[Idea] Only the last person in a region can refound it

[Glen-Rhodes]

No it's an invitation system which would be exploitable, but only through operatives or a disingenuous WA proposal - similar to passwords, but more difficult to exploit.

Your idea is to make it literally impossible for a raider to move into a region. That would never fly with [violet].

Your "instant refound" idea overall provides no security valve to stop griefs - and that's the problem.

It's not meant to provide one. It's meant to make it easier for RP regions to safely refound. RPers have indicated that they don't want to rely on the Security Council. No matter what you believe is in their interests, they've made that pretty clear.

[Unibot III]

I think another thing we need to look at instead of making griefing easier is to balance out the WA's voting system to make exploitation harder. Currently, having "larger delegates have larger votes" facilitates coordinated abuse - small RP regions have little voice in the WA, while large invader-sympathetic regions can coordinate to vote for a resolution. That's how "Liberate NAZI EUROPE" worked.

I still contend though that "Liberate Haven" was always very unlikely to pass.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I've been arguing against delegate vote inflation for years, but that isn't really something to be looked at in this thread. Nor is it something the admins will do, either, if anything comes out of this RPer uprising (and that itself is unlikely).

[Unibot III]

It's not meant to provide one. It's meant to make it easier for RP regions to safely refound. RPers have indicated that they don't want to rely on the Security Council. No matter what you believe is in their interests, they've made that pretty clear.

RP regions aren't the only region that would be affected by your plan. The lack of a security valve means the chances of hundreds of founderless regions being griefed and destroyed will rise... a lot. RPers don't have the right to argue for everyone else to be more unsafe for their own mistrust of the WA Security Council.

That means you'll please RPers initially - and in a few months when they realize invading has gotten a 100% worse, we'll be back to "It's Only Politics 2.0" because the admins implemented a system that allowed griefers to invade and destroy a region with little opposition. Good going, Glen.

[Nephmir]

I think another thing we need to look at instead of making griefing easier is to balance out the WA's voting system to make exploitation harder. Currently, having "larger delegates have larger votes" facilitates coordinated abuse - small RP regions have little voice in the WA, while large invader-sympathetic regions can coordinate to vote for a resolution. That's how "Liberate NAZI EUROPE" worked.

I still contend though that "Liberate Haven" was always very unlikely to pass.

Who are you to determine how the WA Liberation should be used? There is extreme bias in what you just proposed.

You're trying to make every region equal? Then what's the point of endorsements?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Again, Unibot, if you have a better idea that isn't 100% immunity against raiders, share it! I only posted this because it was literally the only thing to come out of over 100 pages of debate that stands even the slightest chance of being adopted.

What's clear is that the status quo isn't acceptable.

[Unibot III]

Who are you to determine how the WA Liberation should be used? There is extreme bias in what you just proposed.

Who are you to determine that there should be no way to intercept a refound!? This will burn a lot more regions than it will help and thus solve nothing but make the problem worse.

[Unibot III]

Again, Unibot, if you have a better idea that isn't 100% immunity against raiders, share it! I only posted this because it was literally the only thing to come out of over 100 pages of debate that stands even the slightest chance of being adopted.

Your idea is worse than the status quo.

I'm a defender, I've believed the status quo has been unacceptable for years - but implementing your idea would make the game less safe for natives. That's more unacceptable. It doesn't make the problem better, it puts off the issue until it becomes an even bigger problem.

Your style of debate here is disingenuous: if something is worse than the status quo, then it should not be adopted. I don't need to come up with any magic solution to our problems to know that we would be better off with the status quo than this proposed change.

[Nephmir]

Who are you to determine how the WA Liberation should be used? There is extreme bias in what you just proposed.

Who are you to determine that there should be no way to intercept a refound!? This will burn a lot more regions than it will help and thus solve nothing but make the problem worse.

And who am I to intercept someone else's refound? If there are no natives left in a region, then the Defenders didn't do their job correctly and the natives no longer own that region. That's all you're worried about, how Raiders can refound regions they already won.

[Ravania Ultra]

The loophole in this thing is the following: If you do this without locking the region it is extremely dangerous. Anyone who moves into the region and back out after the nation that wants to refound, gets refound-powers.

And secondly, a region with only a founder in it but with a desirable name will be flooded with nations, when the founder cte's, trying to get that region the next update. This would create a new tag/raid-target instantly as none of the hawkers would leave for the other one and keep their nation in: one more region with a few puppets in and no founder...

[Nephmir]

The loophole in this thing is the following: If you do this without locking the region it is extremely dangerous. Anyone who moves into the region and back out after the nation that wants to refound, gets refound-powers.

