Discussion about R/D Game and RP Opting Out

[New Babylonia]

Whatever Unibot. Laud yourself all you want. I played defender once or twice and it was ridiculous. Just because I liberated a region doesn't give me some sense of glory. If it did, that would mean I hadn't accomplished much in my life. Good luck with your publishing and I hope you find better uses of your time...

P.S. I know tons of defenders who can't write their way out of a paper bag... I mean that literally. They admit it and their regions are useless. Some have over 550 nations and nothing productive gets done. Because they haven't the slightest clue on how to write or manage differing interests.

You are not the only R/D player.. So don't come up here like you're all a bunch of published writers..

Why do you have to insult someone trying to support us? He's the only Gameplayer I've seen who isn't supporting the R/D point of view. Fucks sake people stop fighting your allies.

[Deusaeuri]

The Great Wall of Text

I'm pretty sure we're justified in considering defenders as outsiders, considering Defenders are gameplayers, the same way Raiders are. Also, I apologize I am not omniscient. I was writing from the assumption the person before me, who himself thought you were a raider, or something like that, was correct. I apologize, but my point hasn't changed.

Whatever Unibot. Laud yourself all you want. I played defender once or twice and it was ridiculous. Just because I liberated a region doesn't give me some sense of glory. If it did, that would mean I hadn't accomplished much in my life. Good luck with your publishing and I hope you find better uses of your time...

P.S. I know tons of defenders who can't write their way out of a paper bag... I mean that literally. They admit it and their regions are useless. Some have over 550 nations and nothing productive gets done. Because they haven't the slightest clue on how to write or manage differing interests.

You are not the only R/D player.. So don't come up here like you're all a bunch of published writers..

You're not the only roleplayer, so don't come in here acting like a dick making all of us look bad.

[Escalan Corps-Star Island]

Based on what I've seen, the mods just don't care. They just want us to shut up and take it. In my nation, it's almost Independence Day. We should be free from having to be subjected to that foolish r/d game.

On another note, I'm an American combat veteran. I am so sick of hearing raiders and defenders talk like they are accomplished military commanders. You are not. RPers understand OOC vs IC. Just because some of you raiders can't write your way out of a paper bag doesn't mean you need to ruin nationstates.

Thank you, Vangaziland. I believe this truly strikes at the heart of the issue. Beyond the technical "actionability" or "legality" of Mallorea's actions, it's a simple question of (at the least!) live and let live. I'm not in any sort of position to discuss how the moderator status figures into this, but as a participant in both the WA and role-playing aspects, I argue that the issue is not whether or not Mall can engage in gameplay, but that this is meta-gaming on a second tier. If one looks at the SC and the R/D game as one "level" of recognition that NS is in some form at least a game, then exploiting this system to target on a personal level a part the RP community that wishes freedom from the gameplay aspect is something that simply disappoints me,and would regardless of the person(s) spearheading the action. Playing about with the technicalities of the game, especially because of personal reasons, is not an "abuse of power" in itself, but displays a lack of standards that I for one feel is not truly representative of the average NS player. I would certainly appreciate an explanation from Mallorea and Riva, if nothing else.

[Vangaziland]

Well guess what? If your buddy there didn't flame bait with his whole operation to break down passwords, I wouldn't be pissed. But I am and it's my right to be. I know exactly what defending is. Like someone else said, it legitimizes the game. What does that game have to do with anything?

Why did the black riders need to try to mess with an RP NSwiki page that I had? That is their victory? I'm calling them out. Talentless trolls. Go play FarmVille and call yourself agricultural specialists while you're at it, since you're so talented at clicking buttons at certain times. I'm done with this conversation..

[Deusaeuri]

Well guess what? If your buddy there didn't flame bait wit his whole operation to break down passwords, I wouldn't be pissed. But I am and it's my right to be. I know exactly what defending is. Like someone else said, it legitimizes the game. What does that game have to do with anything?

Why did the black riders need to try to mess with an RP NSwiki page that I had? That is their victory? I'm calling them out. Talentless trolls. Go play FarmVille and call yourself agricultural specialists while you're at it, since you're so talented at clicking buttons at certain times. I'm done with this conversation..

