[NSNS] Perspectives: Ethics of Refounding

[NS News Service]

Perspectives: Ethics of Refounding

Founders were introduced to NationStates in 2003 to allow regions to to opt-out from the defender/invader game. A founder provides protection against invaders, because they can turn off the delegate controls and thus prevent invaders from doing any harm. Since then, many regions have taken the decision to gain a founder - however, this has to be done by manually re-founding the region.

Re-founding requires the entire region to be emptied, a time-consuming process that is also risky - there are possible region hawkers lurking about, trying to snatch away the region when it ceases to exist.

Recently, there has been a trend of defenders re-founding regions, to protect them from invasions in the future. Examples of where this has worked successfully include Austria, Urbanites and Marxist Leninist Party.

The problem is that one can never tell for sure which nations are true natives, and which are invader sleepers, as recent events in A Silly Place have shown.

This raises a few questions:

• Do the benefits of re-founding outweigh the risks?
• Does the re-founding of vulnerable regions reduce the targets available for the defender/raider game (and thus reduce activity), and if so, is this an acceptable cost?
• Should outsiders play a role in re-founding regions, as they can often force natives into re-foundings that don't work out for them?

[Unibot II]

Do the benefits of re-founding outweigh the risks?

Quantified analysis could show the chances of unsuccessful or successful refounds. However, the benefit is your region is secure, the risk is your region could be taken forever... a native has to decide whether it is better to risk losing their region altogether or reside in a region that is constantly threatened by raiders? -- this is a decision that only the natives can make for themselves.

Does the re-founding of vulnerable regions reduce the targets available for the defender/raider game (and thus reduce activity), and if so, is this an acceptable cost?

The security of regions is more important to me than the vitality of Military Gameplay. I'd be more than happy if all the raider groups collapsed or all regions had good founders. I could go back to focus on my WA activities, roleplay and game diplomacy.

Should outsiders play a role in re-founding regions, as they can often force natives into re-foundings that don't work out for them?

Raiders force the most natives into re-foundings, out of anyone -- by forcing them into extenuating circumstances. Defenders should not force natives to do anything -- we're trying to protect native sovereignty not undermine it.

[Oliver the Mediocre]

Do the benefits of re-founding outweigh the risks?

Quantified analysis could show the chances of unsuccessful or successful refounds. However, the benefit is your region is secure, the risk is your region could be taken forever... a native has to decide whether it is better to risk losing their region altogether or reside in a region that is constantly threatened by raiders? -- this is a decision that only the natives can make for themselves.

I absolutely agree, here.

Does the re-founding of vulnerable regions reduce the targets available for the defender/raider game (and thus reduce activity), and if so, is this an acceptable cost?

The security of regions is more important to me than the vitality of Military Gameplay. I'd be more than happy if all the raider groups collapsed or all regions had good founders. I could go back to focus on my WA activities, roleplay and game diplomacy.

Well, I'm obviously not going to love it if I'm losing targets, but... there are nearly 8000 regions in the game, and more and more being created every day. There will always be targets. I know that the defenders would like to lay down their arms and go back to whatever it is they want to do, if it weren't for us big bad evil raiders, but I think that the raiding/defending game does create activity, for raiders, defenders, and natives alike, so I'm of two minds on the issue.

Should outsiders play a role in re-founding regions, as they can often force natives into re-foundings that don't work out for them?

Raiders force the most natives into re-foundings, out of anyone -- by forcing them into extenuating circumstances. Defenders should not force natives to do anything -- we're trying to protect native sovereignty not undermine it.

Interesting logic there. I think that raiders don't force the natives to do anything; the majority of us raid and are gone in under a week, usually 2-3 days, and sometimes even less. This brief experience of a lack of control may make natives feel that they want to refound their region, which fits wonderfully back into point one: It's the natives choice. Defenders, to my understanding, have begun to actively encourage natives to refound their regions, which is interesting, but ultimately up to the natives, and not the Defenders.

I think the "encouragement" of the Defenders can be a pressure on natives, even unintentionally, because most people who get invaded have never been invaded before, and who are you going to listen to, the little voice in your gut that says "we maybe don't want this, there are risks involved," or the people who do this kind of thing all the time?

[Rozonia]

• Do the benefits of re-founding outweigh the risks?
• Does the re-founding of vulnerable regions reduce the targets available for the defender/raider game (and thus reduce activity), and if so, is this an acceptable cost?
• Should outsiders play a role in re-founding regions, as they can often force natives into re-foundings that don't work out for them?

1. That's a tough call. I'd say it's a case by case thing.

2. I disagree with Unibot. I think the Raider/Defender game is an important part of NS and I want to see it continue. But I also agree with Oliver. There are a lot of regions out there, and barring a major change in NS, there will always be plenty of vulnerable regions.

3. I don't think outsiders should FORCE regions to refound. That seems more like raider tactics rather than anything Defenders should do. However, I see nothing wrong with Defenders encouraging refounding, as long as they're open about the potential downsides.

[Evil Wolf]

Raiders force the most natives into re-foundings, out of anyone -- by forcing them into extenuating circumstances. Defenders should not force natives to do anything -- we're trying to protect native sovereignty not undermine it.

