Neutrality Argument

[Bears Armed]

:palm: Yes and when interregional politics and the whole gameplay side of the game dies you'll be happy then?

It wouldn't directly affect me one way or the other, but if any aspect of NS were to go then that's probably the one that most people outside of its own regular supporters would miss the least... but, no, I wasn't saying that it should "die", I was just suggesting that certain raiders or raider-sympathisers were being a tad hypocritical -- or maybe simply not thinking -- when they criticise the use of 'Liberations' as "a violation of regional sovereignty" and don't consider that raiders seizing regions falls into that catgeory too and thus (if they were to be consistent) should also be something that they criticise on this basis...

[Kalibarr]

defenders violate regional sovereignty too, in fact almost every action that can be done in the game can fit violating regional sovereignty in one way or another

[New Buckner]

And thus we have stumpled upon the basis of all Politics.

Given any sort of statement or argument, there will always be 4 sides of the argument. Those who agree, those who disagree, those who have yet to decide, and those who don't really care - open another beer, and see what's on the TV.

[South Norwega]

defenders violate regional sovereignty too, in fact almost every action that can be done in the game can fit violating regional sovereignty in one way or another

Indeed.

However, raiding, kicking out natives and passwording a region so it can be refounded is probably the worst sort of takeover. If the last two bits are removed from that sequence it's all fine in my book.

[New Buckner]

Should the game not simulate the true nature of global politics? There are rules, people don't always follow the rules. The rest of the world can sit back on their hands, or do something about it.

The raiders who password out the regions are simply using all of their assets available to them. Smart tactics. By no means am I defending them or their practices, but one must respect your enemy before you can defeat them.

[Bears Armed]

Should the game not simulate the true nature of global politics?

If it did do so then all of this "warfare" would have serious consequences for the economies of the nations involved...

[A mean old man]

Should the game not simulate the true nature of global politics?

If it did do so then all of this "warfare" would have serious consequences for the economies of the nations involved...

Well, it can certainly have detrimental effects on the regions involved.

[Cinistra]

Regional sovereignty is no right. It's an effect caused by vigilant residents. Careless regions will be conquered. The weak die, the strong prevail. It's the law of nature.

[Kalibarr]

It is impossible to call everyone who cannot stay up until the update "weak", "politically unstable" is better as clearly if they fell to an outside force their ability to make allies must be sub par. There is no gage of strength in Nationstates, there is only numbers, strategy and political skill.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

defenders violate regional sovereignty too, in fact almost every action that can be done in the game can fit violating regional sovereignty in one way or another

Poppycock...

Defines...
(1) "Native" as a nation which takes up residence in a region without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force;
(2) "Regional Sovereignty" as the collective right of natives to the administration of their region;
(3) "Regional Destruction" as the ejection of all of the natives of a region by a delegate whose actions are not supported by said natives;

[Kalibarr]

defenders violate regional sovereignty too, in fact almost every action that can be done in the game can fit violating regional sovereignty in one way or another

Poppycock...

Defines...
(1) "Native" as a nation which takes up residence in a region without the intention of furthering the goals and aims of a foreign force;
(2) "Regional Sovereignty" as the collective right of natives to the administration of their region;
(3) "Regional Destruction" as the ejection of all of the natives of a region by a delegate whose actions are not supported by said natives;

Defenders do that when ever they put one of their own up instead of a native.

On a side note: so if a region has no natives it cannot be destroyed?

[Mousebumples]

On a side note: so if a region has no natives it cannot be destroyed?

Not jumping into this discussion, as I prefer to stay out of this whole thing on NS in general, but this quote confused me. I may just not be following the discussion well, but I don't completely understand the question.

Define: destroy a region, if you would. Are you indicating that invaders cannot "destroy" a region that it invades if there are no (active) natives? Or ... something else?

I'm probably just revealing my naivete with regards to invading/defending/liberating with the question, but I'm not totally clear on what you were trying to ask.

[Topid]

On a side note: so if a region has no natives it cannot be destroyed?

Not jumping into this discussion, as I prefer to stay out of this whole thing on NS in general, but this quote confused me. I may just not be following the discussion well, but I don't completely understand the question.

Define: destroy a region, if you would.

(3) "Regional Destruction" as the ejection of all of the natives of a region by a delegate whose actions are not supported by said natives;

That was his point.

Anyway, I think defenders could only violate regional sovereignty when a region is liberated [not talking about the SC kind] whose natives do not WANT to be liberated. I've never seen that occur, but I'm not going to say it couldn't happen through miscommunication and such.

[A mean old man]

On a side note: so if a region has no natives it cannot be destroyed?

If a region has no natives it probably shouldn't be liberated.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

On a side note: so if a region has no natives it cannot be destroyed?

