Advertisement
by Pythagosaurus » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:27 pm
by [violet] » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:38 pm
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:08 pm
by Pythagosaurus » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:12 pm
Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Pyth, never once have I suggested you re-found a region for anyone, nor install founders for them.
by Cravan » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:21 pm
by Topid » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:01 pm
Kalibarr wrote:And yet all of you ignored the idea that we bring up the optional founders thing again...
by Kandarin » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:28 pm
Cravan wrote:A general summary of how things work in Haven
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.
by Bavin » Fri Feb 19, 2010 9:31 pm
Kandarin wrote:Cravan wrote:A general summary of how things work in Haven
Haven is a special case in many ways, not least of which is the way in which it is one of the only (possibly the only) region in NS to make the password feature work for it. Another way in which it is extraordinary is the way in which Influence works in your favor here. If (by some horrible twist of fate) the resolution did pass and invaders somehow did sweep in in the night and take Haven, they'd have to linger in there for years, watching the borders and not invading anything else, just to make a dent in your trove of high-influence elder nations. Influence was meant to replace the prohibition on banning "natives" by instead increasing the difficulty of ejecting nations with "native" traits. This works very well for Haven to the point where I don't think you folks really could be successfully invaded.
Most regions that are potential targets for invasions don't have that. They're either small enough that invaders can mass quicker influence gain, or large enough (feeders) that any enforcement and control over who has Influence is problematic short of a monopoly on real influence gain by one bloc (which, the way Influence runs now, is unfortunately necessary in all feeders). Most regions are either very active but new or very idle with few WAs. Haven is a special case of a region of middling size full of nations that are both old and active, who frequent the WA as often as anyone (or more, if necessary). Again, all of this means that under the influence system, an invasion of it would go nowhere.
by Bears Armed » Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:41 am
Topid wrote:Northrop-Grumman wrote:Again, there are people who want to be left alone here and not play in the R/D game. People with founders have a nice exit out of that game as they can never be harmed by an invasion. Those of us in founderless regions, whether it's because there are too many people to coordinate an exit strategy, have too much history backed up on the RMB, or are fearful that some other party with a grudge will intervene, are really unable to refound their regions. This would solve that instantly. If we could easily do it, we'd do it. So what's the difference if we just get founders and bypass all that painful work?Kalibarr wrote:because it would kill the R/D gameplay
Sooooooo you are still arguing to end raiding. Because then who will raiders raid? No one is left if every region has a founder. Bye-bye huge chunk of NS!
Sanctaria wrote:My idea is this. Make 80% of all regions WA Regions and the other 20% non WA Regions. Each Regions gets to decide and then, if more than 20% don't want to be a member, you do a lottery thing. That way, a nation can decide to join a WA Region if they want to be a member of the WA and if they don't, they join a non WA Region. If they join a WA Region, they automatically apply for WA Member status.
[violet] wrote:Of course, the idea of a Liberation proposal aimed at your region is alarming. (Particularly when it seems well-supported at the proposal stage.) But I think it's important to note that Haven has not been forced to deal with Gameplay yet. That would happen only if the resolution passed.
Do you realise how few of the WA nations' players -- even of the Delegates -- actually look at the WA forums?{violet] wrote:At this point, Haven does not need to do terribly much. A prominent resident should probably speak against it in the WA forum, but I suspect that's all that's required to shoot it down.
[violet] wrote:Argument: Liberations should not be allowed against RP regions.
In principle, I agree. The question is how you enforce this. It is currently enforced by members of the WA: that is, the WA has the responsibility of blocking malicious attempts at Liberation. Personally I suspect they'll do a pretty good job of it, although we shall see.
The idea that moderators or admin should enforce this is easier said than done! It is essentially the same idea as that moderators should decide which invasions are legal. We tried that and it didn't work out so well (see below)
[violet wrote:]Argument: Invasions should be banned.
We support the invasion game. Please note that an "invasion" means using the exact same endorsement and administration tools as everybody else. It's not like there is an "Invade!" button we could simply remove. Invaders act like ordinary players only more organized.
[violet] wrote:Also, invasions do make NationStates a more interesting game.
[violet] wrote:There is some evidence that the more conflict we allow, the more people play NationStates. I believe that outlawing invasions completely--if that were possible--would significantly reduce our numbers, which in turn would negatively affect every NS community.
by Bluth Corporation » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:40 am
[violet] wrote:A simple "opt-out" button would be used by every region in the game, even invaders, to protect their own regions.
by Scandavian States » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:03 am
[violet] wrote:Argument: The price of potentially forcing RP regions to deal with Gameplay is not worth the benefit of the Liberation feature.
