Open Letter From the Mentor Team, Re: Security Council

[The Floor Kippers]

But why must the WA Delegate not have powers in order to opt-out?

Because if a Delegate has ban powers and the ability to change the WFE, the region can be raided. The only way to make 100% sure that a region can't be raided is to take those powers away.

....Yeah. I'm not getting the connection here. The ability to kick people out of, and write something about, the region in question.....means that it can be raided?

[Monfrox]

But why must the WA Delegate not have powers in order to opt-out?

Because if a Delegate has ban powers and the ability to change the WFE, the region can be raided. The only way to make 100% sure that a region can't be raided is to take those powers away.

So let me get this straight. You think that because the WA Delegate has no power, that makes the region impregnable? What about the regions that are founder-less? What happens if their founder isn't around to go and issue the banhammer? What if the founder gets ousted from the region before that can happen? You them want to take away powers from the Delegate to work in tandem with the founder to protect the region, which would make them weaker in a sense, but you think that if that happens, they're totally immune to being raided?

[Feazanthia]

In fairness, the Regional Officer system being currently worked on would fill that gap nicely.

[Evil Wolf]

So let me get this straight. You think that because the WA Delegate has no power, that makes the region impregnable? What about the regions that are founder-less? What happens if their founder isn't around to go and issue the banhammer? What if the founder gets ousted from the region before that can happen? You them want to take away powers from the Delegate to work in tandem with the founder to protect the region, which would make them weaker in a sense, but you think that if that happens, they're totally immune to being raided?

If a type of region is created so that the WA Delegate can never ever have any power, that would mean that region, by game mechanics as we know them, can not be raided. Even if raiders took over the delegacy, there would be absolutely nothing they could do, just as it is now with non-executive delegates in founder regions.

I'm speaking of a hypothetical type of region we don't currently have, Monfrox, one where the WA Delegate will never have any power, even if there is no founder around. I am not proposing that type of region, I am simply using it as a thought experiment to point out how one would make a region 100% raid proof under current game conditions and how there would obviously be drawbacks to disabling the WA Delegate/Raiding.

....Yeah. I'm not getting the connection here. The ability to kick people out of, and write something about, the region in question.....means that it can be raided?

This is raiding in a nutshell

Raiders take over a region via the WA Delegate Seat, giving them the ability to:
-Ban and Eject any nation so long as the have the Influence.
-Change the World Factbook Entry
-Suppress posts
-Close and Establish embassies
-Abolish and Establish a Regional Flag
-Vote on WA Proposals (which we couldn't care less about most of the time)

Without those powers, there is no raid because there would be no point, no objective, nothing you can do once to get the Delegate seat.

[Monfrox]

Oh, I get it now.

[New Tsavon]

This is raiding in a nutshell

Raiders take over a region via the WA Delegate Seat, giving them the ability to:
-Ban and Eject any nation so long as the have the Influence.
-Change the World Factbook Entry
-Suppress posts
-Close and Establish embassies
-Abolish and Establish a Regional Flag
-Vote on WA Proposals (which we couldn't care less about most of the time)

I'm pretty sure that's griefing.

[Evil Wolf]

I'm pretty sure that's griefing.

I assure you, it's not.

[-The West Coast-]

I'm pretty sure that's griefing.

I assure you, it's not.

Of course you would say that.

[Horizont]

I'm pretty sure that's griefing.

I assure you, it's not.

It is by definition griefing, because its is taking pleasure in destroying the work of others.

[Evil Wolf]

I assure you, it's not.

It is by definition griefing, because its is taking pleasure in destroying the work of others.

Nationstates Frequently Asked Questions: "Griefing is playing with the primary aim of annoying or upsetting other people. If you do this, the game moderators may take action against you."

What I just described was a raid. If you think every raid is griefing, you should report them all and see how that works out.

Of course you would say that.

Yeah, I've been a raider since 2005, so yes, I would say that, because I know what's raiding, and what's griefing. Hell, I even know what's raiding and what's Region Griefing under the old Pre-Influence Invasion Laws.

So, sorry for being a raider, I guess? Does make me less correct, however.

[Bezombia]

Your entire argument basically boils down to "It's not literally against the rules".

[Whamabama]

It is by definition griefing, because its is taking pleasure in destroying the work of others.

You can call it griefing, but the game calls it. "Part of the game" and not griefing.

[Evil Wolf]

Your entire argument basically boils down to "It's not literally against the rules".

As opposed to what? Non-literally against the rules?

[Esternial]

It is by definition griefing, because its is taking pleasure in destroying the work of others.

You can call it griefing, but the game calls it. "Part of the game" and not griefing.

What about you? Would you call it "legalised" griefing?

[SquareDisc City]

I'm pretty sure that's griefing.

I assure you, it's not.

In pretty much any other game or community it would be regarded as such. The difference is the NS staff years ago gave up trying to stop it and instead legitimised it.

