Is Defending in the Native's True Interest?

[Weed]

Recent events have left me questioning the logic and reasons behind identifying oneself as a "defender." I'd like to have a discussion about the issue.

I have never considered myself a "moral defender". First of all, that type of attitude usually is associated with some type of attitude problem or superiority complex. But secondly various aspects¹ of my time as a defender show that I was acting because it was fun to be a defender more than because I wanted to help natives (the latter being a big bonus, though). So please don't automatically dismiss what I say as an extreme form of moralism. Having said all that, I think, at a certain level, all defenders are moral. What differentiates our armies, organizations, and regions from the imperialists/raiders is that we will only act when we think we are assisting the natives of a community. It is who we are, so essentially we all value the interests of the native (that is what separates my type of defender from Car Burglars), even if that isn't our primary motive. Thinking of the victims of raids is certainly what pulled the raider that submitted Condemn Grub into the FRA sphere and formed Daynor into Topid.

As a defender, when I think about all the wonderful ideas² that have been pitched to protect natives in the recent months, it frustrates me that we cannot implement them. The reasons natives can't have these amazing tools to protect the communities they have worked so hard to create and poured their souls into is that it would upset the balance between raiders in defenders too much, or make long-term occupation battles impossible.

So, I'm left wondering if my career defending helped anyone. It seems to me this confirms a theory that I've heard off and on for a long time, that neither defenders nor raiders are good for natives. The very existence of the defender not only means that game admins don't need to protect natives, but it would be biased for them to do so. Would the natives be better off if no one ever defended or liberated a region? Would these tools for natives to protect their region be possible if there was no armies expected to come save them? It seems like it to me.

I'm basically left, and I can't believe I've ended up here, agreeing with several old feederites and raiders. Raiding and defending are morally equal. Raiders are only allowed to push in other kids sandcastles because the lifeguard was supposed to be watching. When it happens, the admins, raiders, and gameplayers see it as a failure of the UDL and TITO because they cannot liberate a region instead of a problem they need to address. How can I identify as a defender if what I'm doing, the way I found it fun to play the game, is actually allowing for the community destruction and other seriously hurtful things that happen in this game? If the existence of defenders is detrimental to natives, and makes it so that the game is designed to balance the interests of raiders v. defenders instead of raiders/defenders v. natives then are we tricking ourselves into saying we care for the natives?

Feel free to discuss. I'm especially interested to here a defender rebuttal of the view. It isn't something I really want to think, but I certainly see it playing out this way in the summit, so I suppose I'm still looking for a back-door way to identify as defender.

- Topid (for those of you that don't recognize the nation)

I include these here because I felt I needed to explain what I was saying without disrupting the flow of my question.
¹I generally enjoyed my time on the battlefield as an updater. At the point in time that updating became boring because tag raids aren't fun to fight, I quit doing it. Before that, at the point it got so angry and tense that the mood killed the fun, I quit then too.The only thing I do wish I could change about my NS career is go back and time and tell myself in 2009 and 2010 to keep updating and not take breaks, because eventually updating would take a whole new form.

²This isn't a thread to discuss these ideas, but some of them I'm talking about are the recently suggested WASC category to turn a delegate (even in a founderless region) non-executive which could be used to end community destruction completely. There was also the custodian idea, to allow a more permanent position like a founder that also had to spend influence to be appointed by a delegate, or the idea to appoint a new founder. These ideas are very good ideas if you care about the rights of a native more than the fun of updating. And the first idea, is something I wish we had even when I updated. Community destruction just isn't okay, in my book, even if that means fewer raids.

[Cromarty]

I have never considered myself a "moral defender"

Stop stealing my catchphrase.

[Weed]

I have never considered myself a "moral defender"

Stop stealing my catchphrase.

