Switching WA/ Delegate Powers on non WA

[ChingisHan]

It seems stupid to take away most of raiders' effectiveness just to dispel the defenders sense of self-worthlessness.

*If we can't defend regions for sh*t, lets make the mods do it for us!*

*HUZZAH!*

Snark without reason or suggestion isn't going to help anyone here, and isn't going to get you listened to by anyone who can actually change anything. Neither will insulting defenders, or painting the mods (who have less effect on this compared to admins anyways) as cronies. If you think this is a bad idea, add to the chorus of why/what could be done to fix it, rather than to the chorus of senseless whining, please.

Is that not what happened though? Mods aren't cronies no,and I never said that, but other than that, it was merely my opinion I was posting.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Snark without reason or suggestion isn't going to help anyone here, and isn't going to get you listened to by anyone who can actually change anything. Neither will insulting defenders, or painting the mod (who have less effect on this compared to admins) as cronies.

Sorry Souls, but where's the indication the staff is actually going to listen to anyone, no matter how they approach the matter?
From where I sit, it looks like the amount of influence the players have in this decision was somewhere between 0 and -179.

With all due respect, trying in a manner likely to be listened to has at least a chance of being listened to, compared to being a little tyke. Maybe it's 95% ignored versus 100%, maybe it's better than that, maybe it's worse - not going to argue over stats I pulled out of my ass. But there's no way in hell we're going to be listened to by just saying "admin suxs," whereas reasoned, logical input was, at the very least, taken into consideration in moderation's replies in the RO thread.

Is that not what happened though? Mods aren't cronies no,and I never said that, but other than that, it was merely my opinion I was posting.

You should know as well as me that this was out of the blue - at best, no comment in a month period, and nothing committal from mods/admin before implementation. Blaming defender for this is bullshit. And you just said, no, pardon me, heavily implied that mods were "made" to do it by defenders, ergo, cronyism.

[ChingisHan]

Sorry Souls, but where's the indication the staff is actually going to listen to anyone, no matter how they approach the matter?
From where I sit, it looks like the amount of influence the players have in this decision was somewhere between 0 and -179.

With all due respect, trying in a manner likely to be listened to has at least a chance of being listened to, compared to being a little tyke. Maybe it's 95% ignored versus 100%, maybe it's better than that, maybe it's worse - not going to argue over stats I pulled out of my ass. But there's no way in hell we're going to be listened to by just saying "admin suxs," whereas reasoned, logical input was, at the very least, taken into consideration in moderation's replies in the RO thread.

Reasoned replies get ANSWERED (Sometimes)
All replies get looked at (Eventually)

Power of a mob/power of a sea of faces...

(As long as grammar's on point, it's at least worth reading)

[RiderSyl]

But there's no way in hell we're going to be listened to by just saying "admin suxs," whereas reasoned, logical input was, at the very least, taken into consideration in moderation's replies in the RO thread.

This ain't the RO thread.
Never expect moderation to be consistent.

[Consular]

There was actually a discussion on this, in which you were all free to participate before the change was made. It's not really out of the blue. Aside from the ever reasonable Souls I don't recall anyone, invader or otherwise, arguing against it. Admin has said numerous times they read discussion threads for input and potential flaws. Disagreeing with players =/= admin not listening.

I think this was a perfectly logical change. And despite the melodrama its primary effect should be to slow down tag runs significantly, which isn't a horrible thing in my mind.

But yes, the lack of any delay on officers does create a loophole here, though it still means and extra thing invaders will have to do before moving on I suppose so there is some delay there.

Props to Cora and co for adapting so quickly.

[RiderSyl]

Hey Consular. I like how you didn't lead with "this was a perfectly logical change" so people would actually read the first paragraph of your comment before realizing you're wearing rose-colored glasses.

[Cora II]

Calm down, dear raider fellows!

We'll search the way. On the tagfields, in practice. Useless to argue what should be considered as given, drop from the Sky.

Max's game, Max's rules.

[RiderSyl]

Calm down, dear raider fellows!

We'll search the way. On the tagfields, in practice. Useless to argue what should be considered as given, drop from the Sky.

Max's game, Max's rules.

Max's *promo for his book that got taken over by the internet*, Max's rules.

