Discussion about R/D Game and RP Opting Out

[Hurdegaryp]

The original intent of the game was not RPing either. That also was not designed. It was a simple nation simulator, where the site creator could advertise his books, and that was it.

At least RPing is a relatively neutral activity, not based upon the wanton desire to deliberately ruin the game for others. Raiders add nothing of value to the game and should be disposed of.

[Feazanthia]

The original intent of the game was not RPing either. That also was not designed. It was a simple nation simulator, where the site creator could advertise his books, and that was it.

Actually...

Unless I'm mistaken (and I really doubt I am), roleplay boards were designed from the outset.

[Evil Wolf]

The original intent of the game was not RPing either. That also was not designed. It was a simple nation simulator, where the site creator could advertise his books, and that was it.

At least RPing is a relatively neutral activity.

Regardless, the game was still not intended at first to have RP, it came later and was also made by the players, not the Admin or the Mods. So the whole "the game was not designed with raiding in mind, it is a glitch that should have been remedied" argument is bunk unless you're also arguing RP is a "glitch" and also needs to be remedied.

Raiders add nothing of value to the game and should be disposed of.

Well, from my view point, a Military Gameplay viewpoint, RP adds nothing of value to my game and yet I'm not demanding that it be removed from the game.

[New Babylonia]

At least RPing is a relatively neutral activity.

Regardless, the game was still not intended at first to have RP, it came later and was also made by the players, not the Admin or the Mods. So the whole "the game was not designed with raiding in mind, it is a glitch that should have been remedied" argument is bunk unless you're also arguing RP is a "glitch" and also needs to be remedied.

Not true, if you see Feaz's post above.

[Inyourfaceistan]

No, we should let moderators play the game to and treat each other as equals.

Or we could just repeat each other and claim victim status over a game...

Moderators should be held to a higher standard than the average player. This whole unfortunate situation about some moderator happily siding with the raiders, generally considered to be a negative factor, really damages the reputation of the moderator team as a whole. Clearly the screening process for new moderators is flawed.

So because this sole moderator did something that is inherently and undeniably part of the game as it functions right now, and you don't agree with that action it means the screening process for new moderators is flawed?

At least RPing is a relatively neutral activity, not based upon the wanton desire to deliberately ruin the game for others.

Have you seen some of the shit that goes down on II? Us RP'ers can be just as guilty as any R/D player when it comes to acts of destruction and retribution against other players.

To prove my point simply look up any kind of "nation X kills some ponies" and you can see how both sides will gladly write murder porn just because the other side like/don't like ponies...

Raiders add nothing of value to the game and should be disposed of.

Advocating an entire group of people are useless and should be "disposed of"?
This is borderline trolling...

[Feazanthia]

At least RPing is a relatively neutral activity.

Regardless, the game was still not intended at first to have RP, it came later and was also made by the players, not the Admin or the Mods. So the whole "the game was not designed with raiding in mind, it is a glitch that should have been remedied" argument is bunk unless you're also arguing RP is a "glitch" and also needs to be remedied.

This is outright false. From what I have been told (by mods, no less), RP was a designed feature. And the Admins actively had to create the RP boards, so yeah. RP was not a glitch. RP was not emergent gameplay. RP has been there from just after the game launched, if not the start.

[Hurdegaryp]

The original intent of the game was not RPing either. That also was not designed. It was a simple nation simulator, where the site creator could advertise his books, and that was it.

Actually...

Unless I'm mistaken (and I really doubt I am), roleplay boards were designed from the outset.

Well, you know how it is with raiders... most of them are deceitful liars, using manipulation and misinformation in order to ruin the game for others. The origin of this game is indeed roleplaying, whereas raiding is a glitch that was never properly undone. It has festered for too long, if you ask me.

You know, I really would like to know which moderators were in favour of making a known raider one of them. Also I would love to read their arguments concerning why this person would make such a great addition to their team.

[Hurdegaryp]

Regardless, the game was still not intended at first to have RP, it came later and was also made by the players, not the Admin or the Mods. So the whole "the game was not designed with raiding in mind, it is a glitch that should have been remedied" argument is bunk unless you're also arguing RP is a "glitch" and also needs to be remedied.

This is outright false. From what I have been told (by mods, no less), RP was a designed feature. And the Admins actively had to create the RP boards, so yeah. RP was not a glitch. RP was not emergent gameplay. RP has been there from just after the game launched, if not the start.

I agree. The raiders may delight in spreading their lies, but the historical truth cannot be denied.

[Feazanthia]

Let's keep the personal hostility and overarching biases to as much of a minimum as possible.

Characterizing raiders as liars and jerks gets us nowhere.

[Evil Wolf]

Not true, if you see Feaz's post above.

I don't think the pre-Jolt forums existed until later. They weren't immediately there when the game was first made. I'd look it up, but those forums were lost when we switched to Jolt.

