Proposal: "Liberation" Security Council resolution type

[[violet]]

Thoughts please on the following proposal!

New Security Council resolution category: Liberation

This would allow a nominated region to be "liberated:" if passed as a WA resolution, the region's password (if any) is removed, and the region cannot activate password protection so long as the resolution stands.

The intent of this is to combat the use of passwords as an offensive weapon in high-profile regional invasions. While the invasion game in general is considered to be an integral part of NationStates, the use of passwords as a "game over" move, leaving defenders with no counter-attack, is considered a negative.

This proposal is not expected to be a panacea for all gameplay issues, but is suggested to address one particular problem.

Note that the resolution's use would be entirely subject to World Assembly voting. The game itself would not prevent invaders from employing it.

Some modifications to the WA may be necessary to, for example, prevent a "filibuster" whereby junk proposals are granted quorum in order to delay a Liberation proposal.

[The Emmerian Unions]

This does sound good as defenders should be allowed to "counterattack" invaders of their regions.

[The Dourian Embassy]

Ok, I've definitely been out of the game too long. I've been examining the new security council resolution concept and I've found it to be extremely odd.

Why are game play issues and World Assembly resolutions suddenly together? I'm not against the concept of handing some game play control to the players, but if these are a separate type of resolution, shouldn't they also be voted on separately, instead of being added to the normal resolution queue? You're pushing old style RP'ers not out the door, but certainly very far aside with this concept, even if it's half and half. Why not separate it completely? We already play two different games.

Back to the issue at hand, couldn't this very easily also be used as a lead in for an "attack" on a currently passworded region?

Also how would one determine what a "junk" resolution is? If it meets with all of the rule requirements, how could anyone consider it a "junk" proposal? You'd have to judge intent, and that's impossible.

Beyond that, shouldn't the region founder always be able to set a password, regardless of what "security council resolution" is in effect? It is his region after all.

Most of this is in the form of questions because I've always been curious how anyone in the world could find region crashing fun.

[Valipac]

Dourian, read this thread to fully understand why this has been suggested: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1806

I am in support of this proposal due to the actions taken by the raiders in that instance.

[Naivetry]

I think it's absolutely fantastic and would love to see it happen. To carry over some of the discussion and counter possible objections from here, I believe this is much safer from abuse than it would seem for two reasons:

1) Most of NS is biased against raiding, because most of NS consists of casual or non-military players. A proposal to remove a password would have to make a very good case that the password had been unjustly instituted and was detrimental to the health of the native community in order to attract large numbers of votes. I really don't foresee anyone but a small minority of raiders voting for the removal of a password under any other circumstances.

2) Even if raiders mobilized to control a larger portion of the WA than I think they are capable of, the moment someone posted a WA proposal to unlock a region, all and sundry would know that they intended to invade it, and could prepare accordingly. Defenders could move in with the permission of the natives to bolster the delegate days in advance - and there are still far more players who can be called on to defend a region than there are raiders.

The problem of a potential "filibuster" is a real one, though. Could the queue be made so that the proposals with the highest number of approvals went to vote first? (I can imagine how that might be a nightmare to code...)

[Bears Armed]

If this is implemented then I think that it should not be aplicable to those passwords that were set by still-active founders. I realise that coding for that factor would probably be very tricky, but couldn't it be made legitimate grounds for classing such a proposal as 'illegal' and getting it deleted from the list?

Edit: thus, for example, allowing Founders to go on vacation -- possibly leaving native delegates in place to run things -- without having to worry about their home regions getting "modified" by 'invader' delegates during their absence...

[The Dourian Embassy]

Dourian, read this thread to fully understand why this has been suggested: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1806

Never said I didn't understand why this was suggested. What I meant was I don't understand the motivations of raiders. It doesn't even sound like fun. Hell the whole thing sounds like nothing more than sanctioned griefing.

If you want to balance the needs of "raiders" with people who just want to control their regions in peace, you're going to have to redesign the whole system from the bottom up. What you're dealing with is a PvP element that's developed in a game that wasn't originally intended to contain a PvP element. Now you're saying "I like it, lets balance it,".

