Talk:Rules of Future World

=Specifics?=

United Planets,

I think it may be a better idea to be more specific on what should be allowed or what shouldn't be in the rules. For example, while you allow UFOs, you don't allow alien invasions (not that I would think of doing something that ridiculous), but with such a vague description on what can stay and what goes, people might get OVERcreative...as I am about to be if this war gets worse for Taiping or regicide occurs. Worse still, with the current suggestions, it is completely legal o.- so I think, in retrospect, it may be better to make rules that, while not too restricting, may keep things from getting out of hand so that we won't have Day After Tomorrow on our hands. Sun Ling 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're hinting. If you tell me I could decide whether it's extreme or not. United Planets 20:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm just noting that the rules are so generic they can easily kind of be bent...I'll do it if things get desperate. Sun Ling 20:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tel, 'Version 1" and "Version 2" are the same, and it's supposed to be 'Dimention'. If in the first one, it must be year 2000 or later, I don't see why the second one, which is the exact same thing, would be any diffrent, thus I'm changing it back to how it was before.

Isseiryu 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest something for the first agreement of rule 7 in Engagement Rules. It is very easy for anyone to say that they don't want to be in a war if they think they will lose, and so the war doesn't happen. What I suggest is that if the person trying to declare war were to give an explination regarding why he/she wants war with a country, and the explination was well thought out and fully explained the situation, then the war would happen regardless of the other person, unless he/she can explain why they shouldn't go to war. Bad explinations of why to go to war include: Cause I want to..., He pissed me off..., I dunno... Bad explinations of why not to go to war include: He's a meany!!..., Thats not fair..., He's lying, I didn't piss him off..., Please, oh please don't kill me...

The issue is that people don't want to come on this site to develop a nation, only to have it destroyed. For example, Ireland (Future World) was created and instantly, the Empire of Britannia attacked, invaded, conquered and took land. I don't view this small war as valid, which is why I never altered the map. Nkr20 didn't agree to have a war with Sun Ling. It was a one sided, unfair, assault. Both sides must agree to war and then again both sides must agree to territorial changes. This prevents trolling, bullying, etc. United Planets 09:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To say that a war is one sided or unfair simply states the obvious, not all wars are made to be fair. For one thing, I have been using Britain in the summit that led to the end of hte Pan-Eurasian war (thus predating the CREATION of New Ireland), and thus, Ireland has been violating the rules of future world by using a piece of the United Kingdom. Secondly, Ireland engaged into combat on its own. Third, I had posted on New Ireland's talk page to warn him even before I began to invade. Fourth, New Ireland could have continued the war or even continued maintaining the defensive battle had, by any post at all, it had noted its existence, but, just like Cryseria, there has been no posts by Ireland for almost a month. Sun Ling 19:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)