like to lodge a formal request, in that case, to assign two mods from the Shared Worlds Forums, preferrably Bulg, P99, or Matt, to co-moderate these games to give some oversight for those of us who are a tad bit suspicious of gaming styles, and game set up. We've been doing this for almost three years, and we know how to run games, especially on our own boards. We've supported and run these games for nearly three years, and these are our boards and I would prefer to have at least one of the usual mods on this game along with yourself to give oversight for those of us who want to have the usual faces around.

For a positive, I love the game idea you've got here, but there are some holes in the TL that need to be filled, and issues that need to be resolved before some of us can pick up countries and move on with the game.

[DGNT]

As I didnt write the timeline, and Im not going to try to work out the reasoning of the French player (although I will say that I have absolute confidence in his ability to write alternate histories, since he has an account here and has for a LONG time, I understand) I will only address those issues which I came up with in regards to the scenario:

Regarding Mexico:
The corruption is still there, and Mexico is not fully stable. It somewhat resembles Rome during certain periods, the 'Praetorians' (IE: Presidential guards, Home Guard, whatever they are) can easily replace the President/Monarch/Whatever, whenever they want to.
The corruption is more like the corruption that went on in the US now, only its in the form of the government favoring the ranch owners, not the buisness owners.

Regarding Russia:
You seem to disregard the fact that Russia had settlements all over the Pacific coast. Fort Rossiya was fifty miles north of San Francisco and lasted (historically) until 1841. There were many other settlements which arent mentioned in most histories because the only accounts of them are written in Russian.
The Russians have long wanted the Oregon Country for their own. Why? Farm land. With the farm lands of that area they could supply Alaska without having to ship huge amounts of food across Siberia. Alaska could, for once, turn a bit of a profit.
The Russians did not take Canada militarily, they forced the French to cede the (relativly unpopulated) western half (or 2/3, anyway) to Russia at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. This included the Oregon Country.

The British:
See the thread in the AH-pre-1900 forum. About half the posters seem to consider it 'plausible' if hazerdous. Remember, more than one battle/war throughout history has been won on sheer luck against a vastly superior opponent.
Their colonies were sold for money in order to rebuild some portion of the British fleet, in accordance with the will of a British player who never signed on. I thought it looked rather nice, so I kept it. The Dutch are too often underestimated anyway.
And the event with Denmark was a historical battle, look it up. The British burned the Dutch fleet when they looked like they were siding with the French, its a very British act, and has happened (although not in that form) often in their history.

AS to your final note, dont you DARE try to patronize me. EI is only a year or so younger than AH.com, and we have plenty of experience RPing historical events. If you question our getting a sub-forum, talk to Ian. I spoke to him myself, and he seemed to like the idea of a merger.
I am willing to accept moderators from AH.com, PROVIDED they do not have authority over myself in regards to the EI forums. I will not be subject to political commisars looking over my shoulder to make sure I appease the local elite.
Its nice that you like our ideas, but if you dont like our style then I suggest that you leave.

[General_Paul]

As I didnt write the timeline, and Im not going to try to work out the reasoning of the French player (although I will say that I have absolute confidence in his ability to write alternate histories, since he has an account here and has for a LONG time, I understand) I will only address those issues which I came up with in regards to the scenario:

Regarding Mexico:
The corruption is still there, and Mexico is not fully stable. It somewhat resembles Rome during certain periods, the 'Praetorians' (IE: Presidential guards, Home Guard, whatever they are) can easily replace the President/Monarch/Whatever, whenever they want to.
The corruption is more like the corruption that went on in the US now, only its in the form of the government favoring the ranch owners, not the buisness owners.

Regarding Russia:
You seem to disregard the fact that Russia had settlements all over the Pacific coast. Fort Rossiya was fifty miles north of San Francisco and lasted (historically) until 1841. There were many other settlements which arent mentioned in most histories because the only accounts of them are written in Russian.
The Russians have long wanted the Oregon Country for their own. Why? Farm land. With the farm lands of that area they could supply Alaska without having to ship huge amounts of food across Siberia. Alaska could, for once, turn a bit of a profit.
The Russians did not take Canada militarily, they forced the French to cede the (relativly unpopulated) western half (or 2/3, anyway) to Russia at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. This included the Oregon Country.

The British:
See the thread in the AH-pre-1900 forum. About half the posters seem to consider it 'plausible' if hazerdous. Remember, more than one battle/war throughout history has been won on sheer luck against a vastly superior opponent.
Their colonies were sold for money in order to rebuild some portion of the British fleet, in accordance with the will of a British player who never signed on. I thought it looked rather nice, so I kept it. The Dutch are too often underestimated anyway.
And the event with Denmark was a historical battle, look it up. The British burned the Dutch fleet when they looked like they were siding with the French, its a very British act, and has happened (although not in that form) often in their history.

AS to your final note, dont you DARE try to patronize me. EI is only a year or so younger than AH.com, and we have plenty of experience RPing historical events. If you question our getting a sub-forum, talk to Ian. I spoke to him myself, and he seemed to like the idea of a merger.
I am willing to accept moderators from AH.com, PROVIDED they do not have authority over myself in regards to the EI forums. I will not be subject to political commisars looking over my shoulder to make sure I appease the local elite.
Its nice that you like our ideas, but if you dont like our style then I suggest that you leave.

In regards to...everything:

Mexico: Mild corruption is one thing, but historical Mexico's corruption was on par with the goddamn mob post-independence. They've got Central America which doesn't work because of the Federal Republic of Central America. A stable Mexican monarchy wouldn't work post-1820 anyways thanks to the rising levels of American settlers in Texas and in California. The Mexicans would have been dealing with problems caused by marauding Americans, armed natives, and the rising tide of Republicanism in the northern areas caused, once again, by the Americans.

Russia: Yes, I do know that the Russians had a few settlements up and down the Pac. Coast, but not in great numbers and not in large populations. Alaska was never a profittable venture for the Russians, not because of the lack of food, but because there's nothing there outside of natives, seals, and timber. The Russians may have been able to weasel their way into California with the fort 50 miles north of San Fran., but they wouldn't have gone outside of the fort. Why? Because it's Mexican territory! Alaska never turned a profit, I lived in that state, and the only thing the Russians got out of the venture was a few dozen shipments of fur seal, and a lot of empty land which they had an abundance of in Siberia.

