A Problem with Liberations

[Kalibarr]

Also a lot of ego boosting in this thread.

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

^_^

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.

[Pythagosaurus]

Hey, you guys remember this?

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.

I suggest you listen.

[A mean old man]

I didn't start it...

*scampers off*

[Uiri]

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.

Hey there. You appear to be new to NationStates. Welcome to the game.

Raiding/Defending is an aspect of the game I have not had to deal with until now in the nearly 3 years I've been playing nationstates. The fact that a raider can force me to deal with this aspect of the game is unacceptable to me.

The solution which would seem the most sound is only allow nations to propose a liberation of a region which they were in within the last month. This would give them 30 days of being booted out by invaders in order to propose that their former region be liberated.

If 'liberation' is just lip service and the real intent is 'password removal service' then the fact of the matter is that passwords have become something which the World Assembly gets to decide if they shall work or not.

Of course, you could just designate the regions on this map as RP regions and exclude them from that part of the game. I'm sure that there would be a big hubbub if the Raiders were forced to write long, detailed well-thought out roleplay posts. Why should we have to deal with their side of the game when they can go on without dealing with ours?

EDIT: Whoopsie. Will start a new thread.

[Kandarin]

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.

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 find the idea curious that passing such a resolution would be as easy as taking it to quorum. "A couple of raider groups" wouldn't be sufficient to pass this. Nor, for that matter, would "all raider groups". Raiders may have a lot of Delegates that can vote for proposals, but very few of them have significant voting blocs. And those nations who do have sympathies with raiders as well as significant blocs tend to be accountable to larger voting bodies who don't share those sympathies. For example, Todd McCloud may have endorsed the proposal for a while, but if it had gone to the floor, his (nearly 100% pure-RPer) electorate would have pushed hard for an Against vote. The separation between GP and RP is significant, but those of us with large voting blocs tend to be very experienced, cosmopolitan NS veterans - or at least advised by them - and as such know what Haven is. And there are plenty of others who would spread the word about it. There was never any chance of this passing.

[Pythagosaurus]

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.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

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.

That's exactly a problem I was asking about earlier and got no real answer for. They shouldn't have to 'settle for a different region name' if they're going by the rules and re-founding to keep themselves clear of invasion irritations. And I'm speaking from the viewpoint of -any- region doing that, not just Haven. Frankly over the years, I've grown tired of hearing about Haven. One damn mess after another, rp or otherwise.

In any case, there ought to be some reliable avenue for addressing that sort of flat out horseshit, to put it bluntly. If that sort of thing doesn't account for abuse and harassment, then we're really screwed.

[Kandarin]

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.

Ah, thanks. 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, but I'm not sure if such questions are answered on cue...

[Questers]

Wow, I go away for a day and miss all the action. Sorry Haven!

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.

[Questers]

.

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.

[[violet]]

<< Why raiding should be banned >>

<< How an opt-out button could work >>

<< Mods should appoint Founders in rare cases >>

Happy to discuss, but not in this thread, as per earlier.

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.

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

It's no different to usual: your Influence in a region decays the longer you're absent from it.

Thanks very much for the lengthy post you provided on the situation. It is well appreciated by our community.

Very glad to hear it, thanks!

[Northrop-Grumman]

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.

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'.

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?

[[violet]]

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:

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.

[Northrop-Grumman]

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:

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.

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.

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?

EDIT: And it's been suggested numerous times here that there ought to be some sort of guidance in place to help those who decide to refound their regions. Rules and a how-to path to make it a clear process where no one can run astray and get themselves in trouble with the mods. And if anything, what to do if someone comes by and snatches the region in refounding. But no one has addressed that yet, despite it being something that doesn't require coding.

[[violet]]

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.

[Linux and the X]

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.

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.

[Northrop-Grumman]

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.

Alright, I understand completely.

Thank you for all your prompt responses here. It's been much appreciated!

[[violet]]

This liberation proposal (while admittedly unlikely to pass) would take away Haven's right to choose who governs the region, since anyone could join.

Right, but as I think I covered above, as bad as that would be, it's both unlikely and less bad than the alternative.

They want democracy, but only amongst the nations they have decided may participate in the region.

Which is completely fair. I actually meant to refer to the situation where a region is infiltrated by invader: the region grants this nation membership, but once they discover s/he has different ideas about governance than they thought, they feel they should be able to retrospectively revoke it. My point is that if you want to be Founderless so you can be subject to the rule of the people, you really are subject to the rule of the people.

[Bryn Shander]

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.

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.

[Cravan]

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.

Our membership is admitted or denied by popular vote.

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.

Actually I'd say your opinion on who should have the foundership if it comes to refounding is completely irrelevant. I'm going to have to agree with Kampf on this one; seniority means nothing in Haven any more from a practical, having power or special privileges standpoint. The nobility and monarchy are dead; power is in the hands of bourgeoisie.

[The Batorys]

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.

I have a problem with this argument.

It has been made elsewhere.

The problem is that when you say "oh, well if you could opt-out of R/D, everyone would," you are saying that no one, given the choice, would willingly play the R/D game.

Leaving aside that I don't believe that for a damn millisecond, as the R/D game seems quite popular, let's just assume that your assertion is true.

If everyone would opt out, that is to say, that if people had the choice of not playing R/D, even passively, that nobody on the site would, why are we keeping it around? I know it's emergent gameplay, but according to this particular argument, it is a game that no one actually wants to play. What is the value in preserving a game that, according to your implication, no one actually likes? Quite frankly, if nobody actually likes it enough to play it by choice, it is a shit game.

If this game can only exist because people have to participate, at least passively, in order to do all the things they actually like about the site (NSG, WA GA, A&F, RP, etc.), and put up with it in order to do all those things, why should it exist?

Now, as I said, I don't believe that argument. I simply cannot believe that something that is believed to be so integral to the site wouldn't be able to sustain itself if people didn't have to play it. R/D isn't the largest community on NS, but it isn't small. I have no doubts that it could exist without being propped up by having everyone connected to it in some way and no way to completely opt out. If it has any merit at all (and I'm sure it does, as even though it's not fun for me, it does seem to be fun for a lot of people, and just because I don't enjoy something doesn't mean I think no one should, it just means that I don't want to be roped into that something), it should do just fine on its own.

Nationstates has been around for... what, a dozen years now? R/D has been around for nearly as long. I'm sure by now it's well enough established that it doesn't need help. Maybe it's time to let it succeed based on its own merits, as a real game that people actually want to play, and not something people just have to grudgingly accept.

[The Blaatschapen]

Don't gravedig.