And secondly, a region with only a founder in it but with a desirable name will be flooded with nations, when the founder cte's, trying to get that region the next update. This would create a new tag/raid-target instantly as none of the hawkers would leave for the other one and keep their nation in: one more region with a few puppets in and no founder...

(1) Correct: That loophole still gives Defenders a chance.

(2) Puppet Flooding is still against the rules.

[Unibot III]

If there are no natives left in a region, then the Defenders didn't do their job correctly and the natives no longer own that region. That's all you're worried about, how Raiders can refound regions they already won.

There are no natives left in those regions because they were forcibly removed. I wonder what Havenites would think about not having a right to Haven, because some gameplayers kicked them out of their own region!!

You've just admitted your bias here - this proposal isn't about helping RPers or natives at all. This is about making it easier to grief regions and you're hoping the bandwagon effect will trick people into supporting the change.

[Nephmir]

If there are no natives left in a region, then the Defenders didn't do their job correctly and the natives no longer own that region. That's all you're worried about, how Raiders can refound regions they already won.

There are no natives left in those regions because they were forcibly removed. I wonder what Havenites would think about not having a right to Haven, because some gameplayers kicked them out of their own region!!

You've just admitted your bias here - this proposal isn't about helping RPers or natives at all. This about making it easier to grief regions and you're hoping the bandwagon effect will trick people into supporting the change.

I was merely addressing your side of the concern. Don't pretend to know my motives.

[Ravania Ultra]

The loophole in this thing is the following: If you do this without locking the region it is extremely dangerous. Anyone who moves into the region and back out after the nation that wants to refound, gets refound-powers.

And secondly, a region with only a founder in it but with a desirable name will be flooded with nations, when the founder cte's, trying to get that region the next update. This would create a new tag/raid-target instantly as none of the hawkers would leave for the other one and keep their nation in: one more region with a few puppets in and no founder...

(1) Correct: That loophole still gives Defenders a chance.

(2) Puppet Flooding is still against the rules.

(1) It shouldn't give any R/D-er a chance, this idea should help natives.

(2) 2 or 3 people putting in one nation isn't puppetflooding...

[Nephmir]

(1) It shouldn't give any R/D-er a chance, this idea should help natives.

(2) 2 or 3 people putting in one nation isn't puppetflooding...

Yes, but that's the point. If a password is imposed, then nobody has a chance. If there isn't one, then not much has changed. And if the region is that important, a Liberation would be passed on it anyway.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm a defender, I've believed the status quo has been unacceptable for years - but implementing your idea would make the game less safe for natives. That's more unacceptable. It doesn't make the problem better, it puts off the issue until it becomes an even bigger problem.

Yes, you are a defender and you have been arguing against the status quo. But you haven't been effective, and the largest reason for that is because your ideas for changing the status quo tend to involve making it impossible raid. You opposed Founder Succession for the same reasons you are opposing this, because there were a handful of a regions that held symbolic value, and you only wanted a solution that made sure 100% raiders would fail and defenders would succeed.

I am also a defender, as you know. One of those "moral defenders" you recruited a very long time ago. I also believe the status quo is a failure. But I realize that any idea put forth cannot be one sided. There must be a cost to defenders, if the goal is to protect a region from raiders. That is simply the requirement admins have put in place for changes to Gameplay.

This whole ordeal started because Mallorea and Riva decided to stir the pot with RPers, and now RP regions do not believe that passwords are the opt-out they were sold. They've been told now that their only available way to opt out of R/D is to get a founder. But they believe, rightly so, that refounding is dangerous.

So, I see an idea floated to make their chief concern over refounding less of a real concern. They are scared of a raider coming in a taking their region when it CTEs. How do you prevent? The only way to prevent that from happening is to assign the ability to refound the region to a specific person. This was the idea proposed in Founder Succession, but written off as too imbalanced. To introduce balance, the idea has to be changed to make sure it doesn't provide absolute immunity from raiders.

This idea is Founder Succession minus immunity from raiders. That means there is a chance that raiders can use this to the detriment of other regions. That is the requirement the admins have set for changes to Gameplay.

This idea undoubtedly makes refounding easier for RP regions. You cannot argue otherwise. It removes the ability to "snipe" a region when it CTEs. That is the chief concern that is preventing refounds today.

You believe that this idea makes refounding more dangerous than it already is. Well, there's nothing I can say about that. Refounding will always be dangerous. Right now, a region can be sniped. Under this idea, it can't. So, to me, that makes refounding less dangerous. That makes it better than the status quo. But it doesn't make refounding completely safe, and it wasn't proposed as doing that either. Refounding will never be completely safe, because the admins don't want it to be.

I have asked for your ideas not as some cheap method of distraction, but because I want to know if there are actually other ideas to facilitate easier and safer (not safe) refounding that admins will accept.