Oregon Country, if the TL worked out as you...ahem explained, would have been then claimed by the USA as part of the Louisiana Purchase post-war, not left to the Russians. The Russians have to sail across the Bering Sea, and the N. Pacific to try and enforce their claim, the USA can just employ a few hundred trappers to take out the Russian settlers and enforce the US claim. And again, the British would never have ceded Canada. The North American markets were their largest.

BTW, who wrote this TL anyways? Is it Hashemite? If it is, you got gipped and you'll take more flames from other posters for this TL besides me if it was.

Britain: I did look up the battle and yes, you were right, they did torch the Danish fleet. The thread in the pre-1900 forum is alright at best. A Napoleonic victory in continental Europe is acceptable, a victory over the Isles is a Francewank scenario.

And y'know what, I've been posting on these forums for almost three years now. I've RP'd with these guys since August 2004, and we have a working system in place with our mods. We're not the ones who need to bow to your demands, you need to take our suggestions seriously. These aren't your boards and we aren't power elites or political commissars. These are our boards and we have a system in place that has developed for two years and is perfectly acceptable.

On these boards, everyone works together and splits power equally, and I will not be talked down to by someone who likes to think of themselves as the decider. We have authority on these boards, Matt, Bulg, and a few others have mod status on the SW forums for a reason: They're the ones who are best suited to co-moderate these games because they've had experience doing it for quite some time. You've just recently registered here and Ian gave you a sub-forum. I think it's great that he thought a merger was a good idea, but in a merger, both sides work together for an amicable agreement, not one side dominating the other and saying only their way works best.

You need to rethink both your tone, and your position. You'll find that powerwanks and godmodding countries don't work well here. We look over TL's and mods give final approval/denial to whatever TL/country you play. You'd do well to follow those ideas.

And finally, I don't need to take off. I'm not the one throwing his weight around trying to use age of gameplay as justification for an unfair advantage.

[Muse_Of_History]

General Paul: Dude... You might want to be a LITTLE more respectful with the Game Master. I've been gaming with games with one Mod for YEARS (DnD for instance), and I mean it, do not disrespect the game master, ever, its terrible protocol, and it has a tendency to get them to want to do everything against what you said. I've also GMed some, so I know. Further, If Ian's given him the all clear, then he has Ian's all clear, poor Timeline or not. I'm used to forums where the Mods word is law of course so you know.
DGNT: Unfortunately, the local elite is in fact the local elite, and they like to be heard, because their used to it. But the Mods are more inclined to meditating here, and choosing the results of battles in which another mod has a stake in so they don't god mod it to pieces. He's not in fact suggesting that your timeline be altered without your consent (I don't think so anyway); he's just saying he doesn't see you as a impartial mod.

[General_Paul]

General Paul: Dude... You might want to be a LITTLE more respectful with the Game Master. I've been gaming with games with one Mod for YEARS (DnD for instance), and I mean it, do not disrespect the game master, ever, its terrible protocol, and it has a tendency to get them to want to do everything against what you said. I've also GMed some, so I know. Further, If Ian's given him the all clear, then he has Ian's all clear, poor Timeline or not. I'm used to forums where the Mods word is law of course so you know.

I show respect by disagreeing with his stance. This isn't a dictatorship, this is a democracy on these boards. Yes, mods do sometimes rule in favor of one side or another in battles thanks to some pre-existing bias, but that's life man. We don't do "Game Masters" on the AH boards Muse, you should know that. We've got mods, and multiple ones at that, to give as fair and impartial of an outcome as possible. I'm not used to, nor do I think many of the players here are, taking orders from one mod as the final word of law/code/whatever. If Ian's given him the all clear, that's one thing. But, we try to make things as fair and balanced as possible, and it's worked out in the end. Sure, games do have problems lasting lately, but we're trying to move past that and one mod trying to dominate the sub-forum doesn't help.

The "power elites" around here are in their positions after showing their skill in games. Lately, these "power elites" have lost some of their sway which created a power vacuum which it would appear DGNT is trying to fill. I for one am not going to just let him fill that vacuum without additional authority figures from the SW forums standing alongside him, making sure the games are modded fairly and impartially.

[Matt]

General Paul: Dude... You might want to be a LITTLE more respectful with the Game Master. I've been gaming with games with one Mod for YEARS (DnD for instance), and I mean it, do not disrespect the game master, ever, its terrible protocol, and it has a tendency to get them to want to do everything against what you said. I've also GMed some, so I know. Further, If Ian's given him the all clear, then he has Ian's all clear, poor Timeline or not. I'm used to forums where the Mods word is law of course so you know.


Terrible irony there, not from you Muse, but well you know ;)


DGNT: I know you're use to doing things a certain way, but part of the good manners and coming into our "home" so to speak is to follow our standards of good behavior. We have gotten use to a certain way of doing things, and to have someone come in and start a subforum with in 4 posts can be seen as rather aburpt from our point of view. Perhaps running the TL in the form that it stands now through the Pre-1900 forum and get some feedback?

[General_Paul]

Terrible irony there, not from you Muse, but well you know ;)


DGNT: I know you're use to doing things a certain way, but part of the good manners and coming into our "home" so to speak is to follow our standards of good behavior. We have gotten use to a certain way of doing things, and to have someone come in and start a subforum with in 4 posts can be seen as rather aburpt from our point of view. Perhaps running the TL in the form that it stands now through the Pre-1900 forum and get some feedback?

That'd work. If you did it more along the lines of a XXth Cent. type TL where everyone involved can put their two cents in and develop a common TL and go from there would work out better. Matt, I couldn't have worded it better.

[Matt]

That'd work. If you did it more along the lines of a XXth Cent. type TL where everyone involved can put their two cents in and develop a common TL and go from there would work out better. Matt, I couldn't have worded it better.

Well a XXth Cent type of TL might take to long, I can see where there would be a certain rush to get something like this off the ground. But comments can be taken into consideration. I don't know what type of board that this used to be run on, it might have been an AH board, or it might have been a dedicated gaming board. But here we take the plausiblity issue fairly seriously even with the Forum Games. It's something that posters have come to expect.

It's a good idea for a game, if you search the original General Shared Worlds Chat I suggested something like it. Just running it through the ringer first would be good form.

[General_Paul]

Well a XXth Cent type of TL might take to long, I can see where there would be a certain rush to get something like this off the ground. But comments can be taken into consideration. I don't know what type of board that this used to be run on, it might have been an AH board, or it might have been a dedicated gaming board. But here we take the plausiblity issue fairly seriously even with the Forum Games. It's something that posters have come to expect.

