A Problem with Liberations

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

There were mod-enforced rules about it, and that was a nightmare. We introduced influence, and that prevented the worst abuses. Then we introduced Liberations, which, as far as I can tell, has completely fixed it. Defenders far outnumber invaders, and there's no way they will hold a region if it doesn't have a password. Sometimes they don't even hold them when there is a password.

Just want to make sure that for the sometimes when they do, or the sometimes there are problems, that things have been clearly laid out and can be dealt with fairly. I think with some solid assurances, a good deal of the anger and worry would ease up. The tone set early on in this discussion didn't do much in that direction.

[Vojvodina-Nihon]

From my perspective, it's not even really teamwork. Some people aren't around often enough because they're working jobs or even, like myself, going through university. People don't check NS every day, or some times not every week.

In cases like that, whoever the native delegate is might need to give them a boot (if the majority of the rest of the region agrees it is necessary) early in the re-founding.

The delegate of Haven tried that, in 2005, and was deleted for griefing. Since ejecting lots of natives = griefing and the mods evidently hadn't checked to see that he wasn't an invader. Bunch of RPers kicked up a whole shitstorm about it in the Moderation forum, as well.

Of course, then Influence came along and kept anyone from kicking out large numbers of nations, but even if the mods give the current delegate the okay to boot the inactives, it'll probably take a good deal of influence to kick especially more longtime residents, and influence doesn't replenish easily or quickly.

I agree, it's not impossible, but it will probably require a lot of time and planning -- and if the liberation reaches quorum, time they won't have.

Of course, you could say it's stuff like that that makes refoundings fun, but I've found that not many people share my mentality for some odd reason.

[A mean old man]

Although you're using Haven, a massive, secure region where a re-founding isn't even necessary, as an example.

Most regions that have a problem with invaders these days are relatively small, and therefore would be easier to conduct a re-founding in.

EDIT: Pardon me - a real problem with invaders. The liberation of Haven will never fly.

[Izistan]

Okay so how exactly does this I/D thing work? Raiders go in, endorsement one of their own, then eject everyone and password the region?

[A mean old man]

Okay so how exactly does this I/D thing work? Raiders go in, endorsement one of their own, then eject everyone and password the region?

That is one of the most common forms of invading. Other, more clever (and sometimes more humane - at least, as humane as invading someone's region can be) forms have existed before, however that's the form we encounter most often and work the hardest to prevent.

[Izistan]

Okay so how exactly does this I/D thing work? Raiders go in, endorsement one of their own, then eject everyone and password the region?

That is one of the most common forms of invading. Other, more clever (and sometimes more humane - at least, as humane as invading someone's region can be) forms have existed before, however that's the form we encounter most often and work the hardest to prevent.

...and that is legal within game rules correct?

[Northrop-Grumman]

Okay so how exactly does this I/D thing work? Raiders go in, endorsement one of their own, then eject everyone and password the region?

That is one of the most common forms of invading. Other, more clever (and sometimes more humane - at least, as humane as invading someone's region can be) forms have existed before, however that's the form we encounter most often and work the hardest to prevent.

...and that is legal within game rules correct?

Yes.

[Kandarin]

Okay so how exactly does this I/D thing work? Raiders go in, endorsement one of their own, then eject everyone and password the region?

That is one of the most common forms of invading. Other, more clever (and sometimes more humane - at least, as humane as invading someone's region can be) forms have existed before, however that's the form we encounter most often and work the hardest to prevent.

...and that is legal within game rules correct?

It was illegal years back, but the headache of trying to tease out the truth of what was really a region-wiping invasion and what was internal or an ejection of non-natives pressured the admins/mods into adding Influence instead. Then it turned out that Influence allowed but only slowed down the process. This meant that in practice, Influence clamped down on every single part of Gameplay except the very region-emptying invaders whose antics made it necessary in the first place - who, unlike the rest, were more than happy to take their time.

[No endorse]

Okay so how exactly does this I/D thing work? Raiders go in, endorsement one of their own, then eject everyone and password the region?

No. Newcomers have hilariously low influence, and can't ban many nations, especially not those with lots of influence. At least, that's the theory. This means that invaders have to come in serious force against a delegate who's actually got their head in the game, ESPECIALLY if the region in question is coordinated.

It doesn't stop it, but it sets a minimum threshold. And if you're paying attention, you can seriously nip that whole thing in the bud pretty quick.

