A Problem with Liberations

[Kalibarr]

Everyone would want a founder if you could get one. It would be goodbye R/D.

And? If raiders still want to play, they can raid each other. Perfect solution, they get to raid, and no innocents get griefed.

Except raiders own code of honor forbids the raiding of other raiders, For exampleQwendra went founderless we wouldn't be raided, because were raiders.

[A mean old man]

Everyone would want a founder if you could get one. It would be goodbye R/D.

Which is why I'm saying not everyone should get one. I/D regions should not get founders. New or unorganized regions should not get founders. Feeder regions obviously can't get founders.

I hope you mean they should not get a founder after they have become founderless.

If you're simply saying that all of these regions just should not have founders at all, then that'd probably be one of the stupidest things I've seen suggested here.

Regions organized as school activities, regions organized specifically as roleplaying regions, regions whose purpose is to participate in the World Assembly only, these are the regions who should receive founders and even then only when specifically requested and vetted.

So any founderless region that wants to take the easy way out suddenly says it's an RP region or it's just a WA region?

[Martyrdoom]

In this case it seems that its not so much a problem with liberations but Haven's unwillingness to refound or even entertain such a notion.

The opt-out is having a founder. In this case, refound and nominate your own founder. Bit of effort yes, but not impossible. Plus, everyone else has too.

[Scandavian States]

I hope you mean they should not get a founder after they have become founderless.

Of course that's what I mean. Do you take me for an idiot?

So any founderless region that wants to take the easy way out suddenly says it's an RP region or it's just a WA region?

No, they have to prove it and the staff has to investigate any claims. By necessity this means the granting of such claims would be a tedious and rare.

[Kalibarr]

I hope you mean they should not get a founder after they have become founderless.

Of course that's what I mean. Do you take me for an idiot?

So any founderless region that wants to take the easy way out suddenly says it's an RP region or it's just a WA region?

No, they have to prove it and the staff has to investigate any claims. By necessity this means the granting of such claims would be a tedious and rare.

So essentially you'd get a founder but the chances of someone else getting one would be really low, almost impossible. In addition, to it simply being unfair if someone simply had to beg the mods for foundership it would be far easier than re-founding and thus create less targets for raiders.

[Martyrdoom]

I hope you mean they should not get a founder after they have become founderless.

Of course that's what I mean. Do you take me for an idiot?

So any founderless region that wants to take the easy way out suddenly says it's an RP region or it's just a WA region?

No, they have to prove it and the staff has to investigate any claims. By necessity this means the granting of such claims would be a tedious and rare.

So essentially you'd get a founder but the chances of someone else getting one would be really low, almost impossible. In addition, to it simply being unfair if someone simply had to beg the mods for foundership it would be far easier than re-founding and thus create less targets for raiders.

Exactly what I was thinking. On one hand there's talk of how Haven deserves to have a founder appointed and on the other there's talk of how regions in a similar position don't deserve one!

[Bavin]

I hope you mean they should not get a founder after they have become founderless.

Of course that's what I mean. Do you take me for an idiot?

So any founderless region that wants to take the easy way out suddenly says it's an RP region or it's just a WA region?

No, they have to prove it and the staff has to investigate any claims. By necessity this means the granting of such claims would be a tedious and rare.

So essentially you'd get a founder but the chances of someone else getting one would be really low, almost impossible. In addition, to it simply being unfair if someone simply had to beg the mods for foundership it would be far easier than re-founding and thus create less targets for raiders.

Exactly what I was thinking. On one hand there's talk of how Haven deserves to have a founder appointed and on the other there's talk of how regions in a similar position don't deserve one!

Is there a region in a similar position? Is there another ancient and well known RP region with no founder?

[Kalibarr]

Also a lot of ego boosting in this thread.

[Martyrdoom]

I hope you mean they should not get a founder after they have become founderless.

Of course that's what I mean. Do you take me for an idiot?

So any founderless region that wants to take the easy way out suddenly says it's an RP region or it's just a WA region?

No, they have to prove it and the staff has to investigate any claims. By necessity this means the granting of such claims would be a tedious and rare.

So essentially you'd get a founder but the chances of someone else getting one would be really low, almost impossible. In addition, to it simply being unfair if someone simply had to beg the mods for foundership it would be far easier than re-founding and thus create less targets for raiders.

Exactly what I was thinking. On one hand there's talk of how Haven deserves to have a founder appointed and on the other there's talk of how regions in a similar position don't deserve one!

Is there a region in a similar position? Is there another ancient and well known RP region with no founder?

And what does that tell you? Refound.

[Scandavian States]

Bit of effort yes, but not impossible.

I never really thought much of the "Haven is unique" argument until just now, but I'm starting to see it just might be true. You know, we tried that route before and our founder had to resort to kicking the sporadically active to attempt to refound the region, which resulted in the mods determining it as griefing and DEATing him. Our present delegate could do the same with no fear of reprisals, but said delegate would lose the massive build-up of influence that has accumulated from a stable government.

So, really, it's only possible in theory. In practice it's strictly inapplicable.

[A mean old man]

This is what this idea looks like to me:

Get special privileges from the moderators to get Haven a founder (I don't think game moderators even have that ability).

Do this under the excuse that it's a new feature that will benefit RP regions, school class regions, and WA only regions.