Only that's not going to happen. This idea will tip the balance way the heck back in the other direction, and I can't think of any way you're going to balance it out. Either it won't work, because no one will ever get one of these passed, or they'll get passed every time someone gets their ass kicked. There's no gray area here. So then it becomes a question of "What's the point of this? It doesn't really work," or "What's the point of this? They'll just pass a resolution,".

Ugh, now I have to figure out how in the hell raiding works just to debate this. Jesus H. Christ.

[Ruzan]

Even if most or all Liberation proposals pass, that shouldn't hurt the raiding game. It just means the defenders will be able to move into the region to TRY to liberate it. The raiders will no longer be able to just set a password and listen to the screams of their victims as they boot them one by one.

[Ardchoille]

Why are game play issues and World Assembly resolutions suddenly together?

They aren't. That's what days and days and interminable days of discussion were about. There are now two bodies in the World Assembly.

One, the General Assembly, deals with the kind of legislative proposals familiar to WA players, and the rules for writing them and their effects remain the same.

The second, the Security Council, deals (largely; I don't know what else is planned) with gameplay situations, the difference being that players will vote on them and if accepted, they'll go into effect in the areas concerned. How, I don't know; that's admin stuff.

I'm not against the concept of handing some game play control to the players, but if these are a separate type of resolution, shouldn't they also be voted on separately, instead of being added to the normal resolution queue?

They are. There's a legislative (GA) queue and an SC queue. The idea, as I understand it, is that GA resolutions and SC resolutions go At Vote turn and turn about, so that each body gets a new proposal to vote on every two weeks. Players who want to ignore either queue can do so.

Exactly how this would mesh with the (presumably) urgent nature of "Liberation" proposals I don't know. Perhaps griefer-type raiders will develop new strategies based on which council has the At Vote resolution that week. Maybe defenders will start TGing Delegates to withhold proposal endorsements. I guess that's why [violet] is asking what we all think.

You're pushing old style RP'ers not out the door, but certainly very far aside with this concept.

If you're coming on this whole idea cold, I can understand why you think so. If you're willing to plough through all the threads on this subject, you'll see people going from "we''re doomed" to "that might work". It has taken a lot of debate to reach the two-councils solution. I think it's a fair balance. If you want to RP the Assembly as usual, you still can.

[Goobergunchia]

I'm generally in support of this idea. Personally, I don't think an intentional "filibuster" is a significant concern here, just because I don't think junk proposals are likely to actually get put up for a vote, and I further don't think it's possible to define junk proposals under the current ruleset. While it would be possible to filibuster in theory by submitting a great number of legitimate proposals, I would be greatly impressed (and don't really think it's possible) if any small group of players can come up with a sufficient number of meritorious, quorum-achieving proposals in a really short amount of time. Ultimately, I see the prevention of such a filibuster as the role of regional delegates.

However, I'd be curious to hear the opinion of somebody that's been a bit more active of late that I have been on whether such a "Liberation" resolution would be able to get to a vote in time to achieve its desired impact. If, hypothetically speaking, a resolution to liberate Belgium were to be put up for a vote immediately following the current queued proposals, it couldn't take effect until 15 July. I'm not up on the latest figures on Influence decay, but by then it might be a bit too late. While this backlog would probably be less of a problem in the future (given that C&Cs are shiny and new and the current queue is unrepresentative of normal proceedings), Belgium is also an unusually large, old target. On the other hand, reduction in voting time, as has been suggested elsewhere, could help remedy this issue as well. I defer to somebody that's more up on current gameplay practice in this matter.

I like Nai's idea of having the proposal with the most endorsements go to vote first, but also echo her concerns about coding difficulties. I also agree with those that point out that this shouldn't apply to founder-set passwords, if possible.

The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
Retired Officer, Nasicournia
Resident, The Rejected Realms

[Naivetry]

If this is implemented then I think that it should not be aplicable to those passwords that were set by still-active founders. I realise that coding for that factor would probably be very tricky, but couldn't it be made legitimate grounds for classing such a proposal as 'illegal' and getting it deleted from the list?