[Oh my Days]

Raiding is not the problem, raiding is necessary to encourage activity and raider groups often encourage activity but Liberations are creating disincentives to raid. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the feature to add regions to dossiers and the ejectban buttons have made invading harder, and the dual update time has made it harder to keep hold of a region once it is taken, that is now only possible for the larger organisations as they can summon the most numbers, anyone who tries to set up a raider group with a few friends will not have a chance. The disincentives not only ruin the game for raiders, but risk substantially decreasing activity as raiders are no longer around to encourage it. They are also causing raiders to look further afield for targets, and in this case Haven became a target. The problem is Liberations, they have put far too much power in the hands of WA bureaucrats and increasingly, regions like Haven are going to fall victim. Liberations must go.

If taking control of a region and holding onto it forever, kicking out all the natives, and locking it is your incentive to raid, then we don't care if Liberations give you a disincentive. [violet] and I have explicitly voiced disapproval for that behavior on the forums, and we will continue to make game changes as necessary to prevent you from doing it. Liberations are staying.

It's not just discouraging that sort of raiding though, it's discouraging all raiders from raiding and the balance has to be at least partially restored or raider numbers will be reduced further and hence, activity all over NS will be reduced as raiders encourage activity.

[Somewhereistonia]

raiders encourage activity.

Not that I want to come off as mean or ignorant, but how exactly can this be true? Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

The argument really doesn't follow. If anything, raiders only encourage temporary activity where people are forced to invade in what I believe you are talking about. Still, invasions are going to be a cause for some people to leave NS or to move to larger regions, killing off smaller ones.

If you want to restore the balance in favour of raiding, you might want to consider my idea, posted several times in this thread and generally ignored (maybe it's a too long, didn't read situation). The idea is this, when a region is set up the founder chooses whether the region is an I/D region or a Non I/D region. Those regions that are I/D regions would be set up diferently to encourage the raider game, perhaps making it easier to raid. Those regions that are Non-I/D will have strict rules on raiding and will be designed to prevent all forms of the game. This strikes me as a fair compromise, but nobody seems to be listening (I understand the difficulty in the coding side, but this would actually be a lasting solution I think).

EDIT: I guess feeder regions should be kept in the I/D side, with an explanation of the difference/a link to such specifically on those pages.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

It's not just discouraging that sort of raiding though, it's discouraging all raiders from raiding and the balance has to be at least partially restored or raider numbers will be reduced further and hence, activity all over NS will be reduced as raiders encourage activity.

And how many players has raiding discouraged from playing after playing, blissfully unaware of your style of play until raiders came in and tossed them out for a giggle? Sorry - while I accept raiding is an aspect of the game, it was never THE aspect of the game, nor the reason most people play it.

[Topid]

because it would kill the R/D gameplay

Again, there are people who want to be left alone here and not play in the R/D game. People with founders have a nice exit out of that game as they can never be harmed by an invasion. Those of us in founderless regions, whether it's because there are too many people to coordinate an exit strategy, have too much history backed up on the RMB, or are fearful that some other party with a grudge will intervene, are really unable to refound their regions. This would solve that instantly. If we could easily do it, we'd do it. So what's the difference if we just get founders and bypass all that painful work?

Sooooooo you are still arguing to end raiding. Because then who will raiders raid? No one is left if every region has a founder. Bye-bye huge chunk of NS!

raiders encourage activity.

Not that I want to come off as mean or ignorant, but how exactly can this be true? Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

In certain cases when a dying region is raided the nations have to come together to get their region back, and become interested in NS again.

[Oh my Days]

raiders encourage activity.

Not that I want to come off as mean or ignorant, but how exactly can this be true? Do you have any evidence for this assertion?

The argument really doesn't follow. If anything, raiders only encourage temporary activity where people are forced to invade in what I believe you are talking about. Still, invasions are going to be a cause for some people to leave NS or to move to larger regions, killing off smaller ones.

If you want to restore the balance in favour of raiding, you might want to consider my idea, posted several times in this thread and generally ignored (maybe it's a too long, didn't read situation). The idea is this, when a region is set up the founder chooses whether the region is an I/D region or a Non I/D region. Those regions that are I/D regions would be set up diferently to encourage the raider game, perhaps making it easier to raid. Those regions that are Non-I/D will have strict rules on raiding and will be designed to prevent all forms of the game. This strikes me as a fair compromise, but nobody seems to be listening (I understand the difficulty in the coding side, but this would actually be a lasting solution I think).