*chuckles*

I was thinking when I wrote that, this is one of the few times this isn't going to be followed by a self-justification. XD

[Unibot III]

I've got several essays actually to respond to these sentiments in the work. But I'll just note that the ability to do these sorts of raids, does not exist to merely entertain defenders, but to provide a full spectrum of opportunities so that players can decide what is moral and what isn't moral. [violet] in a discussion likened this to politics in NS. We're all open to create autocracies, but even [violet] said she wasn't really fan of them; its part of the game that we have free will to be democratic or autocratic. This isn't to say that defenders shouldn't exist because "we get in the way" of a span of opportunities, we're an extension of the moral-political debate over what is ethical, interregional behavior -- otherwise that'd be like saying cops shouldn't exist, because god intended us to be able to steal.

So if we were thinking of it in terms of a OOC interest, it would in fact be in the natives' true interests for neither raiders nor defenders to exist. But likewise, it'd be in their interest to not allow coups and have a regimented and more formalized democratic system for choosing a Delegate. A perfect Admin-defined Utopia. But that would be a game without free will, moral autonomy and a lot of division or conflict over how to run a region or act as a region .. so for better or worse, [violet] has provided natives with a sub-optimal interest and put the responsibility of protecting native communities onto our shoulders if we feel so strongly about those Native Rights. That's a burden that I'm willing to carry and I think a lot of other defenders are too.

“I do take your point that defenders would benefit from a source of moral authority but I take issue with the idea that the only moral authority that counts is the one that comes from me”
- [violet]

I hope perhaps I've provided some solace to you.

[Sichuan Pepper]

You are talking to the wrong people. Anyone that takes part in R/D will have a skewed view. It should have been a native summit with R/D either surviving the fallout or adapting.

[Project Independence]

.. so for better or worse, [violet] has provided natives with a sub-optimal interest and put the responsibility of protecting native communities onto our shoulders if we feel so strongly about those Native Rights. That's a burden that I'm willing to carry and I think a lot of other defenders are too.

Then why do so many defenders, yourself included, spend so much time in technical?

[Cerian Quilor]

Because they can't solve their problems any other way, because the defenders can't work together well enough.

But when they do, they can achieve quite a lot. I would also point out that in Dharma and at least once in South Pacific, the defenders, had they timed properly, could have liberated, with room to spare. Their claims about the barrier piling puts on them is inherently bogus - they have the numbers (especially if TITO would...you know, liberate) and even w/o TITO, they have good numbers.

I would say, in the strictest sense of the world, defending is in the native's interest. However, the native's interest is not my concern - because I care about the interests of my region(s).

And your claims about moral objectivity fall flat on their face - it is a game, and applying things like that is absurd.

Now, as you've gone before, I assume you're going to point out that condemning actions, and moral objectivity etc, inside a game, can still happen. And that's true. That would be (for example) exactly what you did in condemn Automagfreek. You even made it very clear that you thought the player was a pretty great guy and that it was as much a badge of recognition as anything else. That in-game objectivity is no issue.

The issue is, in Gameplay, a division has formed make it all out of character. If you were Grand Marshall (or whatever title here) <Insert name> of the UDL, as a character, issuing your condemnations of Raiders as terrible, terrible, terrible, no good, dirty rotten evil people, etc, etc, etc, etc then not only would I have no issues with it, I'd applaud your action as helping to correct a huge underlying problem in R/D gameplay - how personal it gets.

as I've said before, I have no idea about you as a person, but what I usually see here of you is a shrill, nearly hysterical man who needs to take a few valium (to say the least) On the net, I'm even more of a douche than I am IRL (because no one can beat me up online), and so who you are on the net is probably not a reflection of who you are IRL, especially when you add the lens of a game.

[Anime Daisuki]

Recent events have left me questioning the logic and reasons behind identifying oneself as a "defender." I'd like to have a discussion about the issue.

I have never considered myself a "moral defender". First of all, that type of attitude usually is associated with some type of attitude problem or superiority complex. But secondly various aspects¹ of my time as a defender show that I was acting because it was fun to be a defender more than because I wanted to help natives (the latter being a big bonus, though). So please don't automatically dismiss what I say as an extreme form of moralism. Having said all that, I think, at a certain level, all defenders are moral. What differentiates our armies, organizations, and regions from the imperialists/raiders is that we will only act when we think we are assisting the natives of a community. It is who we are, so essentially we all value the interests of the native (that is what separates my type of defender from Car Burglars), even if that isn't our primary motive. Thinking of the victims of raids is certainly what pulled the raider that submitted Condemn Grub into the FRA sphere and formed Daynor into Topid.