Vandalization of NSWiki pages is a problem you have to bring up with admins of NSWiki. This discussion is about regions on Nationstates.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm done with this conversation..

Good. 'Cause you're getting really close to a warning for threadjacking and flaming.

This discussion is about regions on Nationstates.

And let's get back to that now.

[Vangaziland]

Yeah that's why I said I was done.....

[Grenartia]

I think my position is pretty clear in the OP. Forcing roleplayers to participate in the R/D metagame at the threat of destroying their regions if they choose not to is plainly harassment. Mall went into the thread knowing the problems his proposal would create, and sought that strife eagerly. His sole desire was to force a group of players who have made every good faith effort to avoid becoming embroiled in gameplay shenanigans, to involve themselves in gameplay shenanigans under threat of regional dissolution.

In essence, we are roleplayers. By our very nature we opt out of the R/D game, as is our right. It is not the right of the R/D types to opt us in to their way of playing, and this proposal cannot be allowed to stand. Furthermore, there must besome written concrete protection, whether it being by the creation of explicit RP regions, with no WA incolvement, or through a written mod ruling that RP regions are off limits. This needs to end now, and it needs to be settled as plainl as possible. We should not be responsible for defending ourselves from a pack of childish bullies whose only goal is to destroy what others have created.

I whole heartedly agree.

We RPers have been longsuffering, and have long been wronged, with no recompense. Our regions get invaded, and we get told to "have active founders" (easier said than done), and to have "non-executive delegates" (which we need when the founder is inactive), and to "use passwords" (which some of us objected would hinder our activities, but we implement them anyways). And now our ONLY REASONABLE line of defense (at least currently) is being chipped away. Raiders, when left to their own devices, will stop at NOTHING to invade, desecrate, violate, and harrass any and every region they possibly can. I find myself agreeing with The Batorys in his earlier statement that their rhetoric is shockingly and disturbingly the same as rape apologists IRL (including heaping doses of victim blaming, and justifications that boil down to little more than "we do it because hurting others makes us feel good"). And I find that his warning for that statement to be little more than Moderation suppressing valid criticism of an action we RPers have long felt wronged by. We MUST draw the line HERE. This far, and NO FARTHER!

I am honestly not surprised that this issue has popped up again after my last bout with it 6/7 months ago. Simply because neither the mods nor the admins have done ANYTHING to resolve the problems that were pointed out. And I'll even go as far as assuring the staff of this site that if nothing is done, this issue will reach a boiling point again, and will probably do so more frequently. If the mods and admins are tired of having to deal with this issue, they must fix the problems that are causing it, ASAP.

As a player, in a political game, and in a section of the game that is meant to simulate international politics (Think of the real world Security Council in the Organization-That-Cannot-Be-Named and the shenanigans that it gets up to), he is perfectly inline with that.

RPers can counter with their own facts and statements.

The problem with this is that having one's name if bright red tends to hold some sway over people which makes the "facts and statements" almost irrelevant, or atleast extremely difficult to overcome.

I saw this in the thread it was originally posted in, and was going to say what I'm about to there, but it got locked while I was still catching up, so I'll say it here:

I feel the solution to this problem (which is a valid one, contrary to what the responses to it in its original thread said), is to make it so that a colored name only becomes colored when the person is acting in an official capacity. Sort of like a Technical "modhat" or "adminhat" indicator. Perhaps some sort of box that the mod/admin in question clicks prior to hitting the "submit" button. This would clearly indicate that that particular post by the staff member is in an official capacity, thus reducing (to the point of almost nearly eliminating it altogether) the issue in both Gameplay AND General.

And lastly, I'd like to specifically address this post by Scolo, which I did not get to in the original thread for the reasons mentioned above:

The thing is, Scolo, RP and R/D cannot, and SHOULD NOT (because that leads to shit like this popping up) be held to identical standards, because they are inherently different. Of course you (general you) can and should be able to RP now the same as you did before you got modded, because nothing happens to you in RP that you don't explicitly allow, and you can brush off anything that didn't happen they way you wanted it to. But you can't and shouldn't R/D the same, because R/D inherently involves things that you don't want to happen, and it happens against your will anyways. You said yourself in that thread that you utterly oppose R/D to the point of, and I quote: "delenda est", so these facts should be plainly obvious to you (but yet I still apparently have to point them out) anyway.