It's a good idea for a game, if you search the original General Shared Worlds Chat I suggested something like it. Just running it through the ringer first would be good form.

If we did a XXth Cent. Type of TL for the games, we could always just have a time limit for years/decades for submissions by players to speed it up. It's nice to get something like this off the ground ASAP, but we still need full cooperation and agreements by all players to keep it going, which is what you went onto express.

Plausability, in my mind, is the most serious issue of any ME, and you hit the nail right on the head, we've come to expect plausability out of any TL used in either a game, or just as a random AH scenario on the boards. In my mind, plausability has killed more countries than I care to count. I've written a few myself...the Republic of Australia with 100 Million people for one. That's as far as I need to go, lol. ;)

[DGNT]

DGNT: I know you're use to doing things a certain way, but part of the good manners and coming into our "home" so to speak is to follow our standards of good behavior. We have gotten use to a certain way of doing things, and to have someone come in and start a subforum with in 4 posts can be seen as rather aburpt from our point of view. Perhaps running the TL in the form that it stands now through the Pre-1900 forum and get some feedback?
I realize this, its just that when somebody decides to treat me and somebody I respect very deeply like idiots, I tend to get somewhat upset. I am very open to compromise, just not when the other person decides to act like theyre The High and Mighty Awesomeness Of UberPwnage.
Normally we would run this around the forum, but when we moved the RP had already started and I was eager to get things moved over here. Perhaps it was a bit premature, but whats done now cant really be un-done.

Muse of History:
Same thing, I guess. The content of Paul's post isnt what upsets me, its the tone in which it was delivered.

General Paul:
I am not interested in forum politics outside of EI. I find debating history and various alternate versions of it interesting, but I promise you that, outside of EI, I dont want any power on these forums.


Since the discussion has diverged, I am splitting this topic. Historical debate will go into the IC-related forum and I will address it shortly.

EDIT:
OR not, since I dont seem to be able to split topics >_>

Will address history soon.

Mexico:
Huzzah for alt-hist! A more stable Mexico, with a somewhat more sane leadership, could establish a stronger Mexican hold on those territories. There is no preventing Texas from revolting (as it is now), but I beleive that, if the Mexican government was determined, then they could reduce (NOT ELIMINATE) the number of settlers heading to California, and establish firmer control over them, perhaps conviencing them to become citizens of Mexico or something similar.

Russia:
Except that this is the era of the gold rushes. Whats to stop a Russian from discovering gold in Alaska/the Yukon? With supplies in relativly easy reach, those ventures would be much easier to get to, and the Russians make a killing exploiting the Americans and Mexicans heading north via Alaska as well.
And why would the US be eager to take on Russia, exactly? Taking out Mexico is one thing, but if they attacked a Russian colony, how long before the Russian fleet shows up and starts torching the US coastline? Would that be something the US would want to risk? Pissing off a Great Power who has shone a prediliction to the use of force over diplomacy?

Britain:
So the French cant have strokes of brilliance and luck now? And here I thought they had Napoleon.

These may be 'your' boards, but the system you put forth sounded like a commisar system to me. Your suggestion is noted though.

Its not powerwanking and I am extremly offended at the accusation of godmodding.

Again, with the commisars. Such a system would seriously slow down the EI forum, and besides, we have a system for switching time periods. We usually use a democratic approach. I pick out a few time periods, a few alt-hist scenarios, and the people who RP'd in the previous version proceede to vote for which one they would like the most.
As to moderator approval for which country people play, I will not accept that. We tried it once and it was a disaster. I dont doubt the impartiality of the moderators here, but the people themselves are a far better judge of who they want to play than moderators.

I am only throwing my weight around on these sub-forums, IE: My forums. I am willing to allocate power to local moderators, but not to the point where they can overrule everything I say and make changes without my permission.

[Agentdark]

I realize this, its just that when somebody decides to treat me and somebody I respect very deeply like idiots, I tend to get somewhat upset. I am very open to compromise, just not when the other person decides to act like theyre The High and Mighty Awesomeness Of UberPwnage.
Normally we would run this around the forum, but when we moved the RP had already started and I was eager to get things moved over here. Perhaps it was a bit premature, but whats done now cant really be un-done.
However, your attitude is at least somewhat elitist at the very least, and you do need to respect the fact that you are godmodding, something which I have always seen as being frowned upon in any game settings. You could have at least presented the idea to people and give them a minute to look it over, some people may not have been ready for this, and that is why you are running into problems. If you are turly open to compromise SHOW IT.

For the Record
I have been here forawhile, probably half my posts are in shared worlds, I have participated in alot of ME's and I have run several RPGs on other websites, so I am not just a random member with a grudge to pick.

[DGNT]

However, your attitude is at least somewhat elitist at the very least, and you do need to respect the fact that you are godmodding, something which I have always seen as being frowned upon in any game settings. You could have at least presented the idea to people and give them a minute to look it over, some people may not have been ready for this, and that is why you are running into problems. If you are turly open to compromise SHOW IT.

For the Record
I have been here forawhile, probably half my posts are in shared worlds, I have participated in alot of ME's and I have run several RPGs on other websites, so I am not just a random member with a grudge to pick.
I realize the hypocracy, and I work to correct it when I see it.
My definition of 'Godmodding' may be different from this forums, because I dont see my self RPing anybody elses people (Except in the Events, which are an accepted part of the EI system, and who have served us well in keeping RP moving forward when things get slow), declaring myself to have 10,000 nukes, or Chinawanking.

[Agentdark]

people (Except in the Events, which are an accepted part of the EI system, and who have served us well in keeping RP moving forward when things get slow)



Excepted by people people who for the most part to not post on this board.....

[AaronH]

Though I sympathise that the events system is something that the people on this forum find to be godmoddigng I believe that the events are impartial and provide a playign system similar to how life would be. You wouldbnt choose how things would go while controlling a country they would just happen of course your actions would influence what could happen but events will still happen outside of your control. As such I believe the event system helps to introduce this element.

[DGNT]

Excepted by people people who for the most part to not post on this board.....
Of course. But I was hoping people would see how such a system could be useful. Without it, negative events would be very rare in RP, unless I went to people and said "Please make something bad happen in your nation.", which would be rather silly, yes?