As a defender, when I think about all the wonderful ideas² that have been pitched to protect natives in the recent months, it frustrates me that we cannot implement them. The reasons natives can't have these amazing tools to protect the communities they have worked so hard to create and poured their souls into is that it would upset the balance between raiders in defenders too much, or make long-term occupation battles impossible.

So, I'm left wondering if my career defending helped anyone. It seems to me this confirms a theory that I've heard off and on for a long time, that neither defenders nor raiders are good for natives. The very existence of the defender not only means that game admins don't need to protect natives, but it would be biased for them to do so. Would the natives be better off if no one ever defended or liberated a region? Would these tools for natives to protect their region be possible if there was no armies expected to come save them? It seems like it to me.

I'm basically left, and I can't believe I've ended up here, agreeing with several old feederites and raiders. Raiding and defending are morally equal. Raiders are only allowed to push in other kids sandcastles because the lifeguard was supposed to be watching. When it happens, the admins, raiders, and gameplayers see it as a failure of the UDL and TITO because they cannot liberate a region instead of a problem they need to address. How can I identify as a defender if what I'm doing, the way I found it fun to play the game, is actually allowing for the community destruction and other seriously hurtful things that happen in this game? If the existence of defenders is detrimental to natives, and makes it so that the game is designed to balance the interests of raiders v. defenders instead of raiders/defenders v. natives then are we tricking ourselves into saying we care for the natives?

Feel free to discuss. I'm especially interested to here a defender rebuttal of the view. It isn't something I really want to think, but I certainly see it playing out this way in the summit, so I suppose I'm still looking for a back-door way to identify as defender.

- Topid

(for those of you that don't recognize the nation)

I really don't have a lot of free time these days so I've only briefly scanned through your long post. The point I want to make is this. Think of the alternative scenario when there are only raiders and no defenders. Are the natives better off with no one to help them at all? Do you think MaxB is going to care enough to change game mechanics?

If you think day-to-day defending doesn't serve much purpose, then you may consider helping natives to refound regions -- doing so democratically with the consent of all legitimate WA nations with seniority, and letting them know well in advance the risks and consequences of failure. It takes a lot more effort and patience, but the effect is more lasting.

[Galiantus II]

Recent events have left me questioning the logic and reasons behind identifying oneself as a "defender." I'd like to have a discussion about the issue.

I have never considered myself a "moral defender". First of all, that type of attitude usually is associated with some type of attitude problem or superiority complex. But secondly various aspects¹ of my time as a defender show that I was acting because it was fun to be a defender more than because I wanted to help natives (the latter being a big bonus, though). So please don't automatically dismiss what I say as an extreme form of moralism. Having said all that, I think, at a certain level, all defenders are moral. What differentiates our armies, organizations, and regions from the imperialists/raiders is that we will only act when we think we are assisting the natives of a community. It is who we are, so essentially we all value the interests of the native (that is what separates my type of defender from Car Burglars), even if that isn't our primary motive. Thinking of the victims of raids is certainly what pulled the raider that submitted Condemn Grub into the FRA sphere and formed Daynor into Topid.

As a defender, when I think about all the wonderful ideas² that have been pitched to protect natives in the recent months, it frustrates me that we cannot implement them. The reasons natives can't have these amazing tools to protect the communities they have worked so hard to create and poured their souls into is that it would upset the balance between raiders in defenders too much, or make long-term occupation battles impossible.

So, I'm left wondering if my career defending helped anyone. It seems to me this confirms a theory that I've heard off and on for a long time, that neither defenders nor raiders are good for natives. The very existence of the defender not only means that game admins don't need to protect natives, but it would be biased for them to do so. Would the natives be better off if no one ever defended or liberated a region? Would these tools for natives to protect their region be possible if there was no armies expected to come save them? It seems like it to me.

