In the interests of a collaborative GP/RPer solution.

[Cormac A Stark]

Yeah, all right, I don't have time or patience to go in circles for ten pages in this thread. Here's the bottom line:

1. Under this proposal, R/D would become much more difficult and would be limited to souped up Warzones. The only GCRs that would be appealing would be the nine currently in existence, and even interest in those would dwindle over time, just as no one today is interested in Warzones.

2. Also under this proposal, the most politically interesting regions in the game would become the equivalent of your run of the mill neutral, founderless UCR, virtually overnight. No WAs could ever leave the region without gravely endangering regional security, and GCR regional governments couldn't take any position on any matter that might anger anyone with the means to invade.

3. Meanwhile, nothing in this proposal will force UCRs that have decided of their own free will to be irrelevant and uninvolved in gameplay to suddenly be relevant and involved.

If that's what kind of future you want to see for NationStates Gameplay -- the death of it, essentially, as with all other radical suggestions of this nature but just less obvious with this one -- by all means, implement this idea.

[Rhina]

This is a terrible idea, and I'm not saying that just because I'm an R/Der. You're appeasing the Roleplay minority (some 50 regions out of 17,000) by turning feeders and sinkers into the new Warzones. You're also giving every Founderless UCR the shaft, having no control over so much as their WFEs, and pretty much destroying their ability to refound. Even if Custodians get implemented to fix this, that's some 120 Custodian resolutions that need to get passed before the problem is solved, and that's assuming no more regions go founderless. Even from a Roleplay perspective, that's absolutely mental.

[Festavo]

The only part of this proposal i like is the founder succession. It will help active regions or historic regions, it will make some aspects of raiding harder, but at the same time some aspects easier

[The Church of Satan]

Responding to you Ava, Cormac said exactly what I would have said.

If founderless UCRs want to be better protected from raiders they should do what most other UCRs do, they should recruit more nations to join them and secure their delegacies. To expect the NS community to accept the ritual sacrifice of the 9 GCR's communities that have cemented their place in NS via hard work while the minority of inactive RPers are hand fed complete immunity out of sheer pity is absolutely repulsive.

A simple comparison of the effort put into both sides would help anyone reach the logical conclusion that this suggestion of yours is outright wrong.

GCRs: Years of hard work and personal investment. Vast contributions to NS, the bulk of the player base.

Majority of Founderless UCRs: A few months of RMB chat. No contribution to NS other than RPers adding to the diversity of the player base.

I'm not saying RP regions and founderless UCRs shouldn't be around, but this suggestion you've brought up isn't the solution we need in NS.

[District XIV]

no one today is interested in Warzones.

Sure...

It's not like Campbell, Codger, Me, or anyone else who built communities in the Warzones are actually interested in them.

[/sarcasm]

[Space Dandy]

no one today is interested in Warzones.

Sure...

It's not like Campbell, Codger, Me, or anyone else who built communities in the Warzones are actually interested in them.

[/sarcasm]

Cormac made a general assumption, and generally that assumption has mostly been true. It's a small minority who make communities out of the Warzones.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

This is a terrible idea, and I'm not saying that just because I'm an R/Der. You're appeasing the Roleplay minority (some 50 regions out of 17,000) by turning feeders and sinkers into the new Warzones. You're also giving every Founderless UCR the shaft, having no control over so much as their WFEs, and pretty much destroying their ability to refound. Even if Custodians get implemented to fix this, that's some 120 Custodian resolutions that need to get passed before the problem is solved, and that's assuming no more regions go founderless. Even from a Roleplay perspective, that's absolutely mental.

It is not exclusively roleplay regions that are raided. Also, while those proposals might need to be passed, it won't be because of any imminent threat- just out of general inconvenience.

[North Campbell Nation]

Sure...

It's not like Campbell, Codger, Me, or anyone else who built communities in the Warzones are actually interested in them.

[/sarcasm]

Cormac made a general assumption, and generally that assumption has mostly been true. It's a small minority who make communities out of the Warzones.

This much is true. Warzones are not interesting to most because there isn't much to do there. Leaving a mark to commemorate one's accomplishments, essentially the goal of large-scale raiding operations, is essentially impossible in a Warzone and would be borderline impossible under this proposal.

Believe me, I have seen the grief caused by raiders on a founderless community. I am in complete and total agreement that the grief caused to founderless communities, in particular those which have no desire to be disturbed as they engage in a different subset of the game from those in the R/D game, is a bad thing, and deserves a serious discussion on how this might be remedied, or at least alleviated. However, I do not think that this solution will really do either.

