hey, I never specified who I was talking about, I'll just leave that up for you all to decide what it means for yourself.
Advertisement
by Pythagosaurus » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:25 pm
[violet] wrote:This thread has raised a lot of extremely complex, perennial issues, so if you want to discuss any of the points below that do NOT relate directly to Haven--e.g. whether we should ban invasions, how reFoundings could work, etc--please, please start a new thread for that.
by A mean old man » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:27 pm
by Uiri » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:33 pm
A mean old man wrote:Somewhereistonia wrote:We roleplayers no not want to have to deal with this sort of disruption, we have no interest of it and we have not asked for it. Once more for the record: I'm not in Haven. The fact is, we are dragged into this, whilst I appreciate that [violet] feels she is doing all she can (with a very useful post I must add, thank-you for that), I still think that this is not right.
As I said much earlier and as the admins have said themselves, it's an aspect of the game.
So I'm sorry to be so blunt here, but deal with it.
Besides, this is most likely the only time Haven will have to deal with this. If another liberation pops up again in the future, the WA will already know it's bullshit.This sort of disruption is more than spamming a RMB or anything of that nature
As Haven felt the need to do to NAZI EUROPE.as it takes more time, thought and energy to deal with. A spammer can be reported via getting help, be dealt with and is gone. This disruption has meant so far, many people trying to explain in various ways we wouldn't normally have to deal with, of the situation in order to stop it.
It's politics. It's NationStates. Welcome to the game.
You appear to be trying to make it sound as if this disruption is some rule-breaking offense when it is not.
<Franberry> a WA condemnation is more useless than an irl UN sanction
by Kandarin » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:55 pm
Actually, we have. The proposal would definitely have reached quorum by now it we hadn't telegrammed around those who support it trying to explain the situation. This is work we do not desire to do. Many people have telegrammed back to say thanks for explaining the circumstances and similar things. Because very few people want raiders, Liberation proposals for the most past get passed anyway. Given many of the things that do pass, I cannot see the WA as being a strong enough body against this. If a couple of raider groups got together and voted for it along with those who would pretty much auto-approve liberations this could easily have passed. The WA is no defence against this.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Pythagosaurus » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:30 pm
Kandarin wrote:A lot of arguments have come up with respect to advantages and disadvantages of emptying Haven and refounding, but one hasn't been mentioned so far: The fact that emptying Haven would clear out its members' $+LUDICROUS amounts of Influence - the very Influence that makes it more or less immune to invasion already.
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:44 pm
Pythagosaurus wrote:No it wouldn't. It's tied to the region name, not one particular instance of the region. Plus they'd have a founder and probably a password. The real risk is of somebody else registering the region before they do, and invaders are certainly more experienced at timing daily updates. Then they'd have to settle for a different region name, which is the worst case scenario if they don't do anything.
by Kandarin » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:05 pm
Pythagosaurus wrote:Kandarin wrote:A lot of arguments have come up with respect to advantages and disadvantages of emptying Haven and refounding, but one hasn't been mentioned so far: The fact that emptying Haven would clear out its members' $+LUDICROUS amounts of Influence - the very Influence that makes it more or less immune to invasion already.
No it wouldn't. It's tied to the region name, not one particular instance of the region. Plus they'd have a founder and probably a password. The real risk is of somebody else registering the region before they do, and invaders are certainly more experienced at timing daily updates. Then they'd have to settle for a different region name, which is the worst case scenario if they don't do anything.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Questers » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:16 pm
Thanks very much for the lengthy post you provided on the situation. It is well appreciated by our community. OTOH, it seems that Haven's first line of defence is a passive-aggressive offence (against raiders, I should specify) and as far as I'm aware (I always seem to be somewhat out of the loop...) the threat has passed. I don't think this thread needs to be continued (although another thread on raiding in general might be justified) as I think that your post sums up the position of the senior adminsitration team on this issue and there's not an awful lot more any of us can do.[violet] wrote:Wow, I go away for a day and miss all the action. Sorry Haven!