Sorry, I should have explained myself. Raiding is a catalyst for activity as it generally occurs in decaying regions, where the natives have stopped logging in as often and are drifting away from the game. Whatver happens to their region, these people are once again involved in the game and probably more involved than ever before. As activity is a habit, they often continue their involvement and NS gets more active players. An example of this is Land of The Liberals, which was two months ago by New Earth (who were eventually fought off). Before New Earth came in, the region had six, inactive nations. Since then, they have rallied around, got the WA to help them, called in nations from allied regions to build the region back up and have now built it up to 19 nations, with an active delegate.

I understand where the suggestions for specific gameplay regions are coming from, but this has been tried before and there are a few regions in existence called Warzones. This failed epically as invasion is about conquest, one group wants to assert dominance over another. Gameplay regions make sure that they are well protected because they don't want to be dominated by another group. Defeat is never wanted, but accepted as inevitable sometimes. This is the same as in RP, those fighting for militaristic dominance do not want to lose, but know that sometimes they might do. In RP sports, people who are desperately trying to win don't want to lose, but know that sometimes they might (I'm not sure if I've correctly grasped the concepts behind RP but you get the general picture). This is why Warzones failed and any other attempt to make regions that it is "acceptable" to invade will fail as well, there is no point beating something that is there to be beaten.

It's not just discouraging that sort of raiding though, it's discouraging all raiders from raiding and the balance has to be at least partially restored or raider numbers will be reduced further and hence, activity all over NS will be reduced as raiders encourage activity.

And how many players has raiding discouraged from playing after playing, blissfully unaware of your style of play until raiders came in and tossed them out for a giggle? Sorry - while I accept raiding is an aspect of the game, it was never THE aspect of the game, nor the reason most people play it.

Raiding generally happens in decaying regions, where the activity isn't there and it's stimulating people to get more involved. Even when an active, but new and founderless region (a combination of the three is very, very rare) is invaded, the experience just encourages the natives to fight back and get more involved. This has been evidenced over many years.

[Northrop-Grumman]

because it would kill the R/D gameplay

Again, there are people who want to be left alone here and not play in the R/D game. People with founders have a nice exit out of that game as they can never be harmed by an invasion. Those of us in founderless regions, whether it's because there are too many people to coordinate an exit strategy, have too much history backed up on the RMB, or are fearful that some other party with a grudge will intervene, are really unable to refound their regions. This would solve that instantly. If we could easily do it, we'd do it. So what's the difference if we just get founders and bypass all that painful work?

Sooooooo you are still arguing to end raiding. Because then who will raiders raid? No one is left if every region has a founder. Bye-bye huge chunk of NS!

This is the sole argument in this entire thread that I have yet to understand.

The argument seems to revolve around the notion that if people had the ability to opt out of the R/D game, every region would lock themselves down and there wouldn't be any possible avenue to raid, correct? Then, naturally what that leads to is the belief that everyone doesn't want to play the R/D game, and thus a huge chunk of NS wouldn't be taken out of the game because guess what? Everyone opted out of it, so they'd have no reason to leave when raiding is gone. This argument doesn't work because of that and because it makes the argument-maker sound like the R/D function is holding a gun up to the head of the rest of the game and forcing them to play. This in turn inflames matters.

[Todd McCloud]

I haven't really read this thread, I admit, but I've heard enough about it to give it a good thinking through.

I rescinded my vote 'for', for those who want to be 'in the know'. I held it a little to see where it'd go. It would've never reached the floor, and if it did, it would've never passed. But still, it's interesting, how this developed.

Basically, the removal of the raiding / defending game would kill off a very strong aspect of the game. From that game comes activity, leadership, etc etc (I've said all this before), all but one of the feeder delegates, Laz, and TRR did not come from the that aspect of the game, etc. Kill off that aspect of the game would be like somehow barring roleplayers from roleplay: it would be a great loss. So, removing the raider / defender game is off the table, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, liberations. I am for any liberation in which the natives are given zero chance to fight back, and what I mean by that is a raid that immediately sets up a password like, say, within 0-3 days or so. It takes the challenging aspect of the raiding game away by an immediate set-up of a password, and shouldn't really be treated as a victory anyway. Regardless, this was initially met with success: Macedon's "raids" on France and Belgium were un-passworded, and things were okay. But, liberations have been used for *any* raid, which is against what I and many others spent defining during the France / Belgium days. How terrible. It's gone from a good use to simply abuse, in my opinion, and I would personally not mind seeing restrictions implemented on them. But for now, there aren't, and politics are allowed to rule the day. This is why we are seeing abuse from liberations on the other side, and unfortunately, a roleplay region was targeted. More unfortunate was how it was handled by the roleplayers, but that's just me. But, regardless of what's fallen out due to the proposal, it's clear - abuse is breeding abuse. This cycle will continue until restrictions are put into place, I believe. On both the raider and defender sides of liberation proposals. Otherwise, we'll keep getting legitimate raids (and rumors of passwords, so liberation proposals are put into place based on speculation alone... seriously now) placed with liberations, and pseudo-liberations targeted from raiders onto innocent password implimentations.