Fixed that for you.

[Consular]

Hey Ridersyl. Do you actually have anything to contribute aside from your usual incessant whining about moderation or admin?

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

There was actually a discussion on this, in which you were all free to participate before the change was made. It's not really out of the blue. Aside from the ever reasonable Souls I don't recall anyone, invader or otherwise, arguing against it. Admin has said numerous times they read discussion threads for input and potential flaws. Disagreeing with players =/= admin not listening.

I think this was a perfectly logical change. And despite the melodrama its primary effect should be to slow down tag runs significantly, which isn't a horrible thing in my mind.

But yes, the lack of any delay on officers does create a loophole here, though it still means and extra thing invaders will have to do before moving on I suppose so there is some delay there.

Props to Cora and co for adapting so quickly.

That extra can easily be accounted for by any group larger than the bare minimum (2) with a simple snake where one stays to appoint an RO (or tag it, in the case of a delay) while the rest of the part moves on, in a pattern that cycles. It's an organizational effort, but the whole basis of tag orgs like cimmeria is organization. Logical, perhaps. Slow down? Not without other further changes, as discussed by happenstance in the RO thread, that could have been first, and *had* to have been foreseen as needed to make this effective. As is, all this has done is made it slightly more of a pain in the ass for all of us.

I'd debate that there was much opportunity for debate. I think it's a fair assumption on our part that, when admins make the changes, and there'd be no admin comment on the one page of discussion since 2010, that we didn't need to come here arms blazing like we are now, or even discuss at length like at the summit. Last time admin asked for discussion here was, as I discussed, before tagging even really existed. No comment was made before tonight in a month. Sedge did say it was under consideration (in the early days of RO's, when it wasn't clear if this loophole would remain) I'll give you that, but he brought up almost every issue I have now, then, with none of them being resolved.

[RiderSyl]

Hey Ridersyl. Do you actually have anything to contribute aside from your usual incessant whining about moderation or admin?

Yes.

[Cormac Stark]

There was actually a discussion on this, in which you were all free to participate before the change was made. It's not really out of the blue. Aside from the ever reasonable Souls I don't recall anyone, invader or otherwise, arguing against it. Admin has said numerous times they read discussion threads for input and potential flaws. Disagreeing with players =/= admin not listening.

Some gameplayers probably closely follow Technical, but I don't and I doubt I'm alone. It would be much more helpful if admins could post changes they are actually thinking about making for comment beforehand, instead of expecting us to comment on every post in Technical, no matter how radical the suggestion, on the off chance [violet] decides to randomly implement it during some random major update.

I didn't comment on this because I didn't think it would ever actually be done, just like most radical suggestions from XKI usually aren't implemented. Contrary to popular belief, I don't like to see myself in print enough to waste time on something I think doesn't matter. If admins want input on changes, we need to know they're considering changes.

I think this was a perfectly logical change. And despite the melodrama its primary effect should be to slow down tag runs significantly, which isn't a horrible thing in my mind.

Well, it isn't horrible in your mind because, let's be real, you're a former raider who got sick of R/D and now spends a good chunk of his time bashing it from the sidelines. Which is fine, you do you!

This is, however, obviously horrible for tag raiders. It's also bad for defenders in no less than four ways:

1. It will make detagging far, far more difficult, because it takes much longer than tagging.
2. It will take defenders longer to switch between defenses, because they'll have to banject raiders after a defense before switching.
3. If tag raiding does become less popular as a result of this change, the frequency and number of occupations will likely increase.
4. There are now likely to be more pilers just sitting in the pile, instead of switching out and maybe forgetting to switch back in.

By the way, I'm assuming with my comments here that admins intend to impose a delay on the appointment of ROs, so bear that in mind. This change by itself is almost pointless, so I can only assume there will eventually also be a delay on appointing ROs.

[RiderSyl]

See? I contributed through my main account, above.

[Cormac conspiracy intensifies]

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Thanks for the feedback on this. There are three options we have:

1. The current situation: Nations retain their Delegacy (and powers) until the next update, regardless of their WA status.
2. The primary suggestion made in this thread: Delegate nations that resign from the WA immediately lose the Delegacy and associated powers and cannot regain them without being re-elected to the Delegacy.
3. An alternative suggestion made: Nations retain their Delegate status until the next update, but must be in the WA to use the associated powers. Thus if you resign from the WA, you cannot use Delegate powers - but if you rejoin before the next update, you can do so.