Upon reflection, I believe this is a good suggestion. After all, to remove the password from a region with an active Founder would be to overstep the authority of the World Assembly. While a Delegate draws his power from the World Assembly, Founders do not. (While there are some regions that have been refounded by raiders and password protected, it is impossible, barring acts of God, to conduct a re-refounding when the raiders know you're coming - so removing the password from such a region would do us no good.) Making such a proposal deletion-worthy seems to be a fair and relatively simple solution.

Only that's not going to happen. This idea will tip the balance way the heck back in the other direction, and I can't think of any way you're going to balance it out. Either it won't work, because no one will ever get one of these passed, or they'll get passed every time someone gets their ass kicked. There's no gray area here. So then it becomes a question of "What's the point of this? It doesn't really work," or "What's the point of this? They'll just pass a resolution,".

If the possibility of the WA passing a resolution discourages people from attempting region destruction, then so much the better. Currently, there is no defense, and so no real balance to begin with.

Ugh, now I have to figure out how in the hell raiding works just to debate this. Jesus H. Christ.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=375

[Chaucerin]

After having seen a game mechanics issue so bad that it allows for the irreparable destruction of a region, this is a bold and creative fusion of the WA community and the conventional NS community.

I won't pretend to be qualified to speak to the issues of the WA players, but this seems to me as a welcome fusion of the two areas and a reinforcement of how important and relevant this aspect of the game ought to be.

Brilliant.

[Goobergunchia]

Upon further reflection, I've come up with another problem with allowing approvals to decide the order in which proposals go to vote. If Proposal A has 70 approvals, while Proposal B has 81 approvals, Proposal B would come to vote first. Then if Proposal C gets 77 approvals while now-Resolution B is at vote, Proposal C will get priority over Proposal A. In theory, this could be repeated ad infinitum. Perhaps some weighting system that ensures that all proposals will eventually reach vote would be an optimal way of achieving this, but that might be needlessly complex.

The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
Retired Officer, Nasicournia
Resident, The Rejected Realms

[Unibot]

Upon further reflection, I've come up with another problem with allowing approvals to decide the order in which proposals go to vote. If Proposal A has 70 approvals, while Proposal B has 81 approvals, Proposal B would come to vote first. Then if Proposal C gets 77 approvals while now-Resolution B is at vote, Proposal C will get priority over Proposal A. In theory, this could be repeated ad infinitum. Perhaps some weighting system that ensures that all proposals will eventually reach vote would be an optimal way of achieving this, but that might be needlessly complex.

I don't know, I don't think its a problem because if a proposal sits at the bottom of the queue, all it would need is some more delegates to come and endorse it more to move it up on the queue!

I'm extremely excited for the potential of this insitution.

Also - on the other thread I suggested a couple different proposal categories but they were deemed 'Appropriate' at the time. Now that we a section for it, could I start a thread on them?

[Chaucerin]

In theory, this could be repeated ad infinitum.

If this were to occur, it would be a clear indication that the community of players and regions in opposition to region destruction does not have the collective will to get the thing moved through.

We are, wisely imo, being given a potential tool to unmake the an imbalance in the game, but it is a tool that will still require work. We cannot ask for more than that. In the best spirit of this game, the organizing principle will be competition.

With the lock and die attacks we had no options; if this comes to pass, we do.

[Bears Armed]

If this is implemented then I think that it should not be aplicable to those passwords that were set by still-active founders. I realise that coding for that factor would probably be very tricky, but couldn't it be made legitimate grounds for classing such a proposal as 'illegal' and getting it deleted from the list?

Edit: thus, for example, allowing Founders to go on vacation -- possibly leaving native delegates in place to run things -- without having to worry about their home regions getting "modified" by 'invader' delegates during their absence...