As it is, Events are determined by a dice roll, kind of. I roll a die to select a member (using the list of members in the claims topic), and then I roll a 200 sided die to determine whether or not an event is positive or negative and how bad/good it is (Everything under 100 is bad, over it is good).
If a moderator from AH has the time, I would be glad to have one of them write up the events to ensure neutrality.

[Muse_Of_History]

Maybe its just my personality, I'm used to a forum where every thread is a vacuum, as the Admin said. If you come in with any preconceptions other then "Been there, done that, here you go, now lets leave it at that." then, well, the Admin will soon be upset with you.

I think you guys' are throwing your gaming around a bit much, and behaving more then a little condescending to outsiders, like myself, how should I know we don't have "Game masters" here? I haven't been in a battle, on this forum, ever. I've never done anything that in my free form games would have been necessary to be affirmed by the GM anyway. So I shouldn't know that General Paul, its unfair of you to assume I understand your gaming culture, and its unfair of you to assume your a democracy. From the way you talk, your not a democracy: Your an autocracy. "I"ve been here since..." "I've been gaming since..." "I've played here since..." its all irrelevant. Thats Autocratic thinking if you think it matters. ITS UTTERLY IRRELEVANT in a democracy, which is what you say this is. If you are an autocrat then thats fine.

As to DGNT: I think its odd that your a game master, but your against commissars by the mods, that may just me being foreign to your mind set as well, but I'm actually willing to accept mods telling me what to write... Does that make me a bad Free-Press supporter? Or does it just make me easily controlled puppet? I don't think so, it just means that I am willing to obey those who are the owners of the forum, if I do not bow to their wishes then I'll get out of their house.

[DGNT]

As to DGNT: I think its odd that your a game master, but your against commissars by the mods, that may just me being foreign to your mind set as well, but I'm actually willing to accept mods telling me what to write... Does that make me a bad Free-Press supporter? Or does it just make me easily controlled puppet? I don't think so, it just means that I am willing to obey those who are the owners of the forum, if I do not bow to their wishes then I'll get out of their house.
Im against the idea of my idea being taken over by people who I dont know, and then being forced to change things to appease what appears to be a minority on this forum.
AS to the writing, what would be the point of RPing something if somebody else was telling you what to write? I accept the idea of somebody providing a 'starting point' (The alt-hist), but one or two people controlling the entire thing? I mean no offence, but that seems rather pointless to me.

[General_Paul]

I am only throwing my weight around on these sub-forums, IE: My forums. I am willing to allocate power to local moderators, but not to the point where they can overrule everything I say and make changes without my permission.

These aren't your forums DGNT, notice that every other Shared Worlds Mod has mod access to these forums. You don't just get to "allocate power to local moderators," they already have the power. For the record, we don't overrule everything, it's called a democracy, group decision and all that jazz. Y'know, the crazy idea...

And, to set the record straight, not one or two people control the RP. Everyone contributes, and one player making a complaint can change the whole dynamic of a game. Every mod on the SW Forums is willing to take a serious suggestion and run with it.

[Muse_Of_History]

*Gives up* Call me when your ready to do something other then assume the other guy is a dominating madman trying to control your life... *Apologizes for terrible protocol, puts on hat and coat, and leaves the room*

[DGNT]

These aren't your forums DGNT, notice that every other Shared Worlds Mod has mod access to these forums. You don't just get to "allocate power to local moderators," they already have the power. For the record, we don't overrule everything, it's called a democracy, group decision and all that jazz. Y'know, the crazy idea...

And, to set the record straight, not one or two people control the RP. Everyone contributes, and one player making a complaint can change the whole dynamic of a game. Every mod on the SW Forums is willing to take a serious suggestion and run with it.
My idea, my sub-forum where I have authority. I know the other mods have access here, and I accept that. And your suggestion involved the moderators having authority to do as they pleased with my idea, and I am not willing to accept that.
I already noted, EI is a democracy. What you proposed was an oligarchy.

One player complaining changes the whole thing, eh? So basically you expect that, when you issue your complaint, the entire thing comes to a screeching halt and everybody acts to make you comfortable?
EI does not use that system, I am willing to take suggestions into account, but when it comes to the forums themselves no one person is going to bring the whole thing to a stop because of their issues with their neighbor.
The EI system allows everybody to contribute to the storyline and make important, world changing descisions, as opposed to delegating that authority to some other person.
Its worked on NationStates since 2002, and I think freeform RP is easily one of the better systems.

EDIT:
Great. Now we lose a member because of this BS.

This discussion is over, I am not going to jeapordize my RP for the sake of your arguements. I will talk with the moderators regarding the concerns addressed in this topic, but I will not continue to argue here to no purpose.
I suggest you drop this as well, Paul. Were only making ourselves look unreasonable. If you MUST keep this up, PM me or contact me on AIM.

[Douglas]

Im against the idea of my idea being taken over by people who I dont know, and then being forced to change things to appease what appears to be a minority on this forum.

Sorry for not speaking out earlier, but I'm with G_P.

[Othniel]

You might consider rewriting the intial timeline. If someone can point out that many holes in it then there is likely a problem with it.

[Mexico]

Perhaps I should help DGNT out with this one a bit.

At EI, we've been doing things a certain way for quite a long time. With this EI community in general, there is a certain way that things work, regardless of what the name of the board we are playing on is (other invision boards and such). This merging is a very new thing for us, but I'm led to believe by DGNT's posts that he expected this to be the same as I did - an autonomous subforum. In this, DGNT retains his powers of the old EI and his tried and true system. Let me attempt to explain it:
DGNT is the final word on issues, though rarely makes decisions on stuff - only stepping in when needed. He instead appoints people (sort of a de facto mod appointment) to make decisions on certain parts of the game. Essentially the mods are the Senate while DGNT is the Vice President, only really voting when a decision cannot be made. The same people tend to be appointed over and over, because they are good at what they do and DGNT trusts them to do their job. In any case, we had a nice system of checks and balances in most situations, which are made by a well-kept group of instilled, well-known leanings and biases. Most people had a favorite country that they played over and over, when not playing it directly favored it in relations and such, and etc. We all strove for historical play near the beginning before declining into craziness, except occassionally [like now] when we started a-historically and moved from there. We would all fight and moan over the timeline no matter what, until eventually we got to one we weren't going to kill each other over. Generally this fighting came via the famous Random Chats in which we all logged more hours on AIM than any normal human being should. But that's besides the point. When we were finished, we generally just went with and made the best of it, despite not liking it very much (agreeing on history is always an issue when you have people very fond of certain countries).

