On Empires

[Doc]

While I understand the point about the empty 'placeholders' (as I also agreed with that in Dredd's thread) there are two things that massively rub me the wrong way and I'd like to apologize beforehand if I sound hostile.

1) Yeah, it sucks for the players that aim to do an empire, but the community doesnt owe you to accomodate your ambitions. All the Technical difficulties can be overcome with OOC prep-work, of course that is exhausting but thats just the price of a multiplayer game. I've seen working iterations of multi-player empires and i've seen complete breakdown of supernational unions in all shapes and forms. 

"So what you all are effectively doing is denying the possibility of any sort of centralized empire period."
We're not, we're denying the possibility of utilizing specific elements for empire building, elements that have conceptually been used for something else. 

Which leads me to the logical conclusion of this debate, the actual point of it; because in my opinion, most people here havent made the connection to fundamental idea behind this potential change, that this game is no longer political party simulator and its something different. And my answer regarding that, is for now at least, what Greek said. We're in the progress of switching to an entirely different modus operandi, and I've tried in my role of building the basis for a ruleset to codify long-standing RP practices for the start and initial phase of Legacy. They'll likely be subject to change and I assume that this specific debate is going to be predominant when reworking inevitably starts.  

2) There are absolutely players who help each other's stories. I've seen that very often, denying that is a very distorted statement fueled by your own experiences which certainly arent the truth for everyone else. 

On a different note; I love that its always sending out very broad and general semi-ideas which are mostly personal frustration caused by one's own behaviour, aimed at the mods but no actual proposal or specifics. But hey; If you guys have a real proposal that not just "mods could uh- you know- do all the work and rule every case as well as debate it with us-" then I am all ears, try to make it fair for everyone though.

Several points:
1.  I have very rarely said anything negative about moderation, and I often, even if its through gritted teeth sometimes, supported what moderation does in their role as moderation.  I often defend moderation vocally and publicly, and am not on some crusade against moderation.  This comment is not aimed at moderation, the members of the moderation team, or any choices that the moderation team has made in the past, and if I have a problem with some decision that moderation has made, I address it with them privately.  This post was a response to the comment which I quoted above, that while building the new rules, you don't intend to have any mechanism outside of RP in "any way".  That's not a "Well, maybe we revisit in the future."  That is a pretty definite statement that the discussion as far as empires are concerned, is over, its decided, and whatever others wish, the rules won't be revisited.  That's how I read it.  I can't speak to how many others read it, but this is not a criticism of that decision.  It was written more in the spirit of "maybe there is something that you all are not considering."

2.  If I felt a real proposal would stand a chance, I would work one out.  But As Greek said, and as you made clear, major changes to the rulesets aren't really on the table.  I never got the sense that they were, at least not at the moment.  The statement "There are no plans of making "Imperial ambitions" regulated in any way, that happens via RP or it doesnt simple as that. " pretty much says to me that "we will not be considering any proposals to change that rule."  or the rule about empty countries from other discussions.  So I am not sure who makes these vague, half thought out suggestions, but it wasn't me.  I am prepared to help, I asked if anyone needed any help, and I have helped where I was welcomed to do so.

3.  Of course the community doesn't owe me anything.  I wasn't asking for just me, nor am I the only one who has ever asked about it.  It is apparent that many people seem to think of me as this self serving monster.  I don't know how I got this reputation.  I use my country as an example a lot, because that's what I know and don't like to speak for other people.  If that comes off as me wanting some special privilege for just my self and the country I happen to inhabit, then that's a failure to communicate properly.  but I ask for the things that I would like to see, would like to use.  I don't ask for those things JUST for myself and nobody else:  I assume all who wish to use those things will avail themselves of them, and we can't know how many people would use them if they could when they don't exist:  It may be just me, but it may be others too, I don't know.  But if nobody asks, nobody gets anything.  And I happen to want things.

4.  Mbites, you and I get along alright, personally.  But your response struck me as defensive and sarcastic, and personally speaking, I don't think my comment deserved that.  I happen to disagree with a decision which apparently has been made that you expressed in the post I was responding to.  I wasn't attacking you personally, or your decision making process.  I wanted to engage in a discussion about it, rather than letting it just be a closed point.  I feel like I am less likely to do that in the future.