[Pollona]

But I've dedicated most of my NationStates career to preventing and ending those occupations!? I've had my own region destroyed and I completely agree that it is upsetting to lose something you've worked hard to build.

I don't understand, however, why some posters here seem to conflate the motivations and the work of "invaders" with "defenders". There seems to be some grand myth here that we're all really one clique that wants to see everyone's regions torched. Instead of seeing defenders as your friends, allies, even colleagues... you seem them as outsiders, who aren't working for you, but working against you.

It's an unfortunate consequence of people who don't understand the system, and on that note I do concede that fact. It does however come with a caveat. We don't want people to come and rescue us from outsiders, we'd prefer not having to be occupied in the first place. It's a system that in practice we ignore because there we'd prefer spending our time on other things. Opting out of a system we don't intend to take a part in, from our perspective, is completely rational. We leave the wider community alone, they leave us alone. No worrying about invasions or searching for defenders.

I'm sure you think your work is highly important. I bet some people are grateful that you saved their regions. That's great. But again, to us it's the same irrelevant, hostile game.

Modern NS Roleplaying, usually of the higher quality, is done on a regional basis and is highly inward-looking. Thus these communities become highly enclosed in of themselves and thus are passionately devoted to developing the IC story and background of their region. Finding that your NS home is suddenly topped by people who could care less about whatever you've done is distressing. It's more of a shock when it's from people who share a different version of a 'fun' game than you do. We're told to have active founders, but many of these regions are ancient or have founders who have moved on in life; we're told to have delegates without executive powers (which we often need as a figurehead of the region, or to control the region since our founders have probably been long gone). Finally, we were told to have passwords, and if anything was indicated by today, it's that it can be flagrantly targeted against us at will.

What recourse is there?

[Registug]

Perhaps we can think of ways to implement an opt out system without it being abused by people.

Perhaps, if a region opts out, nations in that region can't join the WA. They can still do things like vote for a region admin or whatever, but the region admin can't kick people out of the region. If someone is being a nuisance in the RP region, maybe the region admin guy can start a "vote to kick" thing? And those who have been in the region the longest and have the most influence also have the most voting weight to throw around, so someone who has been around for a month has about the same voting weight as ten people who joined yesterday?

Perhaps a region admin can also set up how many people can join a region a day, or it can change to an "application to join region" and the admin guy can then validate them or whatever.


Those are just my ideas. If anyone else has any, post them. As they say, a thousand monkeys typing on typewriters will eventually recreate Shakespeare, and one of us might hit on exactly the kind of idea the game team needs?

no, I know nothing of coding, or how long it will take or how much work it will take or any of that. But you've built this entire site, right? Even if it takes a year, I'm sure all RPers will be happy that something is being done. Even if it takes a year, we would all be warmly waiting and appreciating the work you would be doing for us.

[Elke and Elba]

Perhaps we can think of ways to implement an opt out system without it being abused by people.

Perhaps, if a region opts out, nations in that region can't join the WA. They can still do things like vote for a region admin or whatever, but the region admin can't kick people out of the region. If someone is being a nuisance in the RP region, maybe the region admin guy can start a "vote to kick" thing? And those who have been in the region the longest and have the most influence also have the most voting weight to throw around, so someone who has been around for a month has about the same voting weight as ten people who joined yesterday?

Perhaps a region admin can also set up how many people can join a region a day, or it can change to an "application to join region" and the admin guy can then validate them or whatever.


Those are just my ideas. If anyone else has any, post them. As they say, a thousand monkeys typing on typewriters will eventually recreate Shakespeare, and one of us might hit on exactly the kind of idea the game team needs?

Sounds a bit unfeasibly plausible.

But anyway, the premise that WA in itself is a RPing part of the game cannot be ignored. If anything, it's laughably and hilariously ironic so that we have this discussion because Mall is using a RP tool to enforce new dynamics for Gameplay.

Any validation of the R/D game requires R/D to validate the SC and by extension RP in its entirety.

[Registug]

It does sound a bit difficult, doesn't it?

but still, putting some ideas out is better than going "baaaww, why won't the game techs do anything? " and waiting for something to happen.