[Unibot III]

I was merely addressing your side of the concern. Don't pretend to know my motives.

I've just explained why the people you're saying you intend to please would be worse off with your proposal and you've basically said "don't pretend to know my motives" ominously.

[Unibot III]

You believe that this idea makes refounding more dangerous than it already is. Well, there's nothing I can say about that.

THEN YOU'VE LOST THE ARGUMENT, GLEN.

If the status quo is safer for natives, you can pine all you like about how I've been ineffective and how the status quo stinks, but it only stinks on an absolute level - it is still better than the alternative proposed here.

I agree that proposals don't need to necessarily avoid making invading easier.

HOWEVER,

If proposals make griefing easier without helping to keep regions safer at an even greater level, than your solution is not net-positive it is net-negative.

A proposal should aim to be net-positive for natives, not just pursue some sort of change blindly regardless of whether or not it will make natives (RPers included) worse off.

[Glen-Rhodes]

(1) It shouldn't give any R/D-er a chance, this idea should help natives.

While that's a noble goal, it's not how the admins see the game. Changes will be evaluated in the context of R/D. [violet] agrees with the common arguments that RPers (and any other non-R/D group) are part of Gameplay because they have a region.

If the status quo is safer for natives, you can pine all you like about how I've been ineffective and how the status quo stinks, but it only stinks on an absolute level - it is still better than the alternative proposed here.

I don't think the status quo is "safer." I said there's nothing I can say about your thoughts, because I disagree with them. I believe this idea would change the status quo for the better, by eliminating "sniping" during refounds.

[Nephmir]

(1) It shouldn't give any R/D-er a chance, this idea should help natives.

(2) 2 or 3 people putting in one nation isn't puppetflooding...

Yes, but that's the point. If a password is imposed, then nobody has a chance. If there isn't one, then not much has changed. And if the region is that important, a Liberation would be passed on it anyway.

Just in case nobody saw this...

[Unibot III]

I said there's nothing I can say about your thoughts, because I disagree with them. I believe this idea would change the status quo for the better, by eliminating "sniping" during refounds.

And I've established that "sniping" during refounds is much much much more common among griefed regions than native regions. So your proposal would unproportionally make natives worse off than they already are!

Your only defense to this argument has been, "well RPers feel differently" and frankly, the response to that is RPers have been misinformed if they think inceptions of native refounds are common. They're rare - and making it an impossible situation would make all of their regions less safe, because it's more common with griefed regions.

Your proposal doesn't have a leg to stand on, Glen.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Your only defense to this argument has been, "well RPers feel differently" and frankly, the response to that is RPers have been misinformed if they think inceptions of native refounds are common.

I don't think RPers believe it's common. How often it happens doesn't make it any less of a threat to a group of players that are very risk averse. They don't think they should be able to be raided in the first place. So it's no surprise that they don't want to accept the chance of their region being sniped by raiders. The risk is likely even more serious now, because mods have shown (whether they intended to or not) that they aren't on the RPers' side, and that social conventions that have protected them (whether those were illusions or not) are suddenly non-existent.

So they want an opt-out, and they're not going to get one other than passwords and founders. Because of Mall, they no longer see passwords as an effective means to opt out. All that's left is founders. They see refounding as too dangerous as it currently exists. So the idea is to make it less dangerous.

If you disagree with this idea, then come up with another one that makes it less dangerous to refound. RPers aren't going to embrace the Security Council or become allied with defenders, because they don't want any part of R/D at all.

[The Remnants of Kobol]

I don't see what this would do but further anger people who have been raided and make it even easier to raid and colonize.

Raider MO is generally kick everyone out of the region who is a threat. So if all the natives get kicked and banned, then the last person in the region is a raider. Suddenly, there is zero chance of getting the region back for natives.

Unless that is the intent?

[Unibot III]

If you disagree with this idea, then come up with another one that makes it less dangerous to refound.

This line of argumentation is disingenuous: I don't just disagree with this idea, I've established that the idea is worse than the status quo - so it's irrelevant whether or not I can come up with a better idea.

I don't see what this would do but further anger people who have been raided and make it even easier to raid and colonize.

Exactly!

[Glen-Rhodes]

If you disagree with this idea, then come up with another one that makes it less dangerous to refound.

This line of argumentation is disingenuous: I don't just disagree with this idea, I've established that the idea is worse than the status quo - so it's irrelevant whether or not I can come up with a better idea.

It's not disingenuous. RPers have said that passwords aren't an opt-out anymore. Their only option is to get a founder, which they see as too dangerous under the current system. The status quo is not acceptable, so some kind of change needs to be made. If you don't like this change, you can't fall back on the status quo. You need to suggest something different.