by Questers » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:24 pm
I actually have to disagree with this. OOC intelligence is something that is not at all hard to do if one is particularly skilled in doing it. It wouldn't at all be difficult for one single raider to do some quality RPing (I'm sure they have ONE decent RPer amongst them) and then eventually apply for Haven. He could probably even come on #d in the mean time. The point is that it wouldn't be hard, and we know they have the motivation to strike at US because we are the jewel in the crown of raiding targets, so to speak. The Colditz of NationStates. With the exception of Liberation, taking over Haven requires you to be a reasonably decent rper at minimum and an excellent OOC intelligence operative. Even if they don't liberate us, they can still take our region over. It's just alot harder.Scandavian States wrote:.
by [violet] » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:44 pm
Bears Armed wrote:<< Why raiding should be banned >>
Bluth Corporation wrote:<< How an opt-out button could work >>
Scandavian States wrote:<< Mods should appoint Founders in rare cases >>
Scandavian States wrote:While theoretically true, there was never a threat of this where Haven was concerned. For one, to even get the password requires a long and drawn out application process with strict requirements for entry. Two, because part of the applications process is a history of well-done roleplays on the forums, no raider would have been granted entry given their stated disdain for RP. Three, guessing the password is basically impossible, as the passwords for Haven has always been in-jokes that only long time Havenites would understand.
Kandarin wrote:I didn't know that Influence numbers stayed on record even if the region in question ceased to exist. I suspect that any number of sneaky NSers would be interested in knowing if it's retained indefinitely
Questers wrote:Thanks very much for the lengthy post you provided on the situation. It is well appreciated by our community.
by Northrop-Grumman » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:00 pm
From what you're saying, even having a password and an attempt at restricted entry through various controls is not enough to keep Haven away of the threat of someone taking down the password and an invasion. But has been mentioned by Pythagosaurus and Nathicana above, what if someone tries to come into the refounding process and snatches away Haven as the community there is trying to set it back up again? It's being said that they'd lose it forever and basically 'tough luck, deal with it'.[violet] wrote:Scandavian States wrote:While theoretically true, there was never a threat of this where Haven was concerned. For one, to even get the password requires a long and drawn out application process with strict requirements for entry. Two, because part of the applications process is a history of well-done roleplays on the forums, no raider would have been granted entry given their stated disdain for RP. Three, guessing the password is basically impossible, as the passwords for Haven has always been in-jokes that only long time Havenites would understand.
It's terrific that Haven has such strict measures in place, but would you really be comfortable knowing that one slip-up (or one very determined invader) meant you lost your region forever? I can accept that Haven has the most well-secured password in the game, but it's impossible to eliminate the threat altogether. Other old, large regions thought they were well-secured before they got infiltrated, invaded, and password-locked. It's such a calamitous outcome for an RP region that I really think it couldn't be allowed to stand, even if the price of eliminating it is situations like this.
by [violet] » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:20 pm
Northrop-Grumman wrote:But has been mentioned by Pythagosaurus and Nathicana above, what if someone tries to come into the refounding process and snatches away Haven as the community there is trying to set it back up again? It's being said that they'd lose it forever and basically 'tough luck, deal with it'.
As has been stated, why should Haven have to resettle for a new region, after losing all their influence in the process now that they can't get it back, when they're trying to legitimately, through the rules of the game and the mechanics provided, keep away from being bothered with the threats of invasion?
Cravan wrote:So while refounding is the practical answer, it isn't practical to Havenites: Havenites are unwilling to sacrifice their political liberties for the sake of security.
by Northrop-Grumman » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:25 pm
I understand that aspects of Haven don't really want to refound because of the manner in which they have it set up, but others within the region have at times suggested as much. And I understand the lessened risk that comes from the fact that they have a rigid admissions requirement to gain entrance into the region and the already substantial amounts of influence that their member nation's have.[violet] wrote:Northrop-Grumman wrote:But has been mentioned by Pythagosaurus and Nathicana above, what if someone tries to come into the refounding process and snatches away Haven as the community there is trying to set it back up again? It's being said that they'd lose it forever and basically 'tough luck, deal with it'.