I agree that a passed Liberation of Haven would be an undesirable outcome. If there were a solution that delivered the benefits of the Liberation feature without the risk to RP regions, I'd endorse it. (If you want to suggest one, please start a new thread.)The current Liberation feature solved a major Gameplay problem: that of passwords being used offensively by invaders as a game-over move. And regions most at risk were those like Haven: large, isolationist communities using a password with no Founder. That is, prior to Liberations, Haven ran the risk of being seized by raiders who sniffed out the password and losing the region forever.
Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.
True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.
by Bryn Shander » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:26 am
Scandavian States wrote:[violet] wrote:Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.
True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.
I can't disagree with this. However, having a policy of rarely granting such requests for regions without founders and only granting them when it is agreed by the staff that the reasoning is sound wouldn't be so terrible. I imagine that if some guy came to you and requested Foundership for Region X, you could go into the regional history and see he's only been there for a short while and only after what appears to be a raid, you would sniff out the deceit and deny the request. However, I can't imagine you'd deny a region like Haven, knowing our history and processes as you do, such a request.
by Martyrdoom » Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:47 am
Bryn Shander wrote:Scandavian States wrote:[violet] wrote:Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.
True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.
I can't disagree with this. However, having a policy of rarely granting such requests for regions without founders and only granting them when it is agreed by the staff that the reasoning is sound wouldn't be so terrible. I imagine that if some guy came to you and requested Foundership for Region X, you could go into the regional history and see he's only been there for a short while and only after what appears to be a raid, you would sniff out the deceit and deny the request. However, I can't imagine you'd deny a region like Haven, knowing our history and processes as you do, such a request.
And in Haven's case, I have to again state that Scandavian States himself is the best and only candidate for an appointed foundership due to the fact that he's the only person still in the region that was there when Haven was founded. There is long documented history of this fact that cannot be disputed. As a result, most of the arguments against appointing founders, IE giving it to the wrong person or abuse, are not relevant.
by Dread Lady Nathicana » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:06 am
by Scandavian States » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:31 am
Martyrdoom wrote:More to the point, why should Haven have a founder appointed and not other founderless regions?
by Scandavian States » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:38 am
Dread Lady Nathicana wrote:Why should Haven get any special treatment? Sounds like you've got it covered just fine. My main concern was for precedents and principles across the board. Those concerns have been answered fair enough.
by Martyrdoom » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:41 am
Scandavian States wrote:Martyrdoom wrote:More to the point, why should Haven have a founder appointed and not other founderless regions?
I'm not saying other regions shouldn't have founders appointed. I think the criteria need be inherently flexible, because it's always possible a region could have a perfectly valid reason for wanting such a thing that nobody had anticipated. OTOH, I think frivolous reasoning should be rejected out of hand.
by Romanar » Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:49 am
Scandavian States wrote:While theoretically true, there was never a threat of this where Haven was concerned. For one, to even get the password requires a long and drawn out application process with strict requirements for entry. Two, because part of the applications process is a history of well-done roleplays on the forums, no raider would have been granted entry given their stated disdain for RP. Three, guessing the password is basically impossible, as the passwords for Haven has always been in-jokes that only long time Havenites would understand.
Now, I understand that not all regions are so choosy and closeted, but if they had been password feature would have remained the ultimate firewall against raiders.
I can't disagree with this. However, having a policy of rarely granting such requests for regions without founders and only granting them when it is agreed by the staff that the reasoning is sound wouldn't be so terrible. I imagine that if some guy came to you and requested Foundership for Region X, you could go into the regional history and see he's only been there for a short while and only after what appears to be a raid, you would sniff out the deceit and deny the request. However, I can't imagine you'd deny a region like Haven, knowing our history and processes as you do, such a request.
by Scandavian States » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:08 am
Martyrdoom wrote:So all founderless regions should have a founder appointed?
And this is to protect RP regions?
by Bavin » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:22 am
Kalibarr wrote:Everyone would want a founder if you could get one. It would be goodbye R/D.
by Scandavian States » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:23 am
Romanar wrote:If your process keeps out raiders, it would also keep out other people who would be potential assets to Haven. Obviously Haven has made it work somehow, but I'm seen many regions killed because nobody wanted to bother with passwords and the region never got new blood.
In the case of Haven, there seems to be ONE logical choice for founder. That is rare. I know of several regions that have several potential choices. How would the Mods pick between them? And some newer regions that don't have any; their "old" members might have been there only slightly longer than the raider spy who slipped in, waiting for his chance to take over.
by Scandavian States » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:26 am
Kalibarr wrote:Everyone would want a founder if you could get one. It would be goodbye R/D.
by Kampfers » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:28 am
If your process keeps out raiders, it would also keep out other people who would be potential assets to Haven. Obviously Haven has made it work somehow, but I'm seen many regions killed because nobody wanted to bother with passwords and the region never got new blood.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Elite
Advertisement