Proposal: "Liberation" Security Council resolution type

[Kandarin]

I don't care how hard it is, if you create a mechanic with room for abuse it will be abused. That is how online games work.

If you create a play strategy in an online game that involves a massive amount of effort for very little reward relative to all other strategies, it will not be used. The smart players realize what works and what doesn't. The rest just don't succeed. This is why invaders are not attacking regions with founders.

The difficulty does matter, because it means there are already mechanisms to prevent this in place: The long, hard, numerous barriers to passing a WA resolution, compounded with opposition from a part of the playerbase that does know what such an invader is trying to do and does have the power and will to stop them. And that's not mentioning the whole timing thing, the inevitable unendorsement campaign on the proposal, and so forth. There are great heaping piles of countermeasures already in place that stop this sort of thing. There isn't a need for a new countermeasure, particularly one that makes massive changes in the workings of the game, to allay fears of something that's just not a realistic possibility.

[Naivetry]

You can ignore the Security Council. And if your region gets targeted for a Liberation resolution when you haven't been raided, we (defenders) will take care of it whether or not you ask us to or pay attention. That's what we do. Tell us, "Hey, we don't want this," and we'll make sure it doesn't happen.

Uhm, so you're saying that those of us that say, elect our own delegates and make resolutions for the world assembly should submit to the invasion game?

No. I'm saying that in the very unlikely event that someone tries to set you up to be raided by proposing a Liberation resolution, we can and will defeat that resolution. You will not even lose your password because the resolution will fail, because it is our responsibility to make it do so. Defenders will exist for as long as there are abuses to protect against.

The difficulty is not an issue here. You keep coming back to that. It is possible, and therefore deserves a look at prevention. Period.

I don't care how hard it is, if you create a mechanic with room for abuse it will be abused. That is how online games work.

Kandarin pretty much covered this, but in addition I'll point out that there seems to be a consensus that this resolution category should not apply to regions with live Founders.

[The Dourian Embassy]

There isn't a need for a new countermeasure, particularly one that makes massive changes in the workings of the game, to allay some fears of something that's just not a realistic possibility.

How massive a change would it be to allow certain regions to operate under the rules that existed before this whole 'security council' thing came about? I'm just saying, let us skip out on the griefing completely.

That said, to return to another point you made, since you're an expert on this whole raiding thing, and are using that as some sort of justification to explain to me that passing resolutions is hard... uh, no it isn't. Trust me, I have some experience on that front. Passing a resolution is ridiculously easy if you put forth even a modicum of effort.

There seems to be a consensus that this resolution category should not apply to regions with live Founders.

I agree.

Edit: And honestly that's my only point here. If a live founder exists, let their region be exempt. A simple check box on the regional management page for founders only is more than enough to alleviate my fears, and is not that complicated a fix.

[Kandarin]

That said, to return to another point you made, since you're an expert on this whole raiding thing, and are using that as some sort of justification to explain to me that passing resolutions is hard... uh, no it isn't. Trust me, I have some experience on that front. Passing a resolution is ridiculously easy if you put forth even a modicum of effort.

I've seen what the WA group are capable of doing to a conventional resolution that doesn't follow the expected pattern, even if it follows the rules and sounds nice. Y'all have done a very good job of making sure that conventional resolutions meet the expected pattern, and that only the ones that do succeed. Now crank that level of influence way up to consider what a would-be Liberation-invader would face. I'm willing to accept that they could potentially make quorum by mass-spamming every Delegate (though I consider it iffy) but then, if they pulled it off, after the long, long wait they'd be putting their plan at the tender mercies of a body of players who built their entire play style for years around preventing this sort of thing and, need I mention it, directly control the WA vote. And you can bet they'd pull every string they had to get the proposal yanked out of quorum and set all the pieces in order to kill the resolution during that long, long wait.

[Naivetry]

That said, to return to another point you made, since you're an expert on this whole raiding thing, and are using that as some sort of justification to explain to me that passing resolutions is hard... uh, no it isn't. Trust me, I have some experience on that front. Passing a resolution is ridiculously easy if you put forth even a modicum of effort.