As has been echoed many times, this proposal just shifts the destruction of communities and their efforts from one group (founderless RP communities) to another, equally important group (the communities in GCRs). In fact, as Church of Satan already pointed out, quantitatively, it is more likely than not that more effort, whether measured in total hours spent, posts made, or members involved, is spent on maintaining the existing communities of GCRs than on the founderless RP communities that this proposal seeks to protect. And while I don't mean to suggest that GCRs should be protected from harm at the expense of RP communities, they should also not be degraded to empty regions to squabble over in the name of protecting a minority.

The other thing which I touched on earlier, but which wasn't picked up, is that even though we try to treat GCRs equally, they do have an important purpose. Namely, they are the first place new players and newly revived players surface. To put new and refounded nations on the front lines of an R/D game much more concentrated and limited in options, where they would be immediately pressured to join the WA and endorse one group or another, will not be conducive to a welcoming view of the NS community, and would likely drive many would-be players away. Many of these nations quite likely share the same desires as those RPers who wish only to be alone. Given the typically low rates of participation in GCR government and elections, one could extrapolate that a large proportion of these citizens care little about the outside world and just wish to answer issues and play the game as it was written. It would be beyond hypocritical to subject these nations, whose way of playing the game is no less valid than ours or any other, to an intensified version of the present R/D game against their will.

Again, I think something definitely ought to be done about the unjust suffering of the founderless communities, but this proposal is not it.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Cormac made a general assumption, and generally that assumption has mostly been true. It's a small minority who make communities out of the Warzones.

This much is true. Warzones are not interesting to most because there isn't much to do there. Leaving a mark to commemorate one's accomplishments, essentially the goal of large-scale raiding operations, is essentially impossible in a Warzone and would be borderline impossible under this proposal.

Believe me, I have seen the grief caused by raiders on a founderless community. I am in complete and total agreement that the grief caused to founderless communities, in particular those which have no desire to be disturbed as they engage in a different subset of the game from those in the R/D game, is a bad thing, and deserves a serious discussion on how this might be remedied, or at least alleviated. However, I do not think that this solution will really do either.

As has been echoed many times, this proposal just shifts the destruction of communities and their efforts from one group (founderless RP communities) to another, equally important group (the communities in GCRs). In fact, as Church of Satan already pointed out, quantitatively, it is more likely than not that more effort, whether measured in total hours spent, posts made, or members involved, is spent on maintaining the existing communities of GCRs than on the founderless RP communities that this proposal seeks to protect. And while I don't mean to suggest that GCRs should be protected from harm at the expense of RP communities, they should also not be degraded to empty regions to squabble over in the name of protecting a minority.

The other thing which I touched on earlier, but which wasn't picked up, is that even though we try to treat GCRs equally, they do have an important purpose. Namely, they are the first place new players and newly revived players surface. To put new and refounded nations on the front lines of an R/D game much more concentrated and limited in options, where they would be immediately pressured to join the WA and endorse one group or another, will not be conducive to a welcoming view of the NS community, and would likely drive many would-be players away. Many of these nations quite likely share the same desires as those RPers who wish only to be alone. Given the typically low rates of participation in GCR government and elections, one could extrapolate that a large proportion of these citizens care little about the outside world and just wish to answer issues and play the game as it was written. It would be beyond hypocritical to subject these nations, whose way of playing the game is no less valid than ours or any other, to an intensified version of the present R/D game against their will.

Again, I think something definitely ought to be done about the unjust suffering of the founderless communities, but this proposal is not it.

Founderless RP communities. Founderless RP communities. Why are you people so hell bent on assuming that it singularly protects founderless RP communities? It protects ALL founderless UCRs. Not just nation roleplay communities in general.

[North Campbell Nation]

Founderless RP communities. Founderless RP communities. Why are you people so hell bent on assuming that it singularly protects founderless RP communities? It protects ALL founderless UCRs. Not just nation roleplay communities in general.

The title of the thread is "In the interests of a collaborative GP/RPer solution."
That would seem to imply that RP communities are heavily involved, and/or that the main goal of this proposal is to protect those RP communities.
If that's the wrong conclusion, please clarify.

Either way, I still think it's a bad proposal. GCRs have no less right to their internal politics than UCRs.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

Founderless RP communities. Founderless RP communities. Why are you people so hell bent on assuming that it singularly protects founderless RP communities? It protects ALL founderless UCRs. Not just nation roleplay communities in general.

The title of the thread is "In the interests of a collaborative GP/RPer solution."
That would seem to imply that RP communities are heavily involved, and/or that the main goal of this proposal is to protect those RP communities.
If that's the wrong conclusion, please clarify.

Either way, I still think it's a bad proposal. GCRs have no less right to their internal politics than UCRs.

The primary point of this topic is explained in the opening post- to try and find a solution that puts an end to the spiteful crap that goes on between RP and GP communitites- not even necessarily by introducing any part of this proposal, but by simply putting something on the table for discussion in the first place, to help others come up with ideas. I would be absolutely astounded if this was introduced- I fight for it anyway because I like it.