So, if the roleplay community wants to remove raids, that will not happen. Same with defenses. Same with liberations, but only to a point. See, the best course of action is to demand restrictions on liberation proposals. Doing so would hopefully prevent liberation abuse... on both sides... and would prevent your regions from being targeted for liberations again.

My $0.02.

[Topid]

The argument seems to revolve around the notion that if people had the ability to opt out of the R/D game, every region would lock themselves down and there wouldn't be any possible avenue to raid, correct?

Duh.

Then, naturally what that leads to is the belief that everyone doesn't want to play the R/D game, and thus a huge chunk of NS wouldn't be taken out of the game because guess what? Everyone opted out of it, so they'd have no reason to leave when raiding is gone.

No. The people that DO raid/defend KNOW that the importance of refounding, and know that no matter how big the region is, it is still worth it. The number of players that are interested in the R/D game is huge.

This argument doesn't work because of that and because it makes the argument-maker sound like the R/D function is holding a gun up to the head of the rest of the game and forcing them to play. This in turn inflames matters.

Yes, you play nationstates, you play R/D. You can almost always avoid having to do much in an R/D game by having a password up, and any resolution like the one that started this debate will pass over my dead body. But if defending becomes impossible I don't really know if I'd stay in NS... I'd like to think I would, but I'd probably lose interest.

[Northrop-Grumman]

I haven't really read this thread, I admit, but I've heard enough about it to give it a good thinking through.

I rescinded my vote 'for', for those who want to be 'in the know'. I held it a little to see where it'd go. It would've never reached the floor, and if it did, it would've never passed. But still, it's interesting, how this developed.

Basically, the removal of the raiding / defending game would kill off a very strong aspect of the game. From that game comes activity, leadership, etc etc (I've said all this before), all but one of the feeder delegates, Laz, and TRR did not come from the that aspect of the game, etc. Kill off that aspect of the game would be like somehow barring roleplayers from roleplay: it would be a great loss. So, removing the raider / defender game is off the table, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, liberations. I am for any liberation in which the natives are given zero chance to fight back, and what I mean by that is a raid that immediately sets up a password like, say, within 0-3 days or so. It takes the challenging aspect of the raiding game away by an immediate set-up of a password, and shouldn't really be treated as a victory anyway. Regardless, this was initially met with success: Macedon's "raids" on France and Belgium were un-passworded, and things were okay. But, liberations have been used for *any* raid, which is against what I and many others spent defining during the France / Belgium days. How terrible. It's gone from a good use to simply abuse, in my opinion, and I would personally not mind seeing restrictions implemented on them. But for now, there aren't, and politics are allowed to rule the day. This is why we are seeing abuse from liberations on the other side, and unfortunately, a roleplay region was targeted. More unfortunate was how it was handled by the roleplayers, but that's just me. But, regardless of what's fallen out due to the proposal, it's clear - abuse is breeding abuse. This cycle will continue until restrictions are put into place, I believe. On both the raider and defender sides of liberation proposals. Otherwise, we'll keep getting legitimate raids (and rumors of passwords, so liberation proposals are put into place based on speculation alone... seriously now) placed with liberations, and pseudo-liberations targeted from raiders onto innocent password implimentations.

So, if the roleplay community wants to remove raids, that will not happen. Same with defenses. Same with liberations, but only to a point. See, the best course of action is to demand restrictions on liberation proposals. Doing so would hopefully prevent liberation abuse... on both sides... and would prevent your regions from being targeted for liberations again.

My $0.02.

Restrictions placed upon liberations would be a much needed improvement, and I personally believe that would aid in the RPing regions from getting all of this abuse for no apparent reason and would serve to ease most of our worries. But restrictions have been suggested and it seems that no one has any clear indication of how you would clearly define what makes up an RP region and one that ought to be available for raiding. There have been many saying that raiders would simply apply for the exemption and it would kill the raiding/defending game...but quite clearly something needs to be done.