Having thought a bit further about thsi suggestion, if it were to be introduced then we'd need some way (that doesn't exist yet) to tell whether a password had been set by the Founder or just by a delegate. Two possibilities have occurred to me, although I don't know how feasible coding either of them would be _

1/. While a Founder-set password is in place, maybe a distinctive symbol of some kind could be placeds next to the Founder's name in the section of the WFE that's outside of player control?
2/. Maybe the line that appears in the 'National Happenings' list when the password is set could be changed from the generic "altered the WFE" that applies now to a more specific "set a password for [REGION]", and this line remaining in that list -- so that Founders who did other things too would need to 'refresh' it from time to time -- would be the criteria for legality of 'Liberation' proposals?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Some founders of regions may not consider use of passwords as a "game over" move if the purpose is to protect their residents. As both a native founder and a native WA delegate, I have to use passwords sometimes to protect my residents from threats of invasion. My proposal is that this liberation proposal should only be applicable to the following:

• Regions with no founders;
• Regions with a founder, yet the founder is not resident in the said region;
• Regions with inactive founders.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

...or, you know, you could just junk Influence and reinstate the ban on griefing... whatever overly complicated solution works.

[Naivetry]

...or, you know, you could just junk Influence and reinstate the ban on griefing... whatever overly complicated solution works.

Okay!

No, seriously, though - I think the points about Founders are good ones to bring up. The easiest solution is simply to delete Liberation proposals for regions where the Founder is still alive. To do anything more complicated would lead to ambiguity in interpretation (what counts as active?), which is why we're here to begin with, as Kenny pointed out. Absentee Founders can always be telegrammed. Other Founders should be able to go on vacation and leave their password in place. (But as always, the safest solution is to share the Founder nation password with a trusted member of your region... so long as you trust them absolutely.)

Since raiders can no longer request the revival of the Founder nation (since revival is a self-service operation anymore), there's no way for this provision to be subverted.

[Havensky]

My two concerns are:

1) The reverse side of this is that invaders could use this to try and unlock regions under the guise of liberation

2) Even if a region is unlocked, it will still take a military operation to free it - and from what I understand it takes very little influence to ban-ject somebody who has just arrived. And for something as high profile as this, as soon as a region is unlocked the raider chief WILL be awake

So, if a raider can just banject all the new nations that are trying to free the region...how does this really help?

Question - if a region gets a liberation resolution passed, can the cost of kicking out would be liberators be raised?
This would give the liberators a chance at least, and it would still require large numbers

[Buffett and Colbert]

Wow I was never aware of the Security Council part! I MISS ONE STUPID WEEK OF COMPUTER AND I MISS EVERYTHING! I should just become a computer freak who never leaves it alone just to keep up with NS. I think this new category is a good one. Especially with the Security Council. That eases my concerns about the C&C too. This is perfect.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Not every region that institutes a password is the product of crashing. Two examples:

1. Regions removed from gameplaying that wish to stay so (for example, Haven). For them, their region is essentially an RP club and the password a means of ensuring not only regional security from gameplayers, but also regulating their membership. Doing so violates no old or new gameplay rules, yet a resolution could override this to no apparent benefit to anyone.

2. As these new changes are forcing my resignation as delegate, Wysteria will soon hold delegacy elections. During this time, it is customary to impose a password to prevent anyone from coming in to take advantage of the low endorsement counts. A strategically timed "liberation" of Wysteria would thus completely subvert our attempt to organize our region on a democratic basis.

This proposal is not expected to be a panacea for all gameplay issues, but is suggested to address one particular problem.

It is indeed one particular problem: a solution that applies to all regions is thereby only likely to make things worse.

I understand the frustrations of a situation like Belgium: it happened to my own region (Malibu Islands) a while ago, and we only "liberated" it because the refounder eventually got bored and died - by which time almost all natives had got bored and died. I am "on the side" of the "liberators". But I think any solution that effectively gives gameplayers carte blanche to knock over any regional password is wired for abuse.

Edit: I feel compelled to report that this is being interpreted in Wysteria as a move designed to force gameplay on regions that have no interest in that side of the game, which is not going down well. At the very least, some clarification on how this would not be used to disturb non-gameplayers would be helpful.

[Anarcanis]

"Honoured Delegates, I am Pharaoh Thoth of the Obsidian Throne of Anubis. Anarcanis, like the other nations of The Unity, have chosen not to belong to the World Assembly. And the changes we see being made fill us all with profound unease."

And that said, I must step out of persona. Like QoD above, we of The Unity are viewing this very negatively. We feel this to be a set of actions designated to force us into game play, which is a portion of the game that is completely unappealing to us. We have always had a password for our region and would be sorely disappointed to see that protection disappear, especially if a group - of which we were not a part and have no desire to be a part of - arbitrarily decided to rule such.

