Open Letter From the Mentor Team, Re: Security Council

[Nierr]

Well, I can think of the one that I've made more than once. Other's have since made the same suggestion, some RPers even liked it when others suggested it. However, whenever I suggest the same thing, I get shouted down which, as The Republic of Lanos pointed out in the linked thread, is probably because I'm a raider, and therefore most RPers will not listen to a single thing I say, even if it's the best suggestion ever that will make both sides happy.

I could accept that idea. Obviously drop the 'no mature issues' thing. WA thing is bleuh. I could see an added feature in there that RPers could move into other RP regions (perhaps a feature of the annexation suggestion that I believe is to implemented?).

[Holy Marsh]

Maybe if you're in said RP region you can only move to a region with which you share an embassy. Don't see the need for any other 'penalty' when all we'd be asking for is to be left alone so we can go play our game. I guess I just don't understand the raider mindset when it comes to invading regions that aren't wanting to play the R/D game. Again, it is as if there is a basketball court and there is a soccer field. We, the basketball players, have to walk on the edges of the pitch to reach the courts. Then we're playing our own game. I don't understand the joy in kicking the basketball away, stealing it, and then saying they have to play soccer using the basketball. Then when we go, "How about we play our game and you play your game?", raiders say, "we're all playing soccer because this is a soccer field!" forgetting that there is a basketball court already set up for that express purpose and that is where we tend to be. We aren't forcing y'all to play basketball, don't force us to play soccer, we can all get along and be friends. No real need for opt-outs or whole systemic redesign. Basic respect is all that'd be needed.

[Crystal Spires]

You're expecting respect from people who have disrespected people over and over.

Not just RPers even.

[Holy Marsh]

I know it is a fool's hope. I am well aware that there are raiders who like that they are incredibly vexing and get their rocks off on causing people fury and anger. But I am also a firm believer that R/D is a legitimate game and that the majority of raiders would prefer it was actually a game. Evil Wolf doesn't seem like one of the needling types and since I am full of far less vinegar since I just returned I am just generally curious as to why forcing RPers to play the R/D game is attractive to some, whether Wolf himself likes to do so or if he thinks he can speak well enough as to why others do.

[Kotar (Ancient)]

True, but who wants to be in the WA, that is a part of the game I have no interest in.

Yet I don't see people complaining about how Role Players are "forced" to be part of the WA game.

Consider this me complaining.

No, it's still part of the Security Council, which is part of the World Assembly, which, as I just said, Military Gameplay is just a sub-section of. Without the World Assembly, there would be no Military Gameplay, of that no one can argue against.

But riddle me this: Let's just say you're in a small role playing region and this one guy in your Role Play becomes Delegate. No one really likes him all that much, so one day he passwords the region and starts kicking people out, all while Role Playing an evil nation. Someone submits a Liberation Proposal citing all the Role Play reasons why the delegate nation is a dick and should be removed, and the Liberation Proposal passes.

Now, does that mean, by using a Liberation Proposal, this Role Play region committed the apparently cardinal sin that is Gameplay an act of Gameplay, or were they still role playing the entire time and just using mechanics within the game to help them role play more effectively?

I am unsure why you started your response with no, because what you said does not contradict what I said. I was under the impression, that role players were complaining that they can't opt out of Gameplay, which yes, includes the WA and SC. I was pointing out when in theory, one can opt out of both the WA and Raiding, it seriously hurts one's ability to defend if they aren't in the WA.

I think allowing non-WA regions, that are free from raiding, would be awesome. It is in the nature of raiding, to push the boundaries of which regions can and can not be raided. The harder you make it to raid, the more people are going to want to raid it.

[Rothschild]

I http://www.nationstates.net/nation=rothschild hereby sign this statement claiming, that I do not care about the raider gaming, but I do not believe they should infringe upon non-R/D regions nor their passwords and that gameplay for RP's should not be dictated to by R/D players and vice-versa.

[Rutthenia]

I sign this statement because Mall's proposal is just plain stupid. (This is the second time I've signed this, please don't ignore me D:)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I sign this statement because Mall's proposal is just plain stupid. (This is the second time I've signed this, please don't ignore me D:)

Just type "I wish to sign". The OP is using that phrase specifically to actually scan through the thread and see who wants their name added to the list.

[Yukonastan]

I wish to sign

There, am I now added?

[Northern Sunrise Islands]

I wish to sign.

I already said it once but it didn't get a slot in, so...

[Persivis]

I wish to sign.

[Rutthenia]

I sign this statement because Mall's proposal is just plain stupid. (This is the second time I've signed this, please don't ignore me D:)

Just type "I wish to sign". The OP is using that phrase specifically to actually scan through the thread and see who wants their name added to the list.

I did type that on my last one. I'm not an idiot.

[Nierr]

The OP did say they were going to be AFK for a week or so, so if you were its probably for that reason.

Just cool your jets.

[Holy Marsh]

I wish to sign.

[Rutthenia]

The OP did say they were going to be AFK for a week or so, so if you were its probably for that reason.

Just cool your jets.

I signed my first one on the 4th or 5th...

[Lubyak]

I'm sorry I've been bad about updating the OP. I'll be doing an update tomorrow morning (PST). Once again thank you all for your support.

[Of the Quendi]

I wish to sign. Never understood in the first place why raiding was even permitted.

[Nyte]

I wish to sign

[Crystal Spires]

People who claim that raiders are completely unwilling to work with Role Players either haven't been paying attention or are being intentionally dishonest.

The raiding game already places us at a disadvantage, already hampers our efforts to recruit, and disrupts our play, adding more penalties to RPers when R&Ders carry all the cards takes the position from "this is unfair" to "this is absurdly unfair". It is not as if we don't want to work with you or we don't accept you are at least offering ideas, but the fact is that you already have privileges and have a strange sense of entitlement when it comes to forcing NS R&D game over everyone else in NS. It is a demand that people protect your play while sabotaging the play of others over and over again. It gets really tiresome to have to say this, but something has to give. There has to be something raiders and defenders will let go in order to accommodate everyone else in NS who don't want to play their game. We don't want to destroy their game, but we want to be able to consent to play it. Without consent it is not playing it is bullying.

[Pragia]

Well, I can think of the one that I've made more than once. Other's have since made the same suggestion, some RPers even liked it when others suggested it. However, whenever I suggest the same thing, I get shouted down which, as The Republic of Lanos pointed out in the linked thread, is probably because I'm a raider, and therefore most RPers will not listen to a single thing I say, even if it's the best suggestion ever that will make both sides happy.

"RPers won't listen to me because I'm a raider and they hate me."

No. Incorrect. Your proposal was "Let's make rper's be unable to go to any other region and make them unable to telegram because they don't want to be punching bags for our game." I'm sorry, but as a RPer, I cannot believe how disrespectful a proposal that is. I use TGs daily to help coordinate and contact people. It's offensive to me for someone to be proposing penalties for not wanting to lose everything they've made.

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

EDIT: How about the ability for a region to be invite only? Maybe option for allowing only one new entrant/day to prevent flooding?

[Evil Wolf]

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.

[Monfrox]

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 or the WA Delegate must have no powers, 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.

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

[The Grey Wolf]

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 or the WA Delegate must have no powers, 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.

That was my thinking.

[Grenartia]

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 or the WA Delegate must have no powers, 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.

IGOs.

[Evil Wolf]

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.