I'm basically left, and I can't believe I've ended up here, agreeing with several old feederites and raiders. Raiding and defending are morally equal. Raiders are only allowed to push in other kids sandcastles because the lifeguard was supposed to be watching. When it happens, the admins, raiders, and gameplayers see it as a failure of the UDL and TITO because they cannot liberate a region instead of a problem they need to address. How can I identify as a defender if what I'm doing, the way I found it fun to play the game, is actually allowing for the community destruction and other seriously hurtful things that happen in this game? If the existence of defenders is detrimental to natives, and makes it so that the game is designed to balance the interests of raiders v. defenders instead of raiders/defenders v. natives then are we tricking ourselves into saying we care for the natives?

Feel free to discuss. I'm especially interested to here a defender rebuttal of the view. It isn't something I really want to think, but I certainly see it playing out this way in the summit, so I suppose I'm still looking for a back-door way to identify as defender.

- Topid

(for those of you that don't recognize the nation)

I really don't have a lot of free time these days so I've only briefly scanned through your long post. The point I want to make is this. Think of the alternative scenario when there are only raiders and no defenders. Are the natives better off with no one to help them at all? Do you think MaxB is going to care enough to change game mechanics?

If you think day-to-day defending doesn't serve much purpose, then you may consider helping natives to refound regions -- doing so democratically with the consent of all legitimate WA nations with seniority, and letting them know well in advance the risks and consequences of failure. It takes a lot more effort and patience, but the effect is more lasting.

Agreed. Regions thrive, and are at their best, when they are foundered. It is in this state that invaders cannot cause any harm to the region. The best thing anyone can do for natives of a founderless region is to help them refound.

[Cerian Quilor]

I really don't have a lot of free time these days so I've only briefly scanned through your long post. The point I want to make is this. Think of the alternative scenario when there are only raiders and no defenders. Are the natives better off with no one to help them at all? Do you think MaxB is going to care enough to change game mechanics?

If you think day-to-day defending doesn't serve much purpose, then you may consider helping natives to refound regions -- doing so democratically with the consent of all legitimate WA nations with seniority, and letting them know well in advance the risks and consequences of failure. It takes a lot more effort and patience, but the effect is more lasting.

Agreed. Regions thrive, and are at their best, when they are foundered. It is in this state that invaders cannot cause any harm to the region. The best thing anyone can do for natives of a founderless region is to help them refound.

Also agreed.

[Ballotonia]

The very existence of the defender not only means that game admins don't need to protect natives, but it would be biased for them to do so.

Sorry, no. When we talk about balancing invader, defender, and native interests, we're not referring to balancing the specific parties we have right now this very minute. Playing really bad for a while (being uncooperative, bad timing, bad planning, no recruiting, etc...) doesn't get your side rewarded with extra goodies from Admin. Similarly, deciding to sit out for a while doesn't change anything either from Admin perspective.

What requires balancing is the conceptual possibilities for all sides, in term of game mechanics. That's abstract, requiring one to look at the game in a more overall perspective than just the current status of the pieces on the Gameplay board.

Ballotonia

[The Bruce]

As with all things, it comes down to intent.

When there were no defenders (or they were ineffective) it was pretty much free range invasions. Since only a tiny minority of players were even aware that it was happening, invaders were able to use people’s regions as their private punching bags (without any interference by moderators), because they had the numbers (usually by cheating). Unless you had a lot of friends, who had friends in the UN that could rescue your region, you were just screwed. The amount of UN multying was to the point where one player might have fifty nations in the UN. That was all the good that came from a deregulated NationStates without effective defenders.

When effective defender organizations emerged, they had three effects. They did protect numerous regions, but since most victim regions didn’t refound their regions, in many cases they just perpetuated future invasions. It gave them the ability to keep their region, but many regions either didn’t feel the need to have to change things because otherwise invaders would (not a fan of negative billing) or were too inactive to get their act together. They have helped out in the refounding whenever possible, but there have been cases where they were either conned by invader sleepers into handing the new founder over to them or invaders scooped the refounding. The first effect is not something you can blame on defenders, but it has been an effect of their engagement with "gameplay" activities.