[Naivetry]

To respond to some concerns:

It has been proposed that "Liberation" resolutions only be legal for regions without live Founders. That is a measure I entirely support, and which I hope would alleviate some of Wysteria's concerns.

Haven has been mentioned several times as an unfounded region that is password protected. I would like to bring up my point from earlier - given that the vast majority of NS players (including gameplayers!) are against invasion, the likelihood that a Liberation resolution would be passed over the protests of the natives is extremely small.

My two concerns are:

1) The reverse side of this is that invaders could use this to try and unlock regions under the guise of liberation

It's a good thing there are defenders here to fact-check, then, hm?

2) Even if a region is unlocked, it will still take a military operation to free it - and from what I understand it takes very little influence to ban-ject somebody who has just arrived. And for something as high profile as this, as soon as a region is unlocked the raider chief WILL be awake

This is quite true. But since a region will remain unpasswordable for as long as the resolution is in effect, defenders should have some time to prepare and coordinate. It would at least allow us to try to do something, rather than closing the case. And while liberations are difficult to organize and pull off, and indeed few of the defender organizations around these days have the skill, training, or manpower to accomplish one, they are not entirely impossible to achieve if nations can be organized on a large enough scale. The buzz and publicity leading up to the passage of a Liberation resolution might give us both the time and the interest to put something together.

EDIT: It would also mean that raiders would be forced to devote their resources to boosting the endorsement count of their delegate in the "LIberated" region, thus reducing the frequency of raids elsewhere. Always a good thing.

So, if a raider can just banject all the new nations that are trying to free the region...how does this really help?

Question - if a region gets a liberation resolution passed, can the cost of kicking out would be liberators be raised?
This would give the liberators a chance at least, and it would still require large numbers

I like that idea, but in the unlikely event that raiders did get the password removed from a founderless region, it would also make that region harder to defend. The game can't tell the difference between the two. It's a thought, though.

[Quintessence of Dust]

It has been proposed that "Liberation" resolutions only be legal for regions without live Founders. That is a measure I entirely support, and which I hope would alleviate some of Wysteria's concerns.

Ok, let's switch the example to Anticapitalist Alliance, who conduct their - admittedly now infrequent - delegate elections in exactly the same way. They're perhaps a better example, actually, because they have been an occasional target for invasion, and their political outlook means there is necessarily a greater segment of the NS population predisposed to vote against them (it's pretty hard to hate "sensible shoe" Wysterians, but plenty of nations are antianticapitalist).

Furthermore, you say it's "been proposed": by players. We've had no confirmation by gamestaff they're considering such and, though I've stated before I know nothing about the code, I'd speculate it's unlikely such a differentiation could be coded. This means you're relying on the mods enforcing a rather arbitrary rule. Illegal proposals have slipped past the mods before and ended up as resolutions: Max Barry Day being the obvious example. Because this whole system is increasing the mod workload, and because policing the WA queue has historically been something only a minority of the mods have regularly been involved in (look at the Mod Olympic stats), relying on mod action is a dangerous path.

I'd welcome correction from the mods, who may be more than happy to have their work added to in this fashion.

Haven has been mentioned several times as an unfounded region that is password protected. I would like to bring up my point from earlier - given that the vast majority of NS players (including gameplayers!) are against invasion, the likelihood that a Liberation resolution would be passed over the protests of the natives is extremely small.

But Haven is a good example for precisely this reason. They are not universally popular among RPers: I don't know the details of all their beef with Gholgoth, but presumably there are also other RPers who dislike them for whatever reason (including those they don't give their password to). Much as these other regions might dislike invasion, then, there's no reason they wouldn't, out of spite, try overriding the password: and the wider NS community, 99% of whom don't RP regularly, or at least not in circles in which Havenites are active, could easily be led into voting for a cleverly-worded C&C. After all, you yourself, along with Kandarin and others, have noted that the WA voters approve most quorate proposals: Todd McCloud seems to think they vote for every single one.

I don't grant your premise that RP regions would be de facto immune from persecution.