We are looking to implement #2. This is a reasonably simple change (admin's words), so will not take long to do once I give them the go-ahead. Before we do that, I just want to make sure that we've considered all the consequences.

• The primary reason to make this change is to address the illogical situation of a non-WA nation retaining WA Delegate status and powers. This includes both the "gameplay" powers (such as executive status in founderless regions) and the ability to vote and approve proposals in the WA.
• This also prevents a single person holding multiple Delegacies concurrently, including the ability to vote multiple times in the WA.
• While #3 also addresses both the above situations, it fails the simplicity test - #2 is much easier to understand than having nations pop back into the WA to immediately regain the Delegacy.
• This will have an effect on tagging, as tags are generally "enacted" once update is over, and Delegate nations have resigned. It is likely to somewhat slow down the process of tagging. This is considered a benefit. While we do not want to eliminate tagging entirely - it is a useful training tool, and a niche group of players enjoy it as a regular activity, ultimately it sees a very small amount of people doing an inordinate amount of spammy disruption to the game.
• Please consider interaction with Regional Officers. Currently new Delegates can immediately remove Officers and appoint new ones. If taggers immediately appoint themselves as an RO with full powers, they will then be able to make their usual changes (WFE, RMB suppression, embassies etc.) after update regardless of having resigned from the WA. While discussion of the implementation of ROs does not belong here, it's worth thinking about this and feeding back your thoughts in the RO thread.
• Delegates who accidently resign from the WA will find it harder to regain the Delegacy. It does happen, albeit rarely. Currently they already lose all their endorsements, and losing the Delegate status as well will multiply their problems of regaining it. This is a sufficiently rare occurrence that it won't affect our decision to implement, but if someone thinks tweaks are needed to reduce accidental resignations, please speak up.
• Currently when a Delegate resigns from the WA, they're listed at the top of the region page as having resigned. This would require a visual change to remove their name entirely when they resign from the WA - the region would instead be listed as having "WA Delegate: none".

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

It is stated in bold that it was a possibility, so....

But again, worth noting the context (RO testing period) and the fact that issues mentioned were not resolved.

[Cormac Stark]

<snip>

Oh. Well then.

Congratulations Souls, I think this is the first time in nearly four years I've been rendered (relatively) speechless.

[Consular]

You're basically just spamming at this point Ridersyl.

Anyway...

You should know as well as me that this was out of the blue - at best, no comment in a month period, and nothing committal from mods/admin before implementation.

I think it's a fair assumption on our part that, when admins make the changes, and there'd be no admin comment on the one page of discussion since 2010, that we didn't need to come here arms blazing like we are now, or even discuss at length like at the summit. Last time admin asked for discussion here was, as I discussed, before tagging even really existed. No comment was made before tonight in a month. Sedge did say it was under consideration (in the early days of RO's, when it wasn't clear if this loophole would remain) I'll give you that, but he brought up almost every issue I have now, then, with none of them being resolved.

We are looking to implement #2. This is a reasonably simple change (admin's words), so will not take long to do once I give them the go-ahead. Before we do that, I just want to make sure that we've considered all the consequences.