The second effect was to spur invader activity based on making “gameplay” a contest between invaders and defenders. It’s sort of like going into a random suburban neighbourhood and having two opposing sides playing smash up derby. Some defenders were very good about not spamming up the boards of victim regions and did their best to restore the affected communities, others less so. Invaders generally made it their mission to mess with the place and bait defenders on victim region boards, to get them to join them in hijacking the region boards from the natives. The anti-griefing rules quelled invader activity only because it favoured the rights of natives, over both invaders and defenders. It quieted down “gameplay” activity, until the resurgence of invader activity with the introduction of the current regional influence rules.

The third affect is the politicization of defending. Regions and alliances seek growth to stave off the inevitable shrinking of numbers that comes with decline in NationStates. The temptation is there to recruit in regions you just defended, because of the belief that they owe you one. It’s the equivalent of beating up a mugger and asking the victim for some cash. In the case of multi-regional alliances you’ll use diplomacy to establish yourself in new regions, linking regional diplomacy with defending. If your defender group has a strong regional basis that doesn’t require getting their mitts on the players of other people’s regions, then you don’t have to succumb to the grabby aspects of the politicization of defending. You’ll still have the Security Council and Gameplay forums to drag you into the politicization of defending, thanks to either baiting from invaders or other defender groups though. The biggest danger of the politicization of defending is that it can result in an influence invasion of the same regions your groups have sworn to defend from invaders. There’s no winning for natives, when this occurs. Of course when it comes to influence invasions in the feeders and sinkers, the invaders have been at it a lot longer than defenders have.

[Of crazed]

Yes you helped natives. At least when you defended against me.

[Weed]

Yes you helped natives. At least when you defended against me.

You were a delegate when I was a defender!

Thanks for commenting Ballo, though your comment seemed to back what I was saying up completely with me? Not sure why it started with "no."

The question I'm asking Bruce, though, is if no one had ever organized defender orgs, or if those that participate in them now just walked away, what would the game look like? Whether raider unity ended or not, if it came down to raiders hitting region after region with no hope on their part to protect themselves or survive if the raiders wish to crush their region, would the admin still refuse to implement the fixes that allow regions to protect themselves? I suppose we can't know, but it seems to me that's unlikely. If defenders weren't there to balance the threat to raiders, I think there would be more game-features to balance the threat of raids (rather than relying on defenders, taking it out of the hands of natives and putting into the hands of other fallible players). That seems to be what Ballo said too. Looking at the equation as R v D & Native (or R v. D. v. Native) it may seem balanced as to "conceptual possibilities" because if a region is raided, sure, natives are up shit-creek without a paddle but the defenders can maybe help them! But if it was just R v. Native it isn't. If you take the assumption that defenders can and will come and save the region out of the equation it is remarkably unbalanced. So, do the defenders do more good for natives than technical game features would? We can't know for sure, of course, but that's the question.

[Kyrkberg]

If defenders walk away now, then no, no fixes are going to be introduced. Were defenders to have never formed, perhaps you'd have a point (I doubt it, as Raiders would have started to fight raiders), but since the idea of them exists, were defenders to leave combat, the admins would wait for Defenders to come back

-Cerian, forgot to change out of a recruiting nation

[Cromarty]

If defenders walk away now, then no, no fixes are going to be introduced. Were defenders to have never formed, perhaps you'd have a point (I doubt it, as Raiders would have started to fight raiders), but since the idea of them exists, were defenders to leave combat, the admins would wait for Defenders to come back

-Cerian, forgot to change out of a recruiting nation

Raiders did used to fight raiders. That doesn't happen anymore.

[Solorni]

If defenders walk away now, then no, no fixes are going to be introduced. Were defenders to have never formed, perhaps you'd have a point (I doubt it, as Raiders would have started to fight raiders), but since the idea of them exists, were defenders to leave combat, the admins would wait for Defenders to come back

-Cerian, forgot to change out of a recruiting nation

Raiders did used to fight raiders. That doesn't happen anymore.

Groups like the UDL provide great incentive to many raiders.

[Communist Eraser]

I came to this conclusion a while back. The game seeks to provide the most fun to the most people.