You have not tried to pass a resolution affecting Gameplay. You will be dealing with a whole new voting bloc with a level of interest and commitment from our side that the General Assembly has never seen from us. We are both willing and able to control the WA voting on these issues, because they are our issues - issues of in-game freedom and regional sovereignty.

...or, you know, what Kandarin said. I should really wait for him to post before I start replying.

There seems to be a consensus that this resolution category should not apply to regions with live Founders.

I agree.

Then I honestly don't see why you think you need any more protection than that. A live Founder is already effectively an opt-out from the whole system.

EDIT: That is, why bother with a check box when we're just going to make proposals affecting regions with live Founders illegal?

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

I still prefer it as a hard coded option than relying on defenders to figure it out. I'm hoping that after this whole thing settles down I can ignore the Security Council completely. As long as things are still formulating though, I've gotta worry about them doing something that possibly affects me.

Then I honestly don't see why you think you need any more protection than that. A live Founder is already effectively an opt-out from the whole system.

I can still be the target of one of these things though, and that's annoying enough.

Edit:

EDIT: That is, why bother with a check box when we're just going to make proposals affecting regions with live Founders illegal?

Wait what? No one told me that. Neat. My fears allayed. Moving on. Can you point me to where it says that's how it's going to be?

[Naivetry]

EDIT: That is, why bother with a check box when we're just going to make proposals affecting regions with live Founders illegal?

Wait what? No one told me that. Neat. My fears allayed. Moving on. Can you point me to where it says that's how it's going to be?

viewtopic.php?p=72294#p72294

Major points I have so far:

1. Suggestion that regions with Founders be immune to this resolution
2. Concern that the resolution will be used to remove passwords from peaceful regions who want nothing to do with the invasion game; i.e. as a prelude to invasion
3. Thoughts on counteracting a possible filibuster

I think #1 makes sense, and seems to have good support here.

[The Dourian Embassy]

*snip*

That's the kind of thing that belongs edited into the lead post, not buried in the 2nd page.

On the merits though, I'm of the opinion that as long as griefing(raiding or defending) is cable of being done, that regions that can't or don't defend themselves should not recieve help(which is why I'd want rules for opting out of this stuff). Griefing(again, raiding or defending) is the problem, not a lack of categories.

[Goobergunchia]

Well, there's all this talk about this proposal category harming RPers... what if there was an option added to the founder controls (founder only, not delegate; and regions that don't have a founder will just need to take steps to fix this themselves!) to designate the region an RP region and thus immune to the Liberation category? And if the founder dies off from inactivity, the designation stays put unless the region empties itself and is deleted.

Would that offer a reasonable balance and keep people out of invasions that don't want to be part of that side of the game? Because while I can see the problems in this new liberation category, I also see the potential for both the invasion/defender side of the game and a whole new way for pan-regional politics to be played around with.

(Emphasis added.)

While I think the rest of this proposal has been well-addressed by others, I'd like to register my concerns with allowing any such designation to persist past the death of the Founder. Should such an "non-combatant region" be then seized by invaders that somehow gain the regional password, that region would face the very problem that this category seeks to alleviate. While this could be countered by adding rules protecting such a region from invasion, I think that would get into the messy territory of Moderator determinations that the Influence system was put in place to avoid.

[float=right]http://i40.tinypic.com/2cyr5fd.jpg[/float]The Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia
Retired Officer, Nasicournia
Resident, The Rejected Realms

[Naivetry]

On the merits though, I'm of the opinion that as long as griefing(raiding or defending) is cable of being done, that regions that can't or don't defend themselves should not recieve help(which is why I'd want rules for opting out of this stuff). Griefing(again, raiding or defending) is the problem, not a lack of categories.

I hate to pick on words, here, but they matter to me in this instance. I am a defender, and I play to stop griefing. Equating defenders with griefers is like equating the cops with the Mob because they both happen to carry guns. If you want a term that applies to both, "invading" is accurate.