What seems to have happened now, however, is we have a group of people who don't understand the EI system are attempting to jump into it and using/imposing their own system on a group of people who are quite set in the workings of their forums (most especially DGNT).

Now, I agree with some of the complaints. Others I am dumbfounded by (as they make little sense). But in general, you guys are approaching this the wrong way. Attempting to change the EI system is just not going to work out. I'm personally under the opinion that reform of the system was what led to the riot that broke up the last major [ie- the 1850s one] EI (granted the 'reform' was more towards autocracy...but the same applies in both directions most likely).

[DGNT]

In regards to the timeline, Ill suggest this:

The EI writer (France) and some select people, perhaps chosen by the mods, will undertake a collaberative effort to make the timeline workable. Once a timeline is agreed upon, I will edit the map accordingly.

HOWEVER:
The timeline MUST retain the basic changes made to history, that is, the British Empire being significantly weakened and receiving some nasty blows in the course of the Napoleonic Wars.
The point of this being that the Pax Brittanica no longer exists in 1855.
I would also prefer that the basic structure of the map was retained, because major border edits are a pain.

The reason I beleive we should keep this down to a few people (in regards to editing the timeline) is simple, if we throw the doors open to the public two things will happen:

1. It will take at least a year to finish.

2. Nobody will be happy with it because it will be so covered in peoples fingerprints that it will suck.

[DGNT]

Perhaps I should help DGNT out with this one a bit.

At EI, we've been doing things a certain way for quite a long time. With this EI community in general, there is a certain way that things work, regardless of what the name of the board we are playing on is (other invision boards and such). This merging is a very new thing for us, but I'm led to believe by DGNT's posts that he expected this to be the same as I did - an autonomous subforum. In this, DGNT retains his powers of the old EI and his tried and true system. Let me attempt to explain it:
DGNT is the final word on issues, though rarely makes decisions on stuff - only stepping in when needed. He instead appoints people (sort of a de facto mod appointment) to make decisions on certain parts of the game. Essentially the mods are the Senate while DGNT is the Vice President, only really voting when a decision cannot be made. The same people tend to be appointed over and over, because they are good at what they do and DGNT trusts them to do their job. In any case, we had a nice system of checks and balances in most situations, which are made by a well-kept group of instilled, well-known leanings and biases. Most people had a favorite country that they played over and over, when not playing it directly favored it in relations and such, and etc. We all strove for historical play near the beginning before declining into craziness, except occassionally [like now] when we started a-historically and moved from there. We would all fight and moan over the timeline no matter what, until eventually we got to one we weren't going to kill each other over. Generally this fighting came via the famous Random Chats in which we all logged more hours on AIM than any normal human being should. But that's besides the point. When we were finished, we generally just went with and made the best of it, despite not liking it very much (agreeing on history is always an issue when you have people very fond of certain countries).

What seems to have happened now, however, is we have a group of people who don't understand the EI system are attempting to jump into it and using/imposing their own system on a group of people who are quite set in the workings of their forums (most especially DGNT).

Now, I agree with some of the complaints. Others I am dumbfounded by (as they make little sense). But in general, you guys are approaching this the wrong way. Attempting to change the EI system is just not going to work out. I'm personally under the opinion that reform of the system was what led to the riot that broke up the last major [ie- the 1850s one] EI (granted the 'reform' was more towards autocracy...but the same applies in both directions most likely).

I am, as usual, in awe of your l33t skillz :P

I suppose we need an 'EI timeline' to post here, to give people an idea of the history of EI :P

EI has had its ups and downs, but it has generally retained its basic structure, despite the various reforms that have gone on. The basic structure is what sets EI apart and, in my opinion, makes it fun. The knowledge that YOU can set the course of history, as opposed to some higher ranking player laying out a timeline for everybody to follow in the course of the RP. It makes things better, in my opinion.

[SionEwig]

Sticking my nose in on this one, any who feels like it can tell me to shut up and I will (maybe :D ).

As one of those folks who does have Moderator powers (primarily used in the ALT games), I will say that different games have different styles; in structure, in play, and in the way they are run. When I first looked at the EI sub-forum, I was interested, but I really don't have time for yet another game. And I have no problem with whoever started the idea being in charge, makes sense to me. The concept is interesting, but not really original, take a POD and go from there with different folks playing different countries. The various MEs are the same in that folks play different countries and there have been a bunch of them. The SHWI-ISOT game on Yahoo (originally started on rec.something, LOL) has more or less evolved partially into people playing countries and it has been going since 2000. Still looks to be fun.

Several things that might have made this transition easier.

It would have been helpful to have had a set of rules/guidelines posted (from the beginning) for people to read. That lets folks know how things will operate.

Moving a pre-existing game is a hard operation. Especially if there are a number of the earlier players who come over with it. There can easily be a feeling of favoritism (to the 'veterans') by anyone new (and I am not by any means saying that was or would have been the case). If you had presented this as a game that you are starting here and here is the timeline, it might have been easier (though yes there will always be some discussion - sometimes spirited - over the timeline :D ). Or better might have been a simple "we are starting from this point in OTL history," everyone go with it.

There does seem to be a good bit of misunderstanding on both sides as to the way that both sides operate the different games, EI and ME (ALTs are completey different). In the MEs, from what I have seen, no one assigns the countries to the players, they 'Claim' them. A few exceptions to that do exist as the Moderators do try to keep a bit of balance of power and therefore are very careful with the powerhouse countries (which of course are variable depending on the time period), often urging breaking up those powerhouses amongst multiple players. Also the ME Moderators do rule on conflicting and overlapping 'Claims' when the players can't work it out on their own. So it looks like (from my understanding of what has been written here) both are similar in this way. As to events or what happens in the game, both seem similar also. In MEs, the Moderators do not tell the players that they have to do something. Most of the time the Moderators are simply acting as a (impartial) referee between the various players (often during wars and battles) and listing the results of them. Or if a player states that their country is going to develop something new or exploit some resource then a Moderator might make a researched ruling on that. And it seems from what you (and others) have written that your system is not that dissimilar.

I'll need to take a closer look at the Events System to make any kind of educted comments on it, but I will say that I have no problem with the concept in general (can anyone say Kingmaker).

You might take the time to read through some of the various MEs that are here. It would give you a much better idea of what people have come to expect and how things operate (mostly), ME-7 is generally regarded as a classic and is well worth a search, ME-13 is staill easily accessable and is good. The latest FME-2 threads are still mostly on the first page of SW and won't take too long to read through them.