[Northrop-Grumman]

Have you seen some of the shit that goes down on II? Us RP'ers can be just as guilty as any R/D player when it comes to acts of destruction and retribution against other players.

To prove my point simply look up any kind of "nation X kills some ponies" and you can see how both sides will gladly write murder porn just because the other side like/don't like ponies...

Except, since it just takes places on the forums, you can choose to ignore whatever they're doing, you can simply not read the particular thread, or you are allowed to block the posts/RPer, shielding them from your view forever. There are many many opt outs in the RP community. Besides, when someone is blatantly out of line, I'd like to think we do a reasonable job of policing ourselves.

[Hurdegaryp]

Have you seen some of the shit that goes down on II? Us RP'ers can be just as guilty as any R/D player when it comes to acts of destruction and retribution against other players.

To prove my point simply look up any kind of "nation X kills some ponies" and you can see how both sides will gladly write murder porn just because the other side like/don't like ponies...

Except, since it just takes places on the forums, you can choose to ignore whatever they're doing, you can simply not read the particular thread, or you are allowed to block the posts/RPer, shielding them from your view forever. There are many many opt outs in the RP community. Besides, when someone is blatantly out of line, I'd like to think we do a reasonable job of policing ourselves.

Unfortunately the raiders are not policed at all.

[Feazanthia]

Not true, if you see Feaz's post above.

I don't think the pre-Jolt forums existed until later. They weren't immediately there when the game was first made. I'd look it up, but those forums were lost when we switched to Jolt.

Just took a look via the WABAC machine. NationStates launched on Nov 13th, 2002. As of Nov 15th, 2002, there are forums with an in-character subforum (at the time, just the "NationStates" board).

Feel free to check for yourself.

[Northern Sunrise Islands]

Have you seen some of the shit that goes down on II? Us RP'ers can be just as guilty as any R/D player when it comes to acts of destruction and retribution against other players.

Yeah, but we still kinda have the ignore cannon for those stuff, don't we? I mean, sure we have people that are totally like that, even at NS Sports, but it's normally not even that hazardous. I know that the Raiders probably have some nice people among them, but the power they handle is certainly bigger than us on game impact.

Things that retcon really can't fix that much.

[Grenartia]

Wow, there sure is a lot of Role Play freak out about Mall acting as a player and not as a (forum) moderator. Does that mean we Game Players should form massive pitchfork parties and sign long winded proposals every single time a Game Mod posts in character, and not as a moderator, in a Role Play thread?

Only when its possible for both RP to negatively affect R/D, and for a Moderator to abuse their position in RP.

[Grenartia]

Wow, there sure is a lot of freak out about Mall acting as a player and not as a (forum) moderator. Does that mean we should form massive pitchfork parties and sign long winded proposals every single time a Game Mod posts in character, and not as a moderator, in a Role Play thread?

Hi, Evil Wolf. And no. It means that we think Mods (in general) should not do things that are intentionally inflammatory. Which makes sense, I think, as that's the opposite of what Mods are supposed to do.

Indeed. We feel that if a Moderator cannot accept that as a Mod, there are certain actions they should no longer do (especially things that intentionally run directly against the job they choose to do), then they shouldn't have been offered the position in the first place, nor should they have accepted, and they should resign.

[Evil Wolf]

Hi, Evil Wolf. And no. It means that we think Mods (in general) should not do things that are intentionally inflammatory. Which makes sense, I think, as that's the opposite of what Mods are supposed to do.

Indeed. We feel that if a Moderator cannot accept that as a Mod, there are certain actions they should no longer do (especially things that intentionally run directly against the job they choose to do), then they shouldn't have been offered the position in the first place, nor should they have accepted, and they should resign.

So what you're saying is, (forum) Moderators can not come from Military Gameplay, or if they do, they are no longer allowed to partake in Military Gameplay?

That's a bit arrogant, isn't it? After all, everything Gameplay does can, and this thread proves will, be taken as "inflammatory".

[New Babylonia]

So what you're saying is, Moderators can not come from Military Gameplay, or if they do, they are no longer allowed to partake in Military Gameplay?

That's a bit arrogant, isn't it?

No, if you read again, I'm pretty sure they said a mod should not intentionally things known to be inflammatory.

[Inyourfaceistan]

So what you're saying is, Moderators can not come from Military Gameplay, or if they do, they are no longer allowed to partake in Military Gameplay?

That's a bit arrogant, isn't it?

No, if you read again, I'm pretty sure they said a mod should not intentionally things known to be inflammatory.

How is it inflammatory?

Better yet, how is it more inflammatory than most RP threads?

[Evil Wolf]

No, if you read again, I'm pretty sure they said a mod should not intentionally things known to be inflammatory.

Like raiding or supporting raiding?

I see a lot of people here arguing that raiding is "known to be inflammatory", so I guess what you're saying is you think no Moderator should be allowed to be a raider or, at the very least, partake in raider Gameplay.

[Nephmir]

No, if you read again, I'm pretty sure they said a mod should not intentionally things known to be inflammatory.