Goobergunchia brought up the second point I was going to make - if a region remained in a 'no-liberation' category after the Founder CTE'd, then it would have signed its own death sentence in case of an invasion. We wouldn't be able to help it because it had once been so afraid of that helping mechanism being abused. There's some irony.

The "illegal in regions with a live Founder" provision seems best all around.

[Ballotonia]

So, how will the invasion mechanic end up functioning under this method? Invaders will still take control of a target region. They'll still password it. They'll still commence kicking out natives. If and only if a 'Liberation resolution' passes, something different may happen: Invaders will have to kick newcomers out, which includes any and all defenders (easy enough, they have zero Influence...

This seems a fair point. If a region is "Liberated" (the WA disables its password), how likely is it that Defenders will be able to re-take the region? I imagine that the conquerors would be extremely watchful, especially around update time.

That highly depends on the invaders involved. Back in the day I've seen invaders which went to sleep immediately after obtaining delegacy. They'd be easy enough to defeat. On the extreme other end of the spectrum there were expert invaders like Architeuthis against whom a liberation had a chance of success as good as zero. Either way, a liberation can only succeed if the invader delegate actually makes a bad error. Compare: an invasion only succeeds if the natives make an error. Since they tend to be utterly unaware of the risk, or simply not able to guard their region every update since they're not hardcore Gameplayers, pulling off an invasion is hence relatively easy compared to a liberation.

Ballotonia

[Marcuslandia]

Uh, "Abstain"? Unless of course, you're the target region.

Yes, that's how you deal with threats to other people that may eventually threaten you, you're supposed to ignore them and wait until it concerns you. Yes, that's exactly how it works.

Was speaking of RPers with a mindset of "We just want to be left to ourselves."

[Marcuslandia]

Two things.
1) I've been involved with gaming as far back as the late '60s. One thing I have seen over that span of time is that people move on with their lives. That means that while they may be massively enthusiastic when they get involved in a game, the shine eventually wears off, Real Life gets in the way, they become enthusiastic about another game, etc. I point this out in regard to the very considerable amount of influence you accord to Founders as a matter of course. To be blunt, doing so is massively unfair to everyone else. Assuming that a region had a very good premise when it was Founded and quite a few players flocked to it, WHY _should_ all those people lose the rights and protections afforded to the Founder, just because the Founder was killed in an auto accident? Or moved on to something else? Or joined a Trappist monastery? Or, or, or? A region frequently is not _just_ the Founder; it's ALL of the people that make it work. In my particular case, I co-Founded my region; however I lost the coin toss and my co-Founder got to wear the hat. Real Life called him away, and with him went all of the Founder protections. (If you've been following this thread, then you already know how well that worked out for me and my regional neighbors. Not.) I _seriously_ think you/we need to work on a mechanism to pass on Founder privileges to an heir apparent, or designated steward or chancellor or regent or whatever.

2) We're up to page 5 or so and we are _still_ hearing that the RPers won't budge even one millimeter if there's the slightest chance that there is the remotest possibility that something bad might happen to a RP region. Like demanding a life insurance policy that pays off if the insured is killed by a rusty nail protruding from a mollusk that had been snatched up by a bald eagle and dropped on his head on the last day in February in a leap year. EXTREMELY unlikely, but by damn, I had better get that assurance before I sign off on this!. How about giving the people what they want: non-involvement in the invader/defender game? Just make a regional opt-out option. This region cannot and will not be an eligible target of an invasion. Somebody tries to raid such a region, the case gets brought to the Mods' attention, and the raiders get tossed out of the game entirely. Would that be enough of a guarantee for those that want to play the game, minus the threat of invasion? It seems to me that would get the job done. Of course, I would expect invaders to scream bloody murder if they perceived their preferred smorgasbord shrivel before their eyes.

Sorry if this doesn't seem to be on point, but I believe both of these elements significantly affect the topic at hand.

[Todd McCloud]

Thoughts please on the following proposal!