And to the various AHers and especially the MErs (does that abbveriation look right :confused: ). Give DGNT a chance. Folks respond much better to suggestions and criticism when it is couched in a milder tone.

On a practical matter, when you say you want to split threads, what do you want to do? If it is move some posts out of one thread and into another that is easy to do (though you might have to reate the second thread). Let me know what it is that you want to do and I can probably do it for you. Some of the control functions take a bit of getting used to.:D

[DGNT]

Sticking my nose in on this one, any who feels like it can tell me to shut up and I will (maybe :D ).

As one of those folks who does have Moderator powers (primarily used in the ALT games), I will say that different games have different styles; in structure, in play, and in the way they are run. When I first looked at the EI sub-forum, I was interested, but I really don't have time for yet another game. And I have no problem with whoever started the idea being in charge, makes sense to me. The concept is interesting, but not really original, take a POD and go from there with different folks playing different countries. The various MEs are the same in that folks play different countries and there have been a bunch of them. The SHWI-ISOT game on Yahoo (originally started on rec.something, LOL) has more or less evolved partially into people playing countries and it has been going since 2000. Still looks to be fun.

Several things that might have made this transition easier.

It would have been helpful to have had a set of rules/guidelines posted (from the beginning) for people to read. That lets folks know how things will operate.

Moving a pre-existing game is a hard operation. Especially if there are a number of the earlier players who come over with it. There can easily be a feeling of favoritism (to the 'veterans') by anyone new (and I am not by any means saying that was or would have been the case). If you had presented this as a game that you are starting here and here is the timeline, it might have been easier (though yes there will always be some discussion - sometimes spirited - over the timeline :D ). Or better might have been a simple "we are starting from this point in OTL history," everyone go with it.

There does seem to be a good bit of misunderstanding on both sides as to the way that both sides operate the different games, EI and ME (ALTs are completey different). In the MEs, from what I have seen, no one assigns the countries to the players, they 'Claim' them. A few exceptions to that do exist as the Moderators do try to keep a bit of balance of power and therefore are very careful with the powerhouse countries (which of course are variable depending on the time period), often urging breaking up those powerhouses amongst multiple players. Also the ME Moderators do rule on conflicting and overlapping 'Claims' when the players can't work it out on their own. So it looks like (from my understanding of what has been written here) both are similar in this way. As to events or what happens in the game, both seem similar also. In MEs, the Moderators do not tell the players that they have to do something. Most of the time the Moderators are simply acting as a (impartial) referee between the various players (often during wars and battles) and listing the results of them. Or if a player states that their country is going to develop something new or exploit some resource then a Moderator might make a researched ruling on that. And it seems from what you (and others) have written that your system is not that dissimilar.

I'll need to take a closer look at the Events System to make any kind of educted comments on it, but I will say that I have no problem with the concept in general (can anyone say Kingmaker).

You might take the time to read through some of the various MEs that are here. It would give you a much better idea of what people have come to expect and how things operate (mostly), ME-7 is generally regarded as a classic and is well worth a search, ME-13 is staill easily accessable and is good. The latest FME-2 threads are still mostly on the first page of SW and won't take too long to read through them.

And to the various AHers and especially the MErs (does that abbveriation look right :confused: ). Give DGNT a chance. Folks respond much better to suggestions and criticism when it is couched in a milder tone.

On a practical matter, when you say you want to split threads, what do you want to do? If it is move some posts out of one thread and into another that is easy to do (though you might have to reate the second thread). Let me know what it is that you want to do and I can probably do it for you. Some of the control functions take a bit of getting used to.:D
So many acronyms :P
Dont worry, I think Ive got most of them though ;)

This assuages most of my fears reagarding the current SW system, it seems. I thought it sounded a bit silly that people were assigned to play nations O_O
Favoritism is something I occasionally try to combat on EI, weve had issues with it in the past, particularly a period when people developed a sense of 'entitlement' in regards to moderating powers. They werent doing their jobs, I took their mod status, they became angry. I think that was generally considered EI's 'mid life crisis'. We got over it though, and started electing moderators.
The ME system is starting to sound very similar to the EI system, in regards to moderator powers anyway. At the 'high point' of EI moderating, we had five or six moderators with a 'vice mod' for each one, just in case. I beleive they were something like Economy-mod, Tech-mod, War-mod, Diplomacy-mod and a 'Head-mod'. It worked pretty smoothly.

When I talked about splitting threads, I meant taking the posts that were more historical debate from this topic and giving them their own topic on the IC-Related forum. Is that possible on Vbulletin?

[SionEwig]

So many acronyms :P
Dont worry, I think Ive got most of them though ;)

This assuages most of my fears reagarding the current SW system, it seems. I thought it sounded a bit silly that people were assigned to play nations O_O
Favoritism is something I occasionally try to combat on EI, weve had issues with it in the past, particularly a period when people developed a sense of 'entitlement' in regards to moderating powers. They werent doing their jobs, I took their mod status, they became angry. I think that was generally considered EI's 'mid life crisis'. We got over it though, and started electing moderators.
The ME system is starting to sound very similar to the EI system, in regards to moderator powers anyway. At the 'high point' of EI moderating, we had five or six moderators with a 'vice mod' for each one, just in case. I beleive they were something like Economy-mod, Tech-mod, War-mod, Diplomacy-mod and a 'Head-mod'. It worked pretty smoothly.

I don't think the SW Forum has ever had that many mods and vice mods, just more the number you see listed.

When I talked about splitting threads, I meant taking the posts that were more historical debate from this topic and giving them their own topic on the IC-Related forum. Is that possible on Vbulletin?

Yup, easy to do, sort of.:D First start a new thread entitled whatever you want the historical debates thread to be. Then you go back to this thread and move the individual posts that you want to move. Unfortunatelly, what you cannot do is move part of a post. Also, I have yet to figure out a way to edit the title of a thread once it is set.

[Matt]

So many acronyms :P


When I talked about splitting threads, I meant taking the posts that were more historical debate from this topic and giving them their own topic on the IC-Related forum. Is that possible on Vbulletin?


Yes there is, start a new topic for them to go into. Copy the URL. Go into the topic you want to move posts from. Individual select each post using the little box in the right hand corner of each. Go down to the menu at the bottom and select "move posts."

You then paste the URL in the second option.