Like raiding or supporting raiding?

I see a lot of people here arguing that raiding is "known to be inflammatory", so I guess what you're saying is you think no Moderator should be allowed to be a raider or, at the very least, partake in raider Gameplay.

Apparently, we're not allowed to make connections like this. They can either "not be compared" or are "logical fallacies".

[Feazanthia]

Enough. There will be no action taken against Mall, no matter how much many of us think there should be. That issue has been settled.

Back to the matter at hand.

[New Babylonia]

No, if you read again, I'm pretty sure they said a mod should not intentionally things known to be inflammatory.

Like raiding or supporting raiding?

I see a lot of people here arguing that raiding is "known to be inflammatory", so I guess what you're saying is you think no Moderator should be allowed to be a raider or, at the very least, partake in raider Gameplay.

No, but intentionally stirring up a buried shitstorm between GP and RP, in case all of this did not make it obvious to you, is most certainly inflammatory.

[Grenartia]

So what you're saying is, Moderators can not come from Military Gameplay, or if they do, they are no longer allowed to partake in Military Gameplay?

That's a bit arrogant, isn't it?

No, if you read again, I'm pretty sure they said a mod should not intentionally things known to be inflammatory.

Thank you. Glad to know at least one person has some reading comprehension skills. Also glad you used the right pronoun, you'd be surprised how often that doesn't happen.

[The North Polish Union]

I sincerely hope that the mod team will not implement exceptions for RP regions (or any regions, for that matter), as this could do serious damage to the R/D Game, which is just as much a legitimate part of NS as RPing is, and NS as a whole.

Its unfair to those who want to play a game if other players wish to opt out of part of it because they don't like it. In Civilization, for example, one can attempt to win either through conquest, cultural achievements, or space colonization. Even if one wishes to attempt to gain victory through one of the latter two means without any military conflict, some military conflict will be unavoidable due to the nature of the game, which would suffer immensely if even one of the paths to victory were removed.

The interplay of R/D and RP in NS is quite similar to what I described in Civ. In fact, since NS (unlike Civ) has no concrete set of goals for "victory," instead leaving it to the individual player to decide what constitutes "victory," no one's criterion for victory in NS are any more or less legitimate than any other person's (providing those criterion stay within site rules). This is the same as achieving the victory criteria for winning Civ via space ship constitutes just as legitimate a victory as winning Civ via reaching those for conquest. The fact that RP and R/D have different means to achieving their respective "victories" does not, and should not, delegitimize one way of playing the game over another any more than the fact that achieving the various types of victory in Civ requires different means to achieve each type of victory (admittedly, the means to each end in Civ are somewhat more similar to each other than the ones here are).

In short, I would say that restricting the scope of R/Ders to act towards their specific ends is not just damaging to part of the game, but to the entirety of the game (imagine how dull Civ would be for warhawkish players if their ability to make war in-game was seriously restricted). The same would apply to a proposal to seriously restrict the ability of RPers to achieve their specific ends. Furthermore, these sorts of proposals attempt to give one section of the NS population (in this case, RPers) a greater legitimacy as opposed to other sections of NS (in this case, R/Ders). This sort of caste-esque distinction between two types of player groups can only lead to further polarization and distrust between the communities and would eventually certainly damage NS as a whole. Therefore, as someone who has (and still does) participated in both RP and R/D, I would implore the Moderation team to consider upholding the status quo, so to speak, and not implementing any changes of this sort which would damage NS as a whole.

There is more than one way to skin a cat. There are possible solutions that won't significantly impact R/D.

You'll have to realise that leaving it as it is now is also damaging NS as a whole, and also creating fractures between communities. A lot of your arguments, NPU, can be used both ways.

The current status quo might work for you and your peers, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone.

First off, while you say that the status quo is "also creating fractures between communities," I have never seen a proposal to change things that would not further damage such relations.

And while the status quo may not work for everyone, that doesn't mean that it cannot reasonably work for the great majority of people.

For example, I know of a founderless RP region with no password, whose founder CTEd 328 days ago (according to the regional history). The region's WAD has 3 endorsements currently, and that number has been stable for quite a while. In those 328 days, the region has been raided only twice, and neither of the two raids was a tag raid. Nevertheless, the region was held for a total of 1¹/₂ days.

This shows that a founderless region, and one with few WA members for security at that, can maintain a high level of security without taking advantage of the current 'opt-out' options (i.e. passwording) by taking simple and unobtrusive security measures (in the case of this region, the WAD is online for most updates). If a region passwords, they become almost completely invulnerable to raids, although a Liberation may be passed against the region (as a note, with the exception of NAZI EUROPE, the SC has never removed a native-placed password on a region, and "Liberate NAZI EUROPE" was later repealed).

If the status quo can work for the vast majority of people, why change it to suit the needs of a tiny but vocal minority unwilling to take even the most basic security measures at the expense of another, larger group of R/Ders?