any of the above would be an improvement!

GOOO MIZZLE

for those who are interested

-------------------------
Week 36, 5

Week 35, 5

PNAP between 3896 and 3892

3896 will hand back the retaken planets in 2,1 and 5,3. All other planets remain as is.

The nap is permanent and cannot be broken apart from the 30 planets that are being given back.

3896 is to use the family name Noir is sexeh for a length of atleast 24 hours

Failure to comply with these terms, will cause the breaking family to be subject to mod intervention, with punishment such as deletions.

Representative for the mod force is her majesty KT

Signed, Number 4 of Number 4 (3892)
Signed, Fingerbang of The Teaser (3896)
-----------------------------------

this was the nap that both party signed

"Failure to comply with these terms, will cause the breaking family to be subject to mod intervention, with punishment such as deletions."

key terms being
1. mod intervention
2. such as deleltions

not specifically said we have to delete anyone.

i intervened decided there was no need to do anything in that situation.

i dont get it, where in the nap terms was deletion of the said accounts named as a possible consequence?

kk thread closed

FAST the guy breaking the nap was leader.. so he can easily attack when he wants to, signed nap or not

Mods can be nap-agreement-breakers as well it seems.

All nap problems could all be fixed by programming ingame pnaps to not allow attacks all round once signed. 

48/72 hr naps the same... cancellation of ingame would start a 48hr or 72hr countdown, the conclusion of which would allow attacks to resume.

> Middle wrote:

> All nap problems could all be fixed by programming ingame pnaps to not allow attacks all round once signed. 

48/72 hr naps the same... cancellation of ingame would start a 48hr or 72hr countdown, the conclusion of which would allow attacks to resume.

lol yes but then....who signs at relations first?? I won't

If you implement a counter in the naps, give the leader the option to unsign in the current or in the next tic.
I mean you can agree on a nap, sign at realtions and then the other leader dont sign, so you are betrayed and unable to retal for 48h.

The implementation is not that easy, you should be able to unsign it whenever the other fam has unsigned or hrshrahh..

nah, definatly, thus kind of rules cannot be implemented, it is a matter of TRUST.

Random two cents!  Full disclosure: I don't normally play Imperial Conflict.  I'm a Politics forum guy.  Take this as you will. 

I'm with Noir on this one.

Nobody has disputed that a NAP did exist, and that both parties agreed that they were willing to be subject to a moderator's punishment.  As a result, normal assumptions of what is "normal" in Imperial Conflict should be disregarded because they assume a framework in which parties are not willing to enter into moderator-enforced agreements.  In effect, what occurred here is that the players, and two moderators, agreed to a NAP, and a third party entirely decided to void the terms of the NAP, despite two equally ranked individuals agreeing to the terms.  There is no legal system on the planet which would define this as a stable legal system of any form.

All the moderators are supposed to exist as equals to one another.  It says so in the forums.  It says so in the FAQ.  The moderators have not officially disclosed, or agreed upon, any hierarchy system.  As a result, there was no way that Noir, Torqez, KT, or anyone could have known what would happen once it was asked to enforce the terms of the NAP.

1: Rin, if, by what you said, the mods looked at the NAP break and determined it didn't justify a deletion, at what point would a deletion exist?  Stated punishments for rules exist with the understanding that such an action has a threshold at which it could be used.  So, what would have been the threshold under which a deletion would have occurred, and why would the threshold you set from this be any different from what happened in the round?

2: "i d rather lose credibility and not stand by my words then sticking with a bad decision.

next?"

This is an absurd statement.  As players, we assume that certain preconditions exist when playing the game.  Just as you drive on the road with the assumption that people will follow the rules, we ideally would like to play the game with an inherent trust in the rules surrounding the game.  Most moderators did their best to ensure that we know what is coming: they enforce the rules which do exist, and attempt to work within the rules.  At the point where a majority of those moderators who expressed their view on this issue expressed support for a mod-enforced NAP, this NAP became law within Imperial Conflict.

Rin, you have two jobs as a moderator: to maintain technical aspects of Imperial Conflict, such as setting up galaxies, and to enforce the stated rules of the forum.  Whether you disagree with the rules is unimportant, unless you go through proper channels to rescind those rules, your opinion doesn't mean shit.

As part of your role, however, you are also a public relations manager.  Representing the interests of Stefan, Adoross, and the Imperial Conflict governance, your job also includes the area of ensuring stable relations between yourself and the community.  Here, we trust the moderators to abide by their word.  Nothing can hurt those relations more than a moderator abusing their power, breaking the word of the moderator community as a whole, just because he disagrees with it.

As it stands, none of the rules mean anything if the moderators aren't willing to enforce them.  While we know that moderators such as KT and Torqez are willing to enforce the rules, Rin has blatantly created a system in which he is unwilling to enforce said rules.  As such, as long as he is around and pushing the other moderators around, the Imperial Conflict rules do not exist, and have been replaced with a simple notion that whatever Rin says goes.  If you agree with Noir and myself, and don't like what this means, then it's time to take a stand.

There is one other thing to note here: Rin's place within the galaxy in which this took place.  There used to be an unwritten rule in IC in which the moderators agreed not to enforce rules that existed within their own galaxies.  Otherwise, if two moderators banned someone, it could be interpreted that the justification behind the ban was in order to help themselves within the game, as opposed to enforcing the rules.  Recently, as I understood it, that rule has needed to be rolled back somewhat, due to a number of issues.  However, it is preferred when possible.

[EDIT: A correction: Rin is NOT playing in the ICC.  My mistake.  I apologize.]

But that's not what happened.  An undisciplined moderator has instead vetoed the majority of moderators, instead asserting his personal view in contrast to the law of Imperial Conflict.  If this were a real legislative body, this is a coup by every definition.

I want to stress this one issue once more.  The question of whether this was a good or bad NAP has nothing to do with the matter.  If you sign a contract with somebody, yet realize later that it was a terrible idea, you are still required to abide by that contract, because you gave your word.  In just this same way, the moderators gave their word that enforcement would take place if the NAP was violated.  This is a prior question.

[EDIT: Holding off what I said earlier... time for some independent investigation!]

[quote=SnoW

mod enforced nap isnt a rule and shouldnt exist in the first place.

i already can imagine the thread noir would have made when mods would have deleted the fam breaking nap....
bevor he could have retaken all the 100 planets his fam lost....
how evil the are and so on

so who the hell wants a fam breaking a nap deleted anyway?
until mods can react the damage would be done anyway... lots of infra destroyed and lots of planets that need to be retaken...

@ thirdrock

When I said signed ingame, I meant that it wouldn't be in effect until both families sign, and the countdown begins as soon as one family cancels it.  The page could then show ___ ticks until attacks can resume next to that family in the relations page.