If a region has no natives it probably shouldn't be liberated.

And to add to that, if there is no native community, there is no dedicated community of the region to destroy or even disturb for that matter.

[Kalibarr]

ahh, I see, you probably should have specified it as destruction of the regional community, which is more accurate. Regions, as in the region it's self cannot be destroyed. Well it could but someone could always re-found it.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

ahh, I see, you probably should have specified it as destruction of the regional community, which is more accurate. Regions, as in the region it's self cannot be destroyed. Well it could but someone could always re-found it.

If we're talking technically here, a new region is actually created if you re-found, it just happens to have the same name. Take condemnations for example, one way to not comply to WA legislation would be to re-found, you'd lose the badge in the process, because you'd be a new region.

[Kalibarr]

ahh, I see, you probably should have specified it as destruction of the regional community, which is more accurate. Regions, as in the region it's self cannot be destroyed. Well it could but someone could always re-found it.

If we're talking technically here, a new region is actually created if you re-found, it just happens to have the same name. Take condemnations for example, one way to not comply to WA legislation would be to re-found, you'd lose the badge in the process, because you'd be a new region.

True, but it is still in the old regions name. Have you ever re-founded before the major update? it still shows the old WA report from the previous region under the same name. So by your definition all those regions that have been re-founded didn't get stolen, after all the region doesn't exist anymore.

[Mousebumples]

True, but it is still in the old regions name. Have you ever re-founded before the major update? it still shows the old WA report from the previous region under the same name. So by your definition all those regions that have been re-founded didn't get stolen, after all the region doesn't exist anymore.

From personal experience, refounding is rewarding (to the extent that it gives a previously founder-less region a founder again) but it's difficult. And it's difficult to define the circumstances.

If the natives of a founderless region manager to regain temporary control of the delegacy (whether through the help of defender forces, etc.) and elects to attempt a refounding to have the protection of a founder, I'd say that the original region still exists. It's just version 2.0 (or ... whatever). Of course, refounding is always a tricky thing since ejected raiders may try to refound before the natives can do so.

Of course, unless invaders can convince all the natives to leave of their own volition, I'm not sure how possible it is for invaders to "refound" as they would, more than likely, lack the regional influence needed to mass eject all the natives needed to refound. (I may be mis-informed in this regard - but that's my presumption.) Of course, before the addition of influence to the game, that was likely a more common practice. However, as I do not have any personal experience in acting as an invader, I can't speak for that for certain. Certainly, if I'm mis-informed, please correct me, but I would think that it would be more difficult for invaders to refound a region now, unless they are able to persuade/bully all of the natives into abandoning what was once their home.

[Kalibarr]

It is difficult for anyone to re-found a region, it would only take one unhappy resident who you are forced to banject to ruin it for natives. Raiders pretty much can't anymore because of liberations. My example was little regions no one cares about where I simply wanted to change which nation was the founder.

[A mean old man]

Slightly off-topic, but remember when we pulled "The Antarctic" back together? That was fun. This whole thing about small regional changes is reminding me of that.

How's Bane doing now, anyway?

[Kalibarr]

Mostly Dead, me and kanwys are working on something with the NBE and Anzia. A federation of sorts.

Any way back on topic.

[A mean old man]

As I've said before, re-founding by natives shouldn't be too difficult if the natives are active.

Re-founding by raiders is virtually impossible these days, however, what with regional influence and liberations.

[Unibot]

ahh, I see, you probably should have specified it as destruction of the regional community, which is more accurate. Regions, as in the region it's self cannot be destroyed. Well it could but someone could always re-found it.

If we're talking technically here, a new region is actually created if you re-found, it just happens to have the same name. Take condemnations for example, one way to not comply to WA legislation would be to re-found, you'd lose the badge in the process, because you'd be a new region.

True, but it is still in the old regions name. Have you ever re-founded before the major update? it still shows the old WA report from the previous region under the same name. So by your definition all those regions that have been re-founded didn't get stolen, after all the region doesn't exist anymore.

An outdated census report isn't worth dink in resolution writing.

[Kalibarr]

ahh, I see, you probably should have specified it as destruction of the regional community, which is more accurate. Regions, as in the region it's self cannot be destroyed. Well it could but someone could always re-found it.

If we're talking technically here, a new region is actually created if you re-found, it just happens to have the same name. Take condemnations for example, one way to not comply to WA legislation would be to re-found, you'd lose the badge in the process, because you'd be a new region.

True, but it is still in the old regions name. Have you ever re-founded before the major update? it still shows the old WA report from the previous region under the same name. So by your definition all those regions that have been re-founded didn't get stolen, after all the region doesn't exist anymore.

An outdated census report isn't worth dink in resolution writing.

Yes, too bad as it would likely support your position