New Security Council resolution category: Liberation

This would allow a nominated region to be "liberated:" if passed as a WA resolution, the region's password (if any) is removed, and the region cannot activate password protection so long as the resolution stands.

The intent of this is to combat the use of passwords as an offensive weapon in high-profile regional invasions. While the invasion game in general is considered to be an integral part of NationStates, the use of passwords as a "game over" move, leaving defenders with no counter-attack, is considered a negative.

This proposal is not expected to be a panacea for all gameplay issues, but is suggested to address one particular problem.

Note that the resolution's use would be entirely subject to World Assembly voting. The game itself would not prevent invaders from employing it.

Some modifications to the WA may be necessary to, for example, prevent a "filibuster" whereby junk proposals are granted quorum in order to delay a Liberation proposal.

Much love. I haven't read the thread, but after reading this, I'm happy.

[Kandarin]

How about giving the people what they want: non-involvement in the invader/defender game? Just make a regional opt-out option. This region cannot and will not be an eligible target of an invasion. Somebody tries to raid such a region, the case gets brought to the Mods' attention, and the raiders get tossed out of the game entirely. Would that be enough of a guarantee for those that want to play the game, minus the threat of invasion? It seems to me that would get the job done. Of course, I would expect invaders to scream bloody murder if they perceived their preferred smorgasbord shrivel before their eyes.

It's been suggested before (several times; I don't remember where) and the problem that always comes up is this: There'd be a double standard. Regions would use the opt-out while then their members (or the region as a whole!) would take part in the invasion game. They'd be able to smite their enemies abroad while they'd be untouchable and protected by mod power at home. This would leave the mods with a number of hideously complex questions to answer: Who's doing this? What qualifies as a violation? How much involvement counts as one? How do you tell? Who do you listen to when a violation is alleged? What about mod bias? Influence was instituted in part so mods wouldn't have to deal with that sort of colossal headache. If a return to that is on the table, we might as well just bring back the griefing rules and call it a day.

[Marcuslandia]

How about giving the people what they want: non-involvement in the invader/defender game? Just make a regional opt-out option. This region cannot and will not be an eligible target of an invasion. Somebody tries to raid such a region, the case gets brought to the Mods' attention, and the raiders get tossed out of the game entirely. Would that be enough of a guarantee for those that want to play the game, minus the threat of invasion? It seems to me that would get the job done. Of course, I would expect invaders to scream bloody murder if they perceived their preferred smorgasbord shrivel before their eyes.

It's been suggested before (several times; I don't remember where) and the problem that always comes up is this: There'd be a double standard. Regions would use the opt-out while then their members (or the region as a whole!) would take part in the invasion game. They'd be able to smite their enemies abroad while they'd be untouchable and protected by mod power at home. This would leave the mods with a number of hideously complex questions to answer: Who's doing this? What qualifies as a violation? How much involvement counts as one? How do you tell? Who do you listen to when a violation is alleged? What about mod bias? Influence was instituted in part so mods wouldn't have to deal with that sort of colossal headache. If a return to that is on the table, we might as well just bring back the griefing rules and call it a day.

Ah! But that's where the contract comes in! To guarantee that invaders stay away, the consequence to them if they try is that they get tossed out of NS. If such a region _is_ invaded, the region gets scrutinized to ascertain if it's an actual invasion or just somebody crying "Wolf!" (Wouldn't want to be that guy.) The flip side is that if someone notes that a given invader/defender ally had been resident withing an invasion-free region within the last, oh, 3 months? 6 months? whatever, then he suffers the exact same penalty an unruly invader of that region would get. That is, bounced out of the game.

If you opt out, you had better stay out. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Kandarin]

Ah! But that's where the contract comes in! To guarantee that invaders stay away, the consequence to them if they try is that they get tossed out of NS. If such a region _is_ invaded, the region gets scrutinized to ascertain if it's an actual invasion or just somebody crying "Wolf!" (Wouldn't want to be that guy.) The flip side is that if someone notes that a given invader/defender ally had been resident withing an invasion-free region within the last, oh, 3 months? 6 months? whatever, then he suffers the exact same penalty an unruly invader of that region would get. That is, bounced out of the game.