Throwing around ideas on what we could do is better than nothing, because even if there's a million shitty ideas, there could be one that's the perfect solution.

Perhaps we could make a thread in Technical about it?

[Unibot III]

It's an unfortunate consequence of people who don't understand the system, and on that note I do concede that fact. It does however come with a caveat. We don't want people to come and rescue us from outsiders, we'd prefer not having to be occupied in the first place. It's a system that in practice we ignore because there we'd prefer spending our time on other things. Opting out of a system we don't intend to take a part in, from our perspective, is completely rational. We leave the wider community alone, they leave us alone. No worrying about invasions or searching for defenders.

I'm sure you think your work is highly important. I bet some people are grateful that you saved their regions. That's great. But again, to us it's the same irrelevant, hostile game.

Modern NS Roleplaying, usually of the higher quality, is done on a regional basis and is highly inward-looking. Thus these communities become highly enclosed in of themselves and thus are passionately devoted to developing the IC story and background of their region. Finding that your NS home is suddenly topped by people who could care less about whatever you've done is distressing. It's more of a shock when it's from people who share a different version of a 'fun' game than you do.

You misunderstand, I think it's terrible that many regions don't have a legitimate way to actually defend themselves. One poster here likened invader rhetoric to rape apologists and that's completely correct -- it's all about responsibilization: shifting responsibility from the people who commit invasions and the institutions which preserve this practice to the victims themselves. Defenders, for years, have been likening these lines of argumentation to victim-blaming and trying to show how they compare. We're not as different in our beliefs to you as you would think.

1. Founders require founderless regions to go through the very risky business of 1) deciding on a new founder, 2) refounding.

2. Non-Executive Delegates downgrade founderless regions from being able to remove troublemakers and manage their region properly.

3. Passwords often make regions more vulnerable - by reducing their population growth and preventing first-responders from defending your region against invaders (who get the password through leaks).

The people who argue that it's "the fault" of natives like yourself for invasions are simply out to lunch. It's the fault of major organizations, trained and militarized, for the purpose of fomenting the most strife and mischief in your regions as possible.

I think it's important here though that roleplayers and others here who might be reading and contributing this thread, who might otherwise think that "invaders" and "defenders" are the same thing and think the same way, should know that they can contribute positively to defending communities against invasions and in fact there is a dire need for volunteers. In the likely event that the administrators are unwilling to change anything about the game mechanics, defenders are still going to be vastly outnumbered and regions out there are still going to be unsafe and needing help from potential willing defenders and liberators.

Yours,
Unibot.

[The Batorys]

All we want is to be able to be left to our own devices to do what we're here to do, RP our nations (or other things, in the case of P2TM posters).

Raiding is highly disruptive to that.

We have been told we can avoid raiding by having active founders with non-executive delegates, and by passwording our regions.

Sometimes a founder CTEs, and refounding is a hassle and wipes away regional history. So while that's a workable defense, it has some problems, as seen here.

And now we are told that our passwords, set up because we were told that was the responsible thing to do for regions who wanted no part in raiding and defending, can be stripped away just because someone thinks raiding us would be "fun" and "interesting."

We want an opt-out that actually works. Why is that so controversial?

[Registug]

Oh gee, I just took a look at the R/D summit subforum. That looks a whole lot like what I was talking about. Someone reel me in before I go about embarrassing myself like that next time.

Does anyone have a summary of the changes people wanted to implement at the R/D summit? Also if anyone proposed an opt-out system that would work?

[Grenartia]

I'm not sure what actual actions can be taken to prevent RPers from having to engage in the R/D game, as I'm not involved in the nitty gritty nuts and bolts. I'm not even sure there should be a hard wall. Some RPers may want to raid. Some raiders may want to RP. Too many shades of gray.

But the fact of the matter is that a region which does not partake in the raiding game, which has had a long-standing regional password, and is designed to be a haven (heh) from the chaos of the R/D game should not be a viable target for a WA resolution. That goes against the very nature of the Liberate function. Perhaps a clarification to the rules of the Liberate resolution, detailing what regions can be viable targets. There would, unfortunately, likely be increased Moderator overhead in making sure these rules are adhered to.