Matt- he who ruled the SW with an iron fist ;)

[DGNT]

Ah, I see now.
Well, the historical issues appare to be settled, so Ill leave the posts here >_>

[Matt]

Also, I have yet to figure out a way to edit the title of a thread once it is set.


Just double click on the topics name. It's a little tricky since it might send you into the link, but click on stop before it does that. There's another way that's alot easier, but I always forget.

[General_Paul]

Sorry for not speaking out earlier, but I'm with G_P.

w00t w00t.

Alright, so here's an idea then so I can try to bridge a bit of a gap here:

You've got your "Tried and true" system that you like. We have our system that has developed for a good two years and that many of us are very happy with. Instead of just you running the game as a "Vice-President" type, we turn the V-P spot into a a senate. You elect two of your closest EI RP'ers, and along with yourself, the three of you meet with three of our moderators, most likely being Matt, Bulg, and either Agentdark/P99, and together the six of you will represent the two sides of the SW. From there, you six will decide on the direction of the game, not just you making the final decision and dictating what's what. This way, we all have a voice in the final decision. You'll be allowed to maintain some sort of veto over the final decisions, but if its more than four people saying "aye" to an idea, it'd be pointless. You'll have final say for the time period, and for the POD, and all ideas for a new game come to you and the rest of the council.

Mods for the different parts of the game can be decided by all of you as well. There are certain people amongst both of our groups who can best exemplify the traits necessary for the different positions and who could fill them well.

Finally, the TL is an issue. The six of you can sit down over like a week or two on AIM, MSN, or even through E-mails or PM's, and get the TL worked out and ready.

This way, everybody has what they want. You stay in control of the flow of the game, and we get an equal say.

Does that work?

[Matt]

So many acronyms :P
Dont worry, I think Ive got most of them though ;)

The ME system is starting to sound very similar to the EI system, in regards to moderator powers anyway. At the 'high point' of EI moderating, we had five or six moderators with a 'vice mod' for each one, just in case. I beleive they were something like Economy-mod, Tech-mod, War-mod, Diplomacy-mod and a 'Head-mod'. It worked pretty smoothly.


As far as I can tell they're pretty much the same system. The big difference comes in how players choose a country. In ME they find a TL they like(or devolp it) and choose from there. Most of the countries in the game would then be from different TLs, dropped onto one Earth in something that has been labeled "the Event." (It's actually a phenomenon we call ISOTing, but that's a different story). EI is a shared timeline, and players take control. It would be like... taking the Decades of Darkness Timeline at one point, having everyone adopt a country, and letting it run wild ;).

The complaints aren't coming from the fact that players want to control the TL once the game get's going. We all recognize anything is possible at that point. I think the concensus amongst the exsisting community is that we'd like a little input on the TL before hand.

We're very skilled at doing it, it's what we do ;) That's why everyone is quick to harp on plausiblity. IMHO, just drop the TL into the pre-1900 forum, and let the discussion run for a few days. I think we'd be able to get the end result that you desire(weakened Britain), in a much more likely manner.

[DGNT]

I dont see the point, but if we need an analoug with a real government, why not the Roman senate?
Me and one of the AH mods will act as 'consuls'. The moderators will be senators. They make the descisions, either of us can veto anything the moderators do.
I would say that four moderators is all we will need, for now. We may expand to six (or more) should it be required, but I doubt were going to need six to manage the few people signed on right now.

[DGNT]

As far as I can tell they're pretty much the same system. The big difference comes in how players choose a country. In ME they find a TL they like(or devolp it) and choose from there. Most of the countries in the game would then be from different TLs, dropped onto one Earth in something that has been labeled "the Event." (It's actually a phenomenon we call ISOTing, but that's a different story). EI is a shared timeline, and players take control. It would be like... taking the Decades of Darkness Timeline at one point, having everyone adopt a country, and letting it run wild ;).

The complaints aren't coming from the fact that players want to control the TL once the game get's going. We all recognize anything is possible at that point. I think the concensus amongst the exsisting community is that we'd like a little input on the TL before hand.

We're very skilled at doing it, it's what we do ;) That's why everyone is quick to harp on plausiblity. IMHO, just drop the TL into the pre-1900 forum, and let the discussion run for a few days. I think we'd be able to get the end result that you desire(weakened Britain), in a much more likely manner.
I had considered that, but I would like to get the French players opinion on this first.
If he doesnt sign on by tonight though, Ill do as you suggest.

[Matt]

I had considered that, but I would like to get the French players opinion on this first.
If he doesnt sign on by tonight though, Ill do as you suggest.

I might sign on, I would just like to see the TL ironed out some.

[SionEwig]

Just double click on the topics name. It's a little tricky since it might send you into the link, but click on stop before it does that. There's another way that's alot easier, but I always forget.

Thanks Matt, now I can go and fix a bunch of stuff!!!!:) :) :)

[DGNT]

Also note:
You are free to continue RPing, HOWEVER, if any actions you partake in contradict the newly established timeline, you will have to retcon/edit them to fit in.
Remember, the basic outline of things is not going to change, the essential distrubution of land will remain the same, so I doubt much will change, especially if it goes on in your own country.

[DGNT]

Well, the timeline thread got 61 views and no responses. I did have a couple people AIM me though, one made the same suggestions discussed here and the other adamantly insisted that Russia didnt have a fleet and never colonised anything.

[SionEwig]

Well, the timeline thread got 61 views and no responses. I did have a couple people AIM me though, one made the same suggestions discussed here and the other adamantly insisted that Russia didnt have a fleet and never colonised anything.

Um, give it some time for people to think. Lot's of times things take a few days to get rolling, and often all it takes is the first person to make a reply and then the flood gates open.

[DGNT]

OIC :P
(insert ten charecter minimum)

[Agentdark]

I am willing to assite in anyway needed to help smooth things over for the EI and rest of the SW's people.

Agentdark

[DGNT]

Any contribution to the timeline topic is welcome. All opinions (no matter their level of sanity) will be carefully considered ;)

[Agentdark]

Alright, Ill post a few comments I had about Russia, and a random thought regarding california

[DGNT]

Works fo' me, Ill be glad to see what you come up with :)

[Agentdark]

errr.it would help if you had the rest of the timeline, if you want, could I tell you my thoughts on AIM...

[DGNT]

I dont think the timeline will be finished, since the person who wrote it seems to have died or vanished into another dimension. And Im not very good at them.

[Agentdark]

If I didnt have a trainwreck of schoolwork on my sholder, I would help you....I can offer you somethoughts though...