• The primary reason to make this change is to address the illogical situation of a non-WA nation retaining WA Delegate status and powers. This includes both the "gameplay" powers (such as executive status in founderless regions) and the ability to vote and approve proposals in the WA.
• This also prevents a single person holding multiple Delegacies concurrently, including the ability to vote multiple times in the WA.
• While #3 also addresses both the above situations, it fails the simplicity test - #2 is much easier to understand than having nations pop back into the WA to immediately regain the Delegacy.
• This will have an effect on tagging, as tags are generally "enacted" once update is over, and Delegate nations have resigned. It is likely to somewhat slow down the process of tagging. This is considered a benefit. While we do not want to eliminate tagging entirely - it is a useful training tool, and a niche group of players enjoy it as a regular activity, ultimately it sees a very small amount of people doing an inordinate amount of spammy disruption to the game.
• Please consider interaction with Regional Officers. Currently new Delegates can immediately remove Officers and appoint new ones. If taggers immediately appoint themselves as an RO with full powers, they will then be able to make their usual changes (WFE, RMB suppression, embassies etc.) after update regardless of having resigned from the WA. While discussion of the implementation of ROs does not belong here, it's worth thinking about this and feeding back your thoughts in the RO thread.
• Delegates who accidently resign from the WA will find it harder to regain the Delegacy. It does happen, albeit rarely. Currently they already lose all their endorsements, and losing the Delegate status as well will multiply their problems of regaining it. This is a sufficiently rare occurrence that it won't affect our decision to implement, but if someone thinks tweaks are needed to reduce accidental resignations, please speak up.
• Currently when a Delegate resigns from the WA, they're listed at the top of the region page as having resigned. This would require a visual change to remove their name entirely when they resign from the WA - the region would instead be listed as having "WA Delegate: none".

Sedge made a post just under a month ago (16 10 2015) which stated in no unclear terms that they were looking to implement the change outlined in option 2. "We are looking to implement #2" was even in dramatic bold text. Kinda hard to miss, or so I thought.

If admins want input on changes, we need to know they're considering changes.

Yeah. Fair point.

[RiderSyl]

You're basically just spamming at this point Ridersyl.

Alright, sorry for the spam. Congratulations on becoming a mod, by the way.

[PrussianEmpire]

You're basically just spamming at this point Ridersyl.

Lol k.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

Anyway...

snip

Sedge made a post just under a month ago (16 10 2015) which stated in no unclear terms that they were looking to implement the change outlined in option 2. "We are looking to implement #2" was even in dramatic bold text. Kinda hard to miss, or so I thought.

I included appropriate qualifiers Maybe it's a colloquialism thing, but I at least hear "looking to" and think "exploring" or "likely" - neither of which comes off to me as anywhere near as committal as, say, "we will be."

I think it's a fair assumption on our part that, when admins make the changes, and there'd be no admin comment on the one page of discussion since 2010, that we didn't need to come here arms blazing like we are now, or even discuss at length like at the summit. Last time admin asked for discussion here was, as I discussed, before tagging even really existed. No comment was made before tonight in a month. Sedge did say it was under consideration (in the early days of RO's, when it wasn't clear if this loophole would remain) I'll give you that, but he brought up almost every issue I have now, then, with none of them being resolved.

[Consular]

I read it as he was going to have it implemented, after a brief feedback period. I suppose Sedge himself only knows what he actually intended. Just a thought, perhaps he actually have the go ahead a while ago before RO's and everything, but admin only got round to doing it now? Not sure if that helps anything actually, but it perhaps explains the apparent inconsistency with the RO thing. An alternate explanation is that removing tagging was never really a primary motivation, thus why it is still possible with the RO 'loophole' (so to speak). Instead the motivation might have simply been that it was odd for a non WA nation to potentially have powers reserved for WA nations.

Edit: The latter would be consistent with the statement by Sedge: "The primary reason to make this change is to address the illogical situation of a non-WA nation retaining WA Delegate status and powers. This includes both the "gameplay" powers (such as executive status in founderless regions) and the ability to vote and approve proposals in the WA."

[Cora II]

Delay to ROs would cut its best potential out from whole feature.

Compromize suggestion: When WAD resigns, all ROs authorized by WAD, not enough old (delay would be there) in their posts, would lose their power too.

R/D implication: Tag raiders could utilize 'team tagging' method by ROs before WA-switch, and invasions/defensives could be continued without WADs.

I look this through a raider googles.

[Sedgistan]

I'm away until Wednesday, so posting this quickly on my phone. As you can see, I had let people know that we were looking to implement this. I had intended to post an announcement when it actually was, but have been out of the loop the last few days. I know we'd tested this on our test version of NS but hadn't realised it was being implemented now in the game itself.

Re. the points to consider part, the focus of the discussion from players had been on protection against accidental resignations (without any real discussion of whether that was even necessary), with little feedback on the rest that I raised.

[Sedgistan]

Also, those of you with nothing relevant and constructive to post, please refrain from posting. Take the snarking elsewhere.

[Guy]

A sensible change.