See, I think that there needs to be an overhaul of the entire R/D side of the game, such that founders must choose when they found whether or not they want the region to be involved in military gameplay. These regions cannot be made impossible to invade, and regions which were not chosen to be involved in R/D cannot be involved in R/D. RPers get our R/D-free regions, raiders get to raid (or at least attempt to) any R/D region they choose, and defenders get to defend any R/D region they choose to defend (if they so choose). And anybody who wants to RP, and R/D, can do so. Literally everybody gets what they want, within reason.

[Pollona]

-Snip of Important Text-

The people who argue that it's "the fault" of natives like yourself for invasions are simply out to lunch. It's the fault of major organizations, trained and militarized, for the purpose of fomenting the most strife and mischief in your regions as possible.

I think it's important here though that roleplayers and others here who might be reading and contributing this thread, who might otherwise think that "invaders" and "defenders" are the same thing and think the same way, should know that they can contribute positively to defending communities against invasions and in fact there is a dire need for volunteers. In the likely event that the administrators are unwilling to change anything about the game mechanics, defenders are still going to be vastly outnumbered and regions out there are still going to be unsafe and needing help from potential willing defenders and liberators.

Yours,
Unibot.

Thank you. Though I wasn't trying to evade your point earlier, I was simply pointing out the prevailing rhetoric in the Roleplaying community and the association of invaders and defenders as one in the same. I alluded to the fact that opting out, rather than being conscripted as a "defender," has been the prevailing viewpoint in the community which already feels isolated from the Moderation staff. If you will, it prefers hiding under the radar and enacting a Golden Rule policy on R/D: "Treating others the way you want to be treated." Which has been, to ignore everything and expect to be ignored.

Perhaps if no action is taken, people like you will lead a shift of opinion in the community.

[Questers]

While the term "insisting" might be a bit heavy, a consideration would definitely be appropriate. Please consider the idea of another summit. If it's already considered or under consideration, it'll be reassuring for people who are sensitive in the matter to be notified, or better yet, on a public post where members can see.

As we cannot see what moderators discuss, I believe it would be an excellent idea to disclose at what stage the issue is being discussed. It doesn't have to be detailed.

There are top men working on it.

Top. Men.


...seriously, though. Stuff is filtering up. Solutions are being tossed around. Today has had an effect. Can't promise anything though, but today has been noticed.

Ok.

This was really great to hear. It's great that the conccerns have gone noticed. There are two separate issues here - maybe three. The first is that we won't ever get fully protected from raiding. For some reason the powers that be hate roleplaying. So there's that -but anything you can work on, you know we all appreciate a lot. So thank you & the other mentors.

With this case specifically, I don't think the roleplay community will be satisfied unless we get some kind of conclusion around like, the idea that there's a moderator who actually enjoys griefing roleplayers. And not just R/Ding, but actually griefing. So to be honest, while I don't think the former would happen, it'd obviously be the best outcome: I still want to see something happen about Mall's extremely divisive and unprofessional behaviour.

[Wisconsin9]

It seems like bull to me. It's clear that there are two ways people choose to play this game, RPers and gameplayers. If the gameplayers don't want to be involved with RP, it's easy. They just don't post in RP areas. But if an RPer doesn't want to be involved with gameplay, it's just "Too bad so sad"? Complete bullshit. I mean, hell, half the point of passwords is as an opt-out of R/D, right? If you say that they're an opt-out, then that should actually be enforced.

[Pollona]

See, I think that there needs to be an overhaul of the entire R/D side of the game, such that founders must choose when they found whether or not they want the region to be involved in military gameplay. These regions cannot be made impossible to invade, and regions which were not chosen to be involved in R/D cannot be involved in R/D. RPers get our R/D-free regions, raiders get to raid (or at least attempt to) any R/D region they choose, and defenders get to defend any R/D region they choose to defend (if they so choose). And anybody who wants to RP, and R/D, can do so. Literally everybody gets what they want, within reason.

Idk how deeply that treads into the regional mechanics that are hard-coded into the site. From what I understand that has been the primary inhibitor to solutions in the past.

It seems like bull to me. It's clear that there are two ways people choose to play this game, RPers and gameplayers. If the gameplayers don't want to be involved with RP, it's easy. They just don't post in RP areas. But if an RPer doesn't want to be involved with gameplay, it's just "To bad so sad"? Complete bullshit. I mean, hell, half the point of passwords is as an opt-out of R/D, right? If you say that they're an opt-out, then that should actually be enforced.