If you opt out, you had better stay out. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

The process you are describing and the monumental headache for the mods that I just described are two different names for the same thing, with the added pre-Influence problem of nations getting deleted left, right and center over rules they barely understand.

[[violet]]

The next person who suggests an unrelated gameplay idea in this thread I am going to hit with a sausage.

...
All I was suggesting above was something that I thought would achieve that objective. And in a way that has a cosmetically lower profile than trying to organize a Liberation.

Okay. I'm ready now.

Ow. Ow. Ow.

Whack! Whack!

The problem with offering alternative solutions in the same thread is it always goes like this:
Me: What if we do X?
You: What about Y instead?
Someone else: That's a great idea!
Someone else again: No it's not, think how it would affect Z!
You: Well we could make it so A.
Someone: Now you're ruining B!
You: I didn't mean A like that; you're thinking of C.
Another someone else: I just heard you're proposing C! That's a terrible idea!

And we have a wandering debate that deadlocks itself. By all means, start a dozen threads for different ideas, but please don't swamp this one, because I want to actually implement something.

[Grub]

Hi everyone,

I just heard about this thread and thought I would give my two cents. As a long time defender, I have seen the effect passwords have in stopping invasions. I think I would still support this type of resoultion, but only in the case where the Founder has ceased to exist. For good or bad, if there is a Founder then the Founder should have the power to use a password when they desire.

Grub
Founder - 10000 Islands/TITO

[Marcuslandia]

Okay. A _relevant_ question.

From the time the invasion starts, how long are you envisioning it would take before the resolution could be implemented?

[Todd McCloud]

Hi everyone,

I just heard about this thread and thought I would give my two cents. As a long time defender, I have seen the effect passwords have in stopping invasions. I think I would still support this type of resoultion, but only in the case where the Founder has ceased to exist. For good or bad, if there is a Founder then the Founder should have the power to use a password when they desire.

Grub
Founder - 10000 Islands/TITO

To me, that is an acceptable proposition. If anything, there's really no point in working with something like a founded region - as long as the founder is active, he or she should be able to run the region as he or she seems fit.



Here's a new thought: what about resolutions to remove the founder of a region? I'm talking about all those Macedonian regions like Croatia, Hungary, Finland, Czech Republic, Belarus, etc. I doubt it would ever get passed for a major region or even a raiding region, but it would still be very interesting (and handy) to have.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Okay. A _relevant_ question.

From the time the invasion starts, how long are you envisioning it would take before the resolution could be implemented?

It depends. The shortest time I could conceivably see it happening is about a week, if voting time is shortened and there were no SC items previously queued. The longest would be months (due to a large queue)

[Absolvability]

It's times like these that make me think I still know jack shit about this game. -chuckles- I'm just wondering... y'know, if we exclude regions with active founders, then who the heck are we INcluding?

That is to say... how many regions without active founders have a password??

[Naivetry]

It's times like these that make me think I still know jack shit about this game. -chuckles- I'm just wondering... y'know, if we exclude regions with active founders, then who the heck are we INcluding?

That is to say... how many regions without active founders have a password??

It's not a question of how many there are now. It's a question of removing a password that has been imposed by a raider delegate with the intention of destroying the region - which they have been legally allowed to do since Influence.

So we're including victims of the free hand given raiders by the Influence system, and a substantial portion of the Gameplay community will work to make sure it affects no one else.

[Absolvability]

It's a question of removing a password that has been imposed by a raider delegate with the intention of destroying the region - which they have been legally allowed to do since Influence.

... Yea, I understand, but the sword cuts both ways, right? Granted, raiders are bad bad people or whatever... but it's a game. The rules should be equal for both sides, I think. We shouldn't make raiding harder... just more involved. I mean, what if World of Warcraft decided to impose disadvantage upon Horde characters? It isn't fair from a gameplay stand-point or a RP stand-point.