I honestly wish people would come together and offer constructive thoughts and ideas toward resolving this situation, like you and Nathicana (I know there are others, it's a long thread thought) have, instead of stonewalling every single idea that comes across the table that seeks to change even the slightest portion of the game. Everyone should have a fair chance to be heard and no side should be trying to overpower the other.

[Northrop-Grumman]

The argument seems to revolve around the notion that if people had the ability to opt out of the R/D game, every region would lock themselves down and there wouldn't be any possible avenue to raid, correct?

Duh.

Then, naturally what that leads to is the belief that everyone doesn't want to play the R/D game, and thus a huge chunk of NS wouldn't be taken out of the game because guess what? Everyone opted out of it, so they'd have no reason to leave when raiding is gone.

No. The people that DO raid/defend KNOW that the importance of refounding, and know that no matter how big the region is, it is still worth it. The number of players that are interested in the R/D game is huge.

But you just agreed with me that everyone would opt out of it, so you're basically wrong. R/D game is not huge, because everyone would opt out of it. If not very many did opt out, then you'd be right in saying it was huge. This honestly still makes no sense.

This argument doesn't work because of that and because it makes the argument-maker sound like the R/D function is holding a gun up to the head of the rest of the game and forcing them to play. This in turn inflames matters.

Yes, you play nationstates, you play R/D. You can almost always avoid having to do much in an R/D game by having a password up, and any resolution like the one that started this debate will pass over my dead body. But if defending becomes impossible I don't really know if I'd stay in NS... I'd like to think I would, but I'd probably lose interest.

No, just because I play NS doesn't mean I play R/D, just like I don't play in General or the WA or in regional politics and so forth. It's forced upon me and other people who honestly don't care and want to be left alone.

[Sanctaria]

I think I have what may be a suitable compromise, but, might be impossible or just to difficult to do with regards to coding.

Personally, I think that liberating is unfair to some nations that are not members of the WA. It's a decision made by the WA that effects non WA members, which is unfair and not supposed to happen. Saying that though, I do understand why it's there and it is an interesting and excellent thing to RP.

My idea is this. Make 80% of all regions WA Regions and the other 20% non WA Regions. Each Regions gets to decide and then, if more than 20% don't want to be a member, you do a lottery thing. That way, a nation can decide to join a WA Region if they want to be a member of the WA and if they don't, they join a non WA Region. If they join a WA Region, they automatically apply for WA Member status.

A lot, alot, of kinks and probably difficult to implement. But meh, a passing idea.

Oh, I forgot about how liberations could apply. You can liberate a WA Region, but not a non WA Region, so if people want to be left alone, pray to end up as one of the 20% or raid.

[Todd McCloud]

Restrictions placed upon liberations would be a much needed improvement, and I personally believe that would aid in the RPing regions from getting all of this abuse for no apparent reason and would serve to ease most of our worries. But restrictions have been suggested and it seems that no one has any clear indication of how you would clearly define what makes up an RP region and one that ought to be available for raiding. There have been many saying that raiders would simply apply for the exemption and it would kill the raiding/defending game...but quite clearly something needs to be done.

I honestly wish people would come together and offer constructive thoughts and ideas toward resolving this situation, like you and Nathicana (I know there are others, it's a long thread thought) have, instead of stonewalling every single idea that comes across the table that seeks to change even the slightest portion of the game. Everyone should have a fair chance to be heard and no side should be trying to overpower the other.

If you're an RPing region, I really wouldn't worry about this. There's very little possibility that a resolution such as this one would have reached the floor. It's a nuisance, but it won't be a major problem.

That said, I would be more than willing to work with players (*whoever* wants to come - roleplayers, gameplayer alike) to work out such a solution. There are obvious obstacles, but really, this is regressing into a nasty argument.