[Rhina]

It is not exclusively roleplay regions that are raided.

I never suggested that they were.

[Cerillium]

This is a terrible idea, and I'm not saying that just because I'm an R/Der. You're appeasing the Roleplay minority (some 50 regions out of 17,000) by turning feeders and sinkers into the new Warzones. You're also giving every Founderless UCR the shaft, having no control over so much as their WFEs, and pretty much destroying their ability to refound. Even if Custodians get implemented to fix this, that's some 120 Custodian resolutions that need to get passed before the problem is solved, and that's assuming no more regions go founderless. Even from a Roleplay perspective, that's absolutely mental.

This echos my initial thought. It hampers their gameplay by cutting off their ability to utilize any functions vital to the region's well being (embassies, passwords, ejecting/banning) IIRC.

Some regions will not refound because the ties are more than simple RP history. For example, were my region's founder to die IRL, people would want to preserve the region in tribute to her. Revoking powers would leave it completely susceptible to raids. Raiders might not be willing to respect a "tribute" region's wishes.

[Kogvuron]

Revoking powers would leave it completely susceptible to raids. Raiders might not be willing to respect a "tribute" region's wishes.

No it wouldn't, because the raiders couldn't do anything if they had the delegacy either. And if they tried to spam the RMB or something like that, that is illegal and they can be reported for that.

That being said, I have mixed feelings about this proposal, which I will explain when I have more time.

[Swith Witherward]

Revoking powers would leave it completely susceptible to raids. Raiders might not be willing to respect a "tribute" region's wishes.

No it wouldn't, because the raiders couldn't do anything if they had the delegacy either. And if they tried to spam the RMB or something like that, that is illegal and they can be reported for that.

That being said, I have mixed feelings about this proposal, which I will explain when I have more time.

Actually, part of that stems from the behind the scenes grumblings of a few wanna-be raider kiddies who think it would be entertaining to swarm small regions and seize RMBs. Their posts would be carefully crafted to skirt the spam or griefing (or whatever) rules. According to them, Mods don't decide who is or isn't supposed to be there, and a powerless delegate wouldn't be able to boot them. WFE tags would be swapped for IC RMB posts.

This "new raiding concept" sounds absolutely stupid to me. Cer and a few others have been snickering over their idea, though. RMB "Huzzah, huzzah huzzah!" posts followed by some native chiming in, "Oh, do shut up. You're as impotent as we are now." At most, it would annoy the natives and disrupt the region's purpose.

There's your laugh for the day. It's almost as silly as the group that wanted to get people together to raid TBR's region. Yeah, good luck with that. Let me know what ol' Halcones says when you beg him to grant the delegate some powers.


Back on topic...

I have mixed feelings about this. I think it would add a bit too much confusion to the game.

I hate RD with a passion. But, like it or not, RD does serve a purpose when we look at the very teensy regions made halfheartedly by inexperienced noobie players that allow themselves to DEAT. It scrubs them, in essence, forcing the two or three remaining (inexperienced) players to join more powerful regions. That action strengthens and builds the community. Inexperienced players learn from it. I know... people will absolutely disagree with me, or be shocked that I said it at all.

Revoking delegate powers across the board on founderless regions would be a horrific blow to those who have worked so hard to maintain a region. It's an insult to their efforts. It makes the region useless to raid, but it also renders them useless in many other ways, too.

[Bears Armed]

Actually, part of that stems from the behind the scenes grumblings of a few wanna-be raider kiddies who think it would be entertaining to swarm small regions and seize RMBs. Their posts would be carefully crafted to skirt the spam or griefing (or whatever) rules. According to them, Mods don't decide who is or isn't supposed to be there, and a powerless delegate wouldn't be able to boot them. WFE tags would be swapped for IC RMB posts.

This "new raiding concept" sounds absolutely stupid to me. Cer and a few others have been snickering over their idea, though. RMB "Huzzah, huzzah huzzah!" posts followed by some native chiming in, "Oh, do shut up. You're as impotent as we are now." At most, it would annoy the natives and disrupt the region's purpose.

What "new raiding concept"? That was actually the oldest form of raiding, the one that led to Delegates being given executive power so that they could police their regions.

It scrubs them, in essence, forcing the two or three remaining (inexperienced) players to join more powerful regions. That action strengthens and builds the community. Inexperienced players learn from it.

If that doesn't just push them out of NS altogether...

[Britannic Realms]

3. Meanwhile, nothing in this proposal will force UCRs that have decided of their own free will to be irrelevant and uninvolved in gameplay to suddenly be relevant and involved.

Are you saying this is a bad thing? If so, why?