Ignore the myriad problems and blood pressure increase in moderators that this feature will cause.

[Kalibarr]

What the heck is a WA only region?

[Martyrdoom]

Bit of effort yes, but not impossible.

I never really thought much of the "Haven is unique" argument until just now, but I'm starting to see it just might be true. You know, we tried that route before and our founder had to resort to kicking the sporadically active to attempt to refound the region, which resulted in the mods determining it as griefing and DEATing him. Our present delegate could do the same with no fear of reprisals, but said delegate would lose the massive build-up of influence that has accumulated from a stable government.

So, really, it's only possible in theory. In practice it's strictly inapplicable.

One, we're organized;

That is all it takes. Have two nations which are gaining most of the influence and then flip them about.

[A mean old man]

What the heck is a WA only region?

Apparently, just building this definition off of the vague idea that the Havenite gave me, it'd be a region that has WA members but doesn't want to be involved in R/D.

Which is kind of too bad for them, because...

[A mean old man]

Also, something I brought up much earlier and never got a straight answer to, was why in hell does Haven even need a founder?

Like I said, the WA is stopping this infringement on its own. Such a hubbub over something that is failing anyway seems unnecessary.

EDIT: Repeated in [violet]'s post:

In principle, I agree. The question is how you enforce this. It is currently enforced by members of the WA: that is, the WA has the responsibility of blocking malicious attempts at Liberation. Personally I suspect they'll do a pretty good job of it, although we shall see.

[Scandavian States]

That is all it takes. Have two nations which are gaining most of the influence and then flip them about.

Could you clarify exactly what this means?

[Scandavian States]

Also, something I brought up much earlier and never got a straight answer to, was why in hell does Haven even need a founder?

This isn't just about Haven. This is about RP regions in general. And to be frank, too many WA resolutions are signed off on without even a glance, so from our point of view the WA can't be trusted with our security.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

This isn't just about Haven. This is about RP regions in general. And to be frank, too many WA resolutions are signed off on without even a glance, so from our point of view the WA can't be trusted with our security.

You Haven folks can't seem to keep your stories straight for one thing. You aren't in danger, no wait - you are, you don't want special treatment - except you do because you're unwilling to use what's available ... and now the WA can't be trusted with your security? After it has already been said your security is in your hands, not theirs, and no one has a chance in hell of either coming in and raiding or that vote passing?

Come on, folks. Give it a rest already. s' been explained, s' been laid out, s' been addressed. At length.

[Martyrdoom]

That is all it takes. Have two nations which are gaining most of the influence and then flip them about.

Could you clarify exactly what this means?

Yeah sorry. Designate and endorse a first nation who will carry out any ejections that need doing as delegate; and designate a second nation, who should be substantively endorsed but remains below the threshold of the first nation (i.e. the delegate): this second nation will take over as delegate once the first nation does the necessary ejections and who can then can install a password necessary for refounding.

[Scandavian States]

You Haven folks can't seem to keep your stories straight for one thing. You aren't in danger, no wait - you are, you don't want special treatment - except you do because you're unwilling to use what's available ... and now the WA can't be trusted with your security? After it has already been said your security is in your hands, not theirs, and no one has a chance in hell of either coming in and raiding or that vote passing?

Come on, folks. Give it a rest already. s' been explained, s' been laid out, s' been addressed. At length.

The danger lies not in our being displaced, it lies in our being disrupted. That we could repel any attempt at an invasion in not in doubt, that we would have to deal with it against our will if such a situation were to arise is without question and therefor unacceptable to us. Further, it is unacceptable to the regions we regularly RP with. And we don't want special treatment, that implies a one time only deal, we just don't doubt that if the staff chooses to go the direction I have suggested, even applying the most stringent standards, that Haven would be denied. In short, the discontinuity in our position that you have suggested that exists in our stance in fact does not.

[Scandavian States]

Yeah sorry. Designate and endorse a first nation who will carry out any ejections that need doing as delegate; and designate a second nation, who should be substantively endorsed but remains below the threshold of the first nation (i.e. the delegate): this second nation will take over as delegate once the first nation does the necessary ejections and who can then can install a password necessary for refounding.

This would work, probably, but flies in the face of our strongly democratic tradition, unity, and (again) forces us to participate in a facet of the game we don't much care for. Maybe that's selfish of us, but as everybody is quick to point out it has worked and is the result of an evolving governmental model that puts Haven and, by extension, our interaction with the RP community above everything.

[A mean old man]

The danger lies not in our being displaced, it lies in our being disrupted.

...and yet the danger is nonexistent. You're the only ones making a show out of this now. The WA has taken care of the "liberation."

And we don't want special treatment, that implies a one time only deal, we just don't doubt that if the staff chooses to go the direction I have suggested, even applying the most stringent standards, that Haven would be denied.

Then why are you still arguing for it...?

...and (again) forces us to participate in a facet of the game we don't much care for.

Then don't do it! You're safe as you are!

[Bears Armed]

Also a lot of ego boosting in this thread.

And what is raiding about, if not "ego boosting"?

^_^

[Somewhereistonia]

The danger lies not in our being displaced, it lies in our being disrupted.

...and yet the danger is nonexistent. You're the only ones making a show out of this now. The WA has taken care of the "liberation."

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.

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. This sort of disruption is more than spamming a RMB or anything of that nature 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.

[A mean old man]

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.