[Unibot]

Now, liberations. I am for any liberation in which the natives are given zero chance to fight back, and what I mean by that is a raid that immediately sets up a password like, say, within 0-3 days or so. It takes the challenging aspect of the raiding game away by an immediate set-up of a password, and shouldn't really be treated as a victory anyway. Regardless, this was initially met with success: Macedon's "raids" on France and Belgium were un-passworded, and things were okay. But, liberations have been used for *any* raid, which is against what I and many others spent defining during the France / Belgium days. How terrible. It's gone from a good use to simply abuse, in my opinion, and I would personally not mind seeing restrictions implemented on them. But for now, there aren't, and politics are allowed to rule the day. This is why we are seeing abuse from liberations on the other side, and unfortunately, a roleplay region was targeted. More unfortunate was how it was handled by the roleplayers, but that's just me. But, regardless of what's fallen out due to the proposal, it's clear - abuse is breeding abuse. This cycle will continue until restrictions are put into place, I believe. On both the raider and defender sides of liberation proposals. Otherwise, we'll keep getting legitimate raids (and rumors of passwords, so liberation proposals are put into place based on speculation alone... seriously now) placed with liberations, and pseudo-liberations targeted from raiders onto innocent password implementations.

If there is a rumor of a password, but no password will actually be put on a region, then how is a WA liberation an exploitation? All it does is bar the delegate from implementing a password. I'm sorry, I just heard this argument over and over again in that Land of the Liberals debate, and it just isn't air-tight, if no password is going to be implemented, then one shouldn't have a problem being barred from the password tools.. unless one is actually going to implemented one, and one is just a liar.

And how is a legitimate raid hurt by having the region liberated? A legitimate raid is focused on raiding, not destroying the region in its entirety.. somewhere along the way, raiders have lost their own identities. My advice to raiders would be to go back to the basics of raiding, as this obsession with destroying regions as opposed to raiding, will only leave your community without competition... and without competition, well, you have nothing... do you?

[Northrop-Grumman]

Restrictions placed upon liberations would be a much needed improvement, and I personally believe that would aid in the RPing regions from getting all of this abuse for no apparent reason and would serve to ease most of our worries. But restrictions have been suggested and it seems that no one has any clear indication of how you would clearly define what makes up an RP region and one that ought to be available for raiding. There have been many saying that raiders would simply apply for the exemption and it would kill the raiding/defending game...but quite clearly something needs to be done.

I honestly wish people would come together and offer constructive thoughts and ideas toward resolving this situation, like you and Nathicana (I know there are others, it's a long thread thought) have, instead of stonewalling every single idea that comes across the table that seeks to change even the slightest portion of the game. Everyone should have a fair chance to be heard and no side should be trying to overpower the other.

If you're an RPing region, I really wouldn't worry about this. There's very little possibility that a resolution such as this one would have reached the floor. It's a nuisance, but it won't be a major problem.

That said, I would be more than willing to work with players (*whoever* wants to come - roleplayers, gameplayer alike) to work out such a solution. There are obvious obstacles, but really, this is regressing into a nasty argument.

Yeah, I personally understand that there's nothing to worry about with this particular proposed resolution, but for a decent chunk of those arguing here, it seems to highlight a vulnerability that the forum roleplaying community faces. We don't always look at the WA subforums or possibly even the gameplay subforums, and I'm the sort of person who never looks at the RMB and RSS feeds because there's never anything there which requires my attention. So what people feel is that this could be suddenly popped upon them without any notice and for a reason which absolutely mystifies them. We're not raiders; we're not defenders; we never paid any attention to that part of the game.

And thank you for the offer, it's greatly appreciated.

[Kandarin]

I see the subject has come up of the relative popularity of raiding, RP, etc. vis-a-vis each other and other aspects of the game. I feel that this information might be helpful here.

[Unibot]

Restrictions placed upon liberations would be a much needed improvement, and I personally believe that would aid in the RPing regions from getting all of this abuse for no apparent reason and would serve to ease most of our worries. But restrictions have been suggested and it seems that no one has any clear indication of how you would clearly define what makes up an RP region and one that ought to be available for raiding. There have been many saying that raiders would simply apply for the exemption and it would kill the raiding/defending game...but quite clearly something needs to be done.

I honestly wish people would come together and offer constructive thoughts and ideas toward resolving this situation, like you and Nathicana (I know there are others, it's a long thread thought) have, instead of stonewalling every single idea that comes across the table that seeks to change even the slightest portion of the game. Everyone should have a fair chance to be heard and no side should be trying to overpower the other.

If you're an RPing region, I really wouldn't worry about this. There's very little possibility that a resolution such as this one would have reached the floor. It's a nuisance, but it won't be a major problem.

That said, I would be more than willing to work with players (*whoever* wants to come - roleplayers, gameplayer alike) to work out such a solution. There are obvious obstacles, but really, this is regressing into a nasty argument.

Like making a pact between invaders and defenders, declaring RP regions as demilitarized zones? As well as non-liberation zones without explicit consent from a majority of the defined natives of the RP region?