Fun created by raiders (and people attracted to NS for raiding) + fun created by defenders (and people attracted to NS for defending) > the slight loss of fun for natives (and those who leave due to being victims). = net gain for the game.

If all defenders suddenly stopped tomorrow:

Fun created by raiders (and people attracted to NS for raiding) would be < (less!) the loss of fun for natives (and those who leave due to being victims). = there net loss for the game.

The argument that defenders 'ought' to be defending is irrelevant, the end result is still a net loss and so admin will be 'blackmailed' into fixing it so it becomes a net positive, unless they are willing to accept a NS with fewer players.

The aim is to find the point where R+D vs N has a better "net gain" than R vs N.

[Cromarty]

Raiders did used to fight raiders. That doesn't happen anymore.

Groups like the UDL provide great incentive to many raiders.

Oh please. This has happened for years longer than the UDL even existed.

[Cerian Quilor]

Groups like the UDL provide great incentive to many raiders.

Oh please. This has happened for years longer than the UDL even existed.

Keyword 'Like', Cromarty.

[Ballotonia]

Thanks for commenting Ballo, though your comment seemed to back what I was saying up completely with me? Not sure why it started with "no."

That's because I'm actually disagreeing with you. Perhaps not sufficiently clear.

If defenders weren't there to balance the threat to raiders, I think there would be more game-features to balance the threat of raids (rather than relying on defenders, taking it out of the hands of natives and putting into the hands of other fallible players). That seems to be what Ballo said too.

Quite the opposite, actually.

Looking at the equation as R v D & Native (or R v. D. v. Native) it may seem balanced as to "conceptual possibilities" because if a region is raided, sure, natives are up shit-creek without a paddle but the defenders can maybe help them! But if it was just R v. Native it isn't. If you take the assumption that defenders can and will come and save the region out of the equation it is remarkably unbalanced.

No, conceptually the game would still be balanced as it is now. Perhaps through other features because there would not have been defenders putting forth great suggestions to improve the game, but the game would still be balanced based on what can be done by players, not on what is actually done by players. Example: just because invaders are working together a lot these days and defenders less so doesn't mean the game will be made easier for defenders just to 'balance' the current state of the game. Those who want to 'win' are expected to put in the time and effort. If they do not, it won't be handed to them on a silver platter.

Ballotonia

[The Blaatschapen]

Thanks for commenting Ballo, though your comment seemed to back what I was saying up completely with me? Not sure why it started with "no."

That's because I'm actually disagreeing with you. Perhaps not sufficiently clear.

If defenders weren't there to balance the threat to raiders, I think there would be more game-features to balance the threat of raids (rather than relying on defenders, taking it out of the hands of natives and putting into the hands of other fallible players). That seems to be what Ballo said too.

Quite the opposite, actually.

Looking at the equation as R v D & Native (or R v. D. v. Native) it may seem balanced as to "conceptual possibilities" because if a region is raided, sure, natives are up shit-creek without a paddle but the defenders can maybe help them! But if it was just R v. Native it isn't. If you take the assumption that defenders can and will come and save the region out of the equation it is remarkably unbalanced.

No, conceptually the game would still be balanced as it is now. Perhaps through other features because there would not have been defenders putting forth great suggestions to improve the game, but the game would still be balanced based on what can be done by players, not on what is actually done by players. Example: just because invaders are working together a lot these days and defenders less so doesn't mean the game will be made easier for defenders just to 'balance' the current state of the game. Those who want to 'win' are expected to put in the time and effort. If they do not, it won't be handed to them on a silver platter.

Ballotonia

What if we say 'please'?

[The Bruce]

Yes you helped natives. At least when you defended against me.

You were a delegate when I was a defender!

Thanks for commenting Ballo, though your comment seemed to back what I was saying up completely with me? Not sure why it started with "no."