[DGNT]

Thoughts are fine, they are what I was looking for anyway :P

[General_Paul]

I dont think the timeline will be finished, since the person who wrote it seems to have died or vanished into another dimension. And Im not very good at them.

Well if that's the case I think that we might be better off writing a new TL and setting it in a new time period, preferrably a time period of somewhere between 1875-1890. There's a large group of us who have extensive knowledge and experience playing nations from that period of time thanks to ME:7 and ME:13, and that period of time offers a very interesting dynamic to RP in. Too late for Napoleonic style tactics to do anything outside of turn war into a meatgrinder, and too early for aerial combat and total war. It's just the right period of time for Victorian ideals to clash with the harsh realities of modern war.

[DGNT]

Using Napoleonic tactics in 1855 its pretty much a promise of meatgrinderism as well.
We tried a 1870's-ish RP once. It turned into a tech rush which resulted in unpleasantness between several players.

A new timeline is perfectly workable this early in the RP, since it will follow the same basic lines as the present one. A little retconning of the various actions taken thus far may be required, but it wont seriously change anything that has occured thus far.

[General_Paul]

Using Napoleonic tactics in 1855 its pretty much a promise of meatgrinderism as well.
We tried a 1870's-ish RP once. It turned into a tech rush which resulted in unpleasantness between several players.

A new timeline is perfectly workable this early in the RP, since it will follow the same basic lines as the present one. A little retconning of the various actions taken thus far may be required, but it wont seriously change anything that has occured thus far.

Yeah, the 1870's is a bit difficult, but when we've done it in the past, the tech rush was sort of a slow and steady pace, while the political focued more on alliance building and land grabs wherever you could.

The weakening of the British Empire is good to go with, but you could work out a similar TL with a British Empire slightly weakened. Have a northern Indian successor state and a loss of imperial authority in the rest of India, and you'll get what you're shooting for. S. Africa might be a bit harder, but that's for the TL writers to decide on, just my two cents.

[DrakeRlugia]

I myself have suggested to DGNT that Pax Britannica be destoried naval wise, not nessesarily territorial wise. My idea is that without a navy to hold imperial authority, the various states of the British empire merely pay lip-service, ruled by British elite in the form of local monarchs that listen to London only when it gives them a chance.

The idea would be a Canadian, Indian, and possibly African monarchial states ruled by local British dynasties.

What do you guys think?

[DGNT]

General Paul, lets stick with the 1850's for now. Who knows, the RP may last long enough that we end up in the 1870's.

Drake, you know my opinion on that subject. I like the map the way it is.

[Leej]

Ah so its a qpawn type thing popped up here...Cool.
I've tried to create similar games in the psat but got either no interst or interest but no one who would play...

[DGNT]

Eh, we get by. You should sign up though, none of the present Europeans have bothered to react to my declaring Opium illigal :P

[Leej]

I dunno, seems to be in a rather silly ATL far removed from reality so I wouldn't be much kop.

[DGNT]

Im open to suggestions regarding how to make it more approachable, if you dont like the way things are, change 'em :P

[fortyseven]

Glad I found this as I was gonna ask what the heck this was (besides what I gathered from skimming thru the other threads)

Looks fun. I'd like to play. I don't like the timeline though and anyway I don't have the time at the moment :)

[DGNT]

The timeline has been dispsensed with until further notice, we decided that it sucked. A new one will be up eventually, but for now were working off of the summary dealy in the Rules forum.
Its too bad you cant join. Would you consider signing up as a temp?

[Euskadi]

And finally, I don't need to take off. I'm not the one throwing his weight around trying to use age of gameplay as justification for an unfair advantage.

I belive you just did with the paragraph above your statement.

[DGNT]

Lets PLEASE not bring that arguement up again >_>

[Ian the Admin]

Great Britain: Here's where I get technical. WTF happened to GB!? You've got them turning into spineless dumbshits! The Danish event is so totally out of British character, its not even funny.

<snip>

To add insult to injury, you totally forgot the ineptitude of the Spanish Navy, and the genius that was Admiral Lord Nelson, and the "Crossing of the French T" at Trafalgar! Then, you've got in your preview that French forces land in the isles. Buddy, you need to pick up a history book, the British had thousands of soldiers in the isles as a garrisoning force and were just waiting for Napoleon to try to invade after 1800.



BTW, who wrote this TL anyways? Is it Hashemite? If it is, you got gipped and you'll take more flames from other posters for this TL besides me if it was.


That isn't the way to express constructive criticism of another person's scenario. I'm sure we've all picked up a history book at some point, and don't need that kind of insult.


These aren't your boards and we aren't power elites or political commissars. These are our boards and we have a system in place that has developed for two years and is perfectly acceptable.


I think this situation could really do without any "oh no you're encroaching on our turf" stuff. These are everyone's boards, and the EI subforum is for the EI game which DGNT is currently moderating. You have zero authority over it and nobody has to listen to you.


You need to rethink both your tone, and your position.


An excellent suggestion for yourself.

[fortyseven]

The timeline has been dispsensed with until further notice, we decided that it sucked. A new one will be up eventually, but for now were working off of the summary dealy in the Rules forum.
Its too bad you cant join. Would you consider signing up as a temp?

I'll have to see. As it is, I spend several times more time on this site than I spend on schoolwork :rolleyes:

[DGNT]

You know you cannot resist the lure of the Empire of Oman :P

Thanks for the backup Ian, hopefully that will quash any future arguements of that nature and we can all get on with the argueing/RPing/doing whatever makes us happy.

[Matt]

The timeline has been dispsensed with until further notice, we decided that it sucked. A new one will be up eventually, but for now were working off of the summary dealy in the Rules forum.
Its too bad you cant join. Would you consider signing up as a temp?

I'm glad you've done so. A new enviroment certainly warrants it. IMHO there are ways of keeping Britain in tact, but having other major players emerge to contend with them at the same time. I'd be happy to help you out.

[DGNT]

I think the present UK players idea of an internal revolution is working out pretty well. And we have plenty of RP going on, no less than three (potentially) major wars have popped up, which is more than we normally get in the course of an entire EI. While wars in and of themselves arent nessicarily so great, the RP they generate is ;)
But any temp work you would like to do would be great, we could use somebody to play Sardinia or Sicily, I beleive.

Also, France may be coming open soon. I hate to take FS' nation away, but he hasnt posted for several days now...