^ This.

[The Batorys]

There are top men working on it.

Top. Men.


...seriously, though. Stuff is filtering up. Solutions are being tossed around. Today has had an effect. Can't promise anything though, but today has been noticed.

Ok.

This was really great to hear. It's great that the conccerns have gone noticed. There are two separate issues here - maybe three. The first is that we won't ever get fully protected from raiding. For some reason the powers that be hate roleplaying. So there's that -but anything you can work on, you know we all appreciate a lot. So thank you & the other mentors.

With this case specifically, I don't think the roleplay community will be satisfied unless we get some kind of conclusion around like, the idea that there's a moderator who actually enjoys griefing roleplayers. And not just R/Ding, but actually griefing. So to be honest, while I don't think the former would happen, it'd obviously be the best outcome: I still want to see something happen about Mall's extremely divisive and unprofessional behaviour.

Of primary concern, to me, is a way for RP communities to opt out of the R/D thing. That's what passwords were supposed to be for, but apparently raiders have no found a loophole to that. I want something that actually works, that isn't just going to be thrown out. That is what I want.

I also want Mallorea to resign... because intentionally alienating a huge chunk of your site's users is... well... that's shitty behavior, plain and simple. Not what a moderator should do.

[Wisconsin9]

Ok.

This was really great to hear. It's great that the conccerns have gone noticed. There are two separate issues here - maybe three. The first is that we won't ever get fully protected from raiding. For some reason the powers that be hate roleplaying. So there's that -but anything you can work on, you know we all appreciate a lot. So thank you & the other mentors.

With this case specifically, I don't think the roleplay community will be satisfied unless we get some kind of conclusion around like, the idea that there's a moderator who actually enjoys griefing roleplayers. And not just R/Ding, but actually griefing. So to be honest, while I don't think the former would happen, it'd obviously be the best outcome: I still want to see something happen about Mall's extremely divisive and unprofessional behaviour.

Of primary concern, to me, is a way for RP communities to opt out of the R/D thing. That's what passwords were supposed to be for, but apparently raiders have no found a loophole to that. I want something that actually works, that isn't just going to be thrown out. That is what I want.

I also want Mallorea to resign... because intentionally alienating a huge chunk of your site's users is... well... that's shitty behavior, plain and simple. Not what a moderator should do.

I think the problem with a legitimate opt-out is that it'll still be used in gameplay. Hell, look at how passwords have been used. Anything that can be used to stop raids can be used to stop libs, and vice-versa, and the entire gameplay community'll be up in arms about it. Then some way to skirt it will be added in, which will allow raiders to attack RP regions.

[The Batorys]

Of primary concern, to me, is a way for RP communities to opt out of the R/D thing. That's what passwords were supposed to be for, but apparently raiders have no found a loophole to that. I want something that actually works, that isn't just going to be thrown out. That is what I want.

I also want Mallorea to resign... because intentionally alienating a huge chunk of your site's users is... well... that's shitty behavior, plain and simple. Not what a moderator should do.

I think the problem with a legitimate opt-out is that it'll still be used in gameplay. Hell, look at how passwords have been used. Anything that can be used to stop raids can be used to stop libs, and vice-versa, and the entire gameplay community'll be up in arms about it. Then some way to skirt it will be added in, which will allow raiders to attack RP regions.

If you have to make people play your game, or part of a game, then maybe it's not so great.

[Vitaphone Racing]

I think the problem with a legitimate opt-out is that it'll still be used in gameplay. Hell, look at how passwords have been used. Anything that can be used to stop raids can be used to stop libs, and vice-versa, and the entire gameplay community'll be up in arms about it. Then some way to skirt it will be added in, which will allow raiders to attack RP regions.

If you have to make people play your game, or part of a game, then maybe it's not so great.

Raiding roleplay regions seems about equivalent to throwing a football at someone having a picnic and screaming that they have to play.

[Registug]

Well it's fun at the expense of others, so is it really justified?

We have names for it IRL, like "bullying" and it is generally looked down upon, but not here?