The question I'm asking Bruce, though, is if no one had ever organized defender orgs, or if those that participate in them now just walked away, what would the game look like? Whether raider unity ended or not, if it came down to raiders hitting region after region with no hope on their part to protect themselves or survive if the raiders wish to crush their region, would the admin still refuse to implement the fixes that allow regions to protect themselves? I suppose we can't know, but it seems to me that's unlikely. If defenders weren't there to balance the threat to raiders, I think there would be more game-features to balance the threat of raids (rather than relying on defenders, taking it out of the hands of natives and putting into the hands of other fallible players). That seems to be what Ballo said too. Looking at the equation as R v D & Native (or R v. D. v. Native) it may seem balanced as to "conceptual possibilities" because if a region is raided, sure, natives are up shit-creek without a paddle but the defenders can maybe help them! But if it was just R v. Native it isn't. If you take the assumption that defenders can and will come and save the region out of the equation it is remarkably unbalanced. So, do the defenders do more good for natives than technical game features would? We can't know for sure, of course, but that's the question.

Without effective defender organizations things would have been different, but not altogether for the better.

The battle for the Heartland and the over the top griefing, spamming, and UN multying led to regional controls to deal with the problem. That was a battle fought by like minded nations and regions against invaders, not led or coordinated by defenders. That would have been the model of regional defence, without the presence of defenders. So you have effective alliances and friends you live, otherwise you lose your region.

There would come a time when this reached a tipping point, where community builders would decide that the game wasn't worth them investing their time, just for the benefit of giving griefers and vandalizers something to wreck. Either the system would respond with rules to protect victim regions or the system would fail by not meeting the demands of the vast majority of its players. It's possible that as an extremely loud minority, invaders would be able to keep victim region friendly rules from being introduced, but at some point something would give.

Without defenders on the NS Forums, the bragging and baiting by invaders would shift against the natives of victim regions. With the limited voices of any given region active on the NS Forums, we'd go back to a time where invaders could gang up on any natives who dared show their faces on the forums, to bait and overwhelm them with lies. They got a fair share of natives mod bombed that way in the past (usually the nations of players responsible for building the victim region). Without an active and easily offended opposition, some invaders would lose interest if they failed to get a rise of out of the natives.

It's difficult to say if raider solidarity would have evolved or not. Certainly without any unified or somewhat unified defender opposition there wouldn't be a tendency to stand together in opposition to defenders. The more talented invaders would have sought each other out as prized targets, while the less talented would want peace among invaders. Still, part of the incentive of raider unity is the fact that older invader groups no longer have the numbers they once did to effectively invade on their own. Without raider unity they would be incapable of anything but tag raiding against tiny, inactive regions with no effective opposition. Whether or not this would have been enough incentive for raider unity, without the initial push by defenders, is hard to say.

Raider solidarity encourages a too ineffective to fail policy for invaders. If you no longer have the numbers to effectively invade, you just add your numbers to the numbers of other groups that no longer have the numbers to effectively invade. This cronyism has blocked the rise of new invader groups by propping up invader groups that should have been allowed to die out, to make room for others.

[Solorni]

Raider solidarity encourages a too ineffective to fail policy for invaders. If you no longer have the numbers to effectively invade, you just add your numbers to the numbers of other groups that no longer have the numbers to effectively invade. This cronyism has blocked the rise of new invader groups by propping up invader groups that should have been allowed to die out, to make room for others.

There isn't a raider group quota and no one is propping anyone up. There is a ton of room for any new raider org, I don't see what exactly would be limiting any group from starting to raid. After all, it's all about team-work and diversity. Surely that's a plus?

As well, many regions -have- joined raiding, but stopped due to less activity on the homefront.

[Cerian Quilor]

Raider solidarity encourages a too ineffective to fail policy for invaders. If you no longer have the numbers to effectively invade, you just add your numbers to the numbers of other groups that no longer have the numbers to effectively invade. This cronyism has blocked the rise of new invader groups by propping up invader groups that should have been allowed to die out, to make room for others.

There isn't a raider group quota and no one is propping anyone up. There is a ton of room for any new raider org, I don't see what exactly would be limiting any group from starting to raid. After all, it's all about team-work and diversity. Surely that's a plus?

As well, many regions -have- joined raiding, but stopped due to less activity on the homefront.

Ainur and Kantrias are both regions that raid that are fairly new. And both have several independant raids under their belt (granted, Ainur has many more, but Ainur is twice Kantrias's age)