[Esternial]

This is raiding in a nutshell

Raiders take over a region via the WA Delegate Seat, giving them the ability to:
-Ban and Eject any nation so long as the have the Influence.
-Change the World Factbook Entry
-Suppress posts
-Close and Establish embassies
-Abolish and Establish a Regional Flag
-Vote on WA Proposals (which we couldn't care less about most of the time)

Without those powers, there is no raid because there would be no point, no objective, nothing you can do once to get the Delegate seat.

What is highlighted in orange has the potential to hinder normal region activity, preventing the region from partaking in its nonRD-related activities. Embassies are included, now that they also include the possibility for members to post in regions where their own has an embassy in and thus removing embassies would upset potential inter-regional organisation.

What is highlighted in red has the same possible effects of orange, with the added possibility of permanent loss of information, in the event a backup has not been made.

In essence, more than half of what raiders can do to a raided region will upset this region and prevent it from functioning normally. Griefing or not, it's important that we find a way to reduce the inconvenience here, wouldn't you agree?

Unless upsetting region function and annoying the natives is the main goal, of course, in which case reducing the inconvenience for innocent raiders is something that would be opposed.

[Whamabama]

You can call it griefing, but the game calls it. "Part of the game" and not griefing.

What about you? Would you call it "legalised" griefing?

No, while I would consider a raid that has the intention of emptying the region and claiming it as a trophy "legalized griefing" a simple tag raid, or a raid that holds the region for a short time, I would simply call an inconvenience. No damage is really done, and the only thing needed is to set the original WFE, the flag, and the embassies.

[Pragia]

I'm failing to see what the problem is with having an Opt-out setting with 0 repercussion/penalties.

Because you can't "opt-out" of the World Assembly Delegate, it's an integral part of the game. In order for a region to be 100% raid proof, there either must be no WA delegate, as in ever, or the WA Delegate must have zero power, like non-executive delegates. Saying "We want to opt-out!" is all well and dandy, but I must ask how you intend to do that without completely rewriting the role of the WA Delegate.

By design, what you're asking for is going to have some sort of restrictions attached to it. You can't have a raider proof region and all the game features you currently have access to, not without Mod enforced rules similar to the Pre-Influence Invasion Rules and the Mods and Admins have already stated anything resembling Mod enforce invasion rules are completely off the table.

How so by design? You can have it require approvals for admission, or invite-only, or limited/day admission, among all the other proposals. You don't have to restrict people for being raider proof.

[Evil Wolf]

How so by design? You can have it require approvals for admission, or invite-only, or limited/day admission, among all the other proposals. You don't have to restrict people for being raider proof.

That still won't prevent raids on RP regions, it will only make it harder. Even so, it will only take one raid and the Role Players will be running back to the forums, demanding that the Mods and Admins take action against us ebil raiders. So again, those suggestions are not raid proof.

[Esternial]

Because you can't "opt-out" of the World Assembly Delegate, it's an integral part of the game. In order for a region to be 100% raid proof, there either must be no WA delegate, as in ever, or the WA Delegate must have zero power, like non-executive delegates. Saying "We want to opt-out!" is all well and dandy, but I must ask how you intend to do that without completely rewriting the role of the WA Delegate.

By design, what you're asking for is going to have some sort of restrictions attached to it. You can't have a raider proof region and all the game features you currently have access to, not without Mod enforced rules similar to the Pre-Influence Invasion Rules and the Mods and Admins have already stated anything resembling Mod enforce invasion rules are completely off the table.

How so by design? You can have it require approvals for admission, or invite-only, or limited/day admission, among all the other proposals. You don't have to restrict people for being raider proof.

Well, the WA is the reason regions are vulnerable. Either we need to disable WA completely or have a optional entity without WA capabilities that can be created and joined separately of regions. So you'd still be in a region with WA capabilities, but aside from that you'd have another entity where you can organise your important jazz.

At least that's what I've envisioned with IGOs. Forgive me for advertising my own suggestion.

[Rich and Corporations]

To reiterate, however, regions with RP status should have the same restrictions as School Regions and be set up in the exact same way. That way RP can be in its own little world and never have to worry about raiding, just the the School Regions.

Interesting idea.

Maybe RPers could pay to convert their regions into school regions.

[The Republic of Lanos]

To reiterate, however, regions with RP status should have the same restrictions as School Regions and be set up in the exact same way. That way RP can be in its own little world and never have to worry about raiding, just the the School Regions.

Interesting idea.

Maybe RPers could pay to convert their regions into school regions.

I spent $10 bucks on Postmaster General/Site Supporter. No way I'm forking money over so my region could be unable to get anyone to leave, enter, or even TG from the outside.

[Lancov]

I wish to sign.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Why am I still not on the signature list? I signed forever ago.

[Thoricia]

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=304411

Oh look another RP region raided and trashed