As has been stated, why should Haven have to resettle for a new region, after losing all their influence in the process now that they can't get it back, when they're trying to legitimately, through the rules of the game and the mechanics provided, keep away from being bothered with the threats of invasion?
As I understand it, Haven prefers not to have a Founder, in the interests of internal democracy:Cravan wrote:So while refounding is the practical answer, it isn't practical to Havenites: Havenites are unwilling to sacrifice their political liberties for the sake of security.
Personally I applaud this, although I know Defenders can get shirty with a region that neglects to employ all the anti-invasion tools at its disposal. I like Founderless regions. And like Kandarin I believe Haven doesn't really have much to fear from invaders, Founder or no: it's well-protected from invasion by its careful use of the password, and from much damage in the event that an invasion does occur by Influence.
But Haven can't have it both ways: you can't be governed by the people, then ask admin to overrule the people should they start making decisions you don't like. You have tools to restrict entry and eject residents: if you welcome in other nations, you can't retrospectively decide their voices should not be heard once you realize they don't agree with you. That is a fundamental part of embracing the rule of people over the rule of one.
by [violet] » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:29 pm
Northrop-Grumman wrote:But the question I'm really getting at, is if Haven were to refound and someone were to come by during the process and snatch it away, what recourse do they have to regain it? From what I've seen said here, it appears to be none. Why not?
by Linux and the X » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:32 pm
[violet] wrote:But Haven can't have it both ways: you can't be governed by the people, then ask admin to overrule the people should they start making decisions you don't like. You have tools to restrict entry and eject residents: if you welcome in other nations, you can't retrospectively decide their voices should not be heard once you realize they don't agree with you. That is a fundamental part of embracing the rule of people over the rule of one.
by Northrop-Grumman » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:34 pm
Alright, I understand completely.[violet] wrote:Northrop-Grumman wrote:But the question I'm really getting at, is if Haven were to refound and someone were to come by during the process and snatch it away, what recourse do they have to regain it? From what I've seen said here, it appears to be none. Why not?
You are correct, it's none. The best answer I can give you to "Why not?" is that I have never seen a proposal for a refounding system that sufficiently inspired me with its bounty of benefits and absence of horrific loopholes allowing raiders to seize Founderships while requiring mods to make judgments about nativity in the face of howling accusations of bias from players, to code it. But if you would like to start a thread (or revive an old one) with suggestions, I will certainly read it.
by [violet] » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:39 pm
Linux and the X wrote:This liberation proposal (while admittedly unlikely to pass) would take away Haven's right to choose who governs the region, since anyone could join.
They want democracy, but only amongst the nations they have decided may participate in the region.
by Bryn Shander » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:50 pm
Kampfers wrote:And Bryn Shander has been gone from Haven from a longgggg time. And is very out of touch with Havenic politics. If there was a vote for who to refound Haven, Scand would probably place second to last on my list, only above Clandonia. But that's an argument for another time and place.
by Cravan » Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:25 am
Linux and the X wrote:The problem, it seems, is that while they are governed by the people, who "the people" are is highly selective. Those who are not invited are not able to join the region, due to the password they have. This liberation proposal (while admittedly unlikely to pass) would take away Haven's right to choose who governs the region, since anyone could join. They want democracy, but only amongst the nations they have decided may participate in the region.
Bryn Shander wrote:I've been in Haven every single day since just after the UnAPS was dissolved. Foundership is not a democracy, it's a way to show who founded a region. Your opinion on who should have the foundership is completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is who's been in Haven the longest, and that would be Scand and Pauldustllah, the only people in Haven that were in the UnAPS. As Scand has been in the region longer due to Pauldustllah letting his nation die, that makes Scand the only choice.
by The Batorys » Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:58 am
[violet] wrote:
Argument: Regions should be able to opt-out of the Invasion game.
A simple "opt-out" button would be used by every region in the game, even invaders, to protect their own regions.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Caffeinated, Shazbotdom
Advertisement