Except in the case of Austria where the FRA passworded the region so natives couldn't see it and left it with no WA delegate and the fate of a slow death all because they were "tired of defending it".

Real heroic if I do say so myself.

[Swift Sure]

Raiders force the most natives into re-foundings, out of anyone -- by forcing them into extenuating circumstances. Defenders should not force natives to do anything -- we're trying to protect native sovereignty not undermine it.

Except in the case of Austria where the FRA passworded the region so natives couldn't see it and left it with no WA delegate and the fate of a slow death all because they were "tired of defending it".

Real heroic if I do say so myself.

That's terrible

[Ballotonia]

Founders were introduced to NationStates in 2003 to allow regions to to opt-out from the defender/invader game.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=news/2 ... index.html
The password was the opt-out, not Founders. When the feature was implemented, only new regions created after April 29 2003 got founders since the game hadn't kept track of who founded which region before that moment. And the original idea for regional controls (eject/ban button) was for delegates to be able to eject spammers (note moderators didn't exist prior to June 6 2003). As I recall events, it having a major influence on the invasion/defense game was a side-effect.

• Do the benefits of re-founding outweigh the risks?

Yes, easily. Risk is that an invader refounds first, which is less than the risk of letting invaders pillage and torture the region for a long time. In both cases the natives have no sovereign region anyway, while the second path has the downside of the suffering lasting longer. And it still ends with the first scenario anyway. Since it's inevitable (the rules allow invaders to do these things, and they typically go for maximum damage to the weakest possible target) it only helps the natives to push the whole thing along to get it over with.

• Does the re-founding of vulnerable regions reduce the targets available for the defender/raider game (and thus reduce activity), and if so, is this an acceptable cost?

This question includes a few assumptions and lacks clarity:
- it doesn't distinguish between activity within the invasion/defense game, and activity NS-wide.
- it entirely ignores activity in a region given the opportunity to grow and flourish by itself without outside intervention from some marauding horde hell-bent on destroying regions just because they have the misconception that it makes them look 'cool'.
- the word 'cost' implies that a reduction in targets for invasion is a Bad Thing.

Overall I'll say this: Refounding does indeed reduce the targets for invasion. That's a Good Thing. So it's not a cost, it's a benefit.

• Should outsiders play a role in re-founding regions, as they can often force natives into re-foundings that don't work out for them?

In a perfect world, no. There used to be a rule against this, and that was a good thing. Sadly, that rules no longer exists and we don't have a perfect world. There will be outsider influence (invaders), and then the question is whether or not there are others who will stand by the natives to counterbalance such evil. Defenders are the ones who act on behalf of natives, standing up against invaders. Refounding a region is one of several tools Defenders have to assist natives in returning to being able to live by themselves without being bothered by invaders.

The security of regions is more important to me than the vitality of Military Gameplay. I'd be more than happy if all the raider groups collapsed or all regions had good founders. I could go back to focus on my WA activities, roleplay and game diplomacy.

Exactly.
IMHO, any defender who wishes harm to natives just so they can jump in to be the 'saving heroes' aren't worth it to be called Defenders. They do what they do just for their own benefit, not for the natives.

Well, I'm obviously not going to love it if I'm losing targets, but... there are nearly 8000 regions in the game, and more and more being created every day. There will always be targets. I know that the defenders would like to lay down their arms and go back to whatever it is they want to do, if it weren't for us big bad evil raiders, but I think that the raiding/defending game does create activity, for raiders, defenders, and natives alike, so I'm of two minds on the issue.

Are you also considering whether natives actually want this kind of 'activity' in the first place? And thank you for acknowledging defenders really do have better things to do than running after invaders to limit the damage they do.

2. I disagree with Unibot. I think the Raider/Defender game is an important part of NS and I want to see it continue. But I also agree with Oliver. There are a lot of regions out there, and barring a major change in NS, there will always be plenty of vulnerable regions.

The invasion game USED to be an important part of NS. Nowadays it's just a small fringe-group of players.

Except in the case of Austria where the FRA passworded the region so natives couldn't see it and left it with no WA delegate and the fate of a slow death all because they were "tired of defending it".

If that's what it takes for invaders to just leave a small group of players alone, so be it. Twist and turn events in whatever way you want to, bottomline is that invaders are the bad guys in that situation as well.

Ballotonia

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I never got the point of refounding regions, at least non-defender ones at any rate seems counter-productive to me.

[Frattastan II]

Personally I don't think regions should be refounded, unless their founderless status is seriously harming efforts towards regional growth.
And the natives shouldn't be pushed towards a refound, since the risks are way too high.

For a very small/inactive community a password is better.
For a slightly bigger/more active region getting a delegate with some endorsements is enough to put down most raids.
Activity and friendship with other regions are the best way to protect you.

The only reasons to refound are :
- there's a consistent group of natives that wants it really bad and can't be persuaded otherwise in any way;
- it's an active defender region, and it hasn't a delegate endorsement count high enough to avoid the risk of invasion and griefing;
- the region is being refounded by a griefer (well, in that case it's the only chance, obviously).

No, I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks.
No, outsiders shouldn't play a role in refounding regions. Unless you mean "doing the actual refound"..

I also believe some founderless regions should be preserved for their historical importance (those that have been founderless for a long time, or even since they were created), as they are the proof that community can always develop.