NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 2:46 pm**

Reploid Productions wrote:
Belmaria wrote:Oh for fuck's sake. I was told not to get into gameplay again. I should have listened. You people can continue to use your manual detection systems if you ~~don't want to be brought into the 21st century~~ don't want to trust unproven and unsubstantiated tools.

Your collective ~~hatred and distrust of technology~~ skepticism based on the complete lack of evidence available makes me sick.

Fixed that for you.

The problem is not a hatred or distrust of technology, it's a perfectly reasonable skepticism based on the completely non-existent information available about your tool, how it will work, and what it will actually accomplish. This skepticism has only been further compounded by your repeatedly proven lack of knowledge about the area of the game you are making this tool for, and only further exacerbated by your tone and constant talking-down to and dismissal of the very same players who could help you get the information you need to make this tool actually function.

If your tool is still in such an early alpha stage that you cannot give people the information they are asking for regarding how it will work, perhaps you should have held off on announcing it to the public until it was far enough along to provide that information. Right now, all you're doing is repeatedly proving in the minds of your target userbase that you don't know what you're talking about, giving them little reason to have any faith in your ability to carry out this project. You're also alienating them by talking down to them for daring to ask very reasonable questions about how you plan to fulfill these very grandiose promises that you've made about this tool.

This is basic Marketing 101 stuff right here, if you want to "sell" your product, you need to have some proof as to why they need it, why it's better than whatever they currently have; and the last thing you want to do is alienate the very people you're pitching your product to by talking down to them for daring to ask for further information about the product. As an analogy, if I were looking to buy a new car and the salesman pitches some revolutionary new feature to me, I'm going to be asking what that feature does, why do I need to have it, and basic info about how it actually works. If the salesman refuses to answer these questions and just keeps insisting it's awesome, I wouldn't understand the details, I shouldn't be questioning it and I should totally get this new feature anyway... that salesman isn't going to be making that sale with me.

I wasn't trying to sell anything. I was posting a new project, which was never claimed to be finished, and just got slammed with doubt and attacks. Without any external support, or desire to use our project, we will likely be suspending development.

*kicks self for trying to do something different and new with the world's most cynical people*

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 2:53 pm**

I mean, you're not wrong about us being cynical as fuck.

That being said, you don't seem to be capable of taking criticism, or learning from advice. You are literally still doing the thing that Reppy, myself, and others have called you out on.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:03 pm**

I said it before and I'll say it again.

@*both* parties -

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I think you're wrong to dismiss this entirely. I see potential, if executed right. Is it more effective than leaks and straight following? I'm not sure. But it could be worth trying. Maybe you should both play nice and realize you could help each other, instead of alternating between attacking the op as not a real defender and attacking their intelligence back? I mean, come on guys, how often do you get someone who actively wants to help defending and is putting in work towards it in their own way?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:04 pm**

Tano wrote:I mean, you're not wrong about us being cynical as fuck.

That being said, you don't seem to be capable of taking criticism, or learning from advice. You are literally still doing the thing that Reppy, myself, and others have called you out on.

I can take legitimate criticism if I see the merit in it. I failed to see merit in your largely cynical posts.

This was literally just a post about NARIS having a new idea and wanting to try it. I will admit that it will probably be hard to find patterns in raider activity that can consistently be exploited by an automated detection system, but that alone shouldn't discourage development. We agreed that posting our idea and asking for community feedback was a good way to increase involvement and move things along more quickly. That was our chief mistake.

After talking to the others, we have decided to suspend development until further notice, citing lack of ~~interest~~ open-mindedness and community support.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:06 pm**

Belmaria wrote:I wasn't trying to sell anything. I was posting a new project, which was never claimed to be finished, and just got slammed with doubt and attacks. Without any external support, or desire to use our project, we will likely be suspending development.

*kicks self for trying to do something different and new with the world's most cynical people*

That's why I had "sell" in quotes- you're not actually selling something in terms of a financial exchange, but you are trying to "sell" your project to a group of people, as in convincing them to support it or give it a shot. It's still a type of marketing, even if there's no money involved. You have a thing, you want people to use your thing and like it; and you've repeatedly taken actions that run directly opposite to that goal.

People asking you questions and raising concerns about the project are not your enemy, and treating them as though they are will not serve your goals well in the slightest. They can provide you with very useful information you can then use to improve your project and fine-tune it to work better. It would help your project out immensely if you actually listen to the concerns and things people are telling you. By your own admission you're not very familiar with the minefield that is Gameplay, these are the people who can help you learn so that you can avoid embarrassing situations like The Mountains to the East.

That people are asking questions and raising concerns in the first place shows that there IS an interest in your project, but people need more information and hard data to justify whether or not it's a tool that will serve their needs safely and more effectively than what they're using currently. Brushing off their concerns and treating them like a bunch of hostiles doesn't serve your interests or theirs.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:13 pm**

Let's set aside for a moment the possibility that the script might not be legal as envisioned, which could potentially be corrected by coming up with alternative ways to make it work that would be legal. But let's even assume that it isn't workable and is a bad idea.

Was this three page pile-on really necessary?

Many of us have complained from time to time that it's difficult to attract new players to our regions, or to retain them if they do move to our regions. This also applies to players from other parts of the game, who have no interest in gameplay. Take a second read over this thread and then ask yourself if you blame them. Is the problem really with new players and non-gameplayers, or is the problem with gameplayers and how so many of us treat new players and players from other parts of the game? Do you see much in this thread that would make a new player or non-gameplayer think, you know, this looks like a fun and interesting part of the game, something I would really like to stick around and participate in? I sure don't.

I'm not saying the OP shouldn't have been cautioned about the possible illegality of his script, and I'm not saying he's been justified in some of his outbursts either. But there were better ways to handle this, and this three page festival of elitism is a really great example of why gameplay has become such a tiny community in this game and is so reviled by other parts of the game.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:24 pm**

Cormactopia II wrote:Let's set aside for a moment the possibility that the script might not be legal as envisioned, which could potentially be corrected by coming up with alternative ways to make it work that would be legal. But let's even assume that it isn't workable and is a bad idea.

Was this three page pile-on really necessary?

Many of us have complained from time to time that it's difficult to attract new players to our regions, or to retain them if they do move to our regions. This also applies to players from other parts of the game, who have no interest in gameplay. Take a second read over this thread and then ask yourself if you blame them. Is the problem really with new players and non-gameplayers, or is the problem with gameplayers and how so many of us treat new players and players from other parts of the game? Do you see much in this thread that would make a new player or non-gameplayer think, you know, this looks like a fun and interesting part of the game, something I would really like to stick around and participate in? I sure don't.

I'm not saying the OP shouldn't have been cautioned about the possible illegality of his script, and I'm not saying he's been justified in some of his outbursts either. But there were better ways to handle this, and this three page festival of elitism is a really great example of why gameplay has become such a tiny community in this game and is so reviled by other parts of the game.

Your point is moot, as OPs attitude came off as resistant (dare I say hostile). If someone comes in with large claims without any sort of experience/whatnot to back it up, I will call that out.

Was I harsh? Yes, I concede that. Perhaps it could have been phrased in a nicer fashion, but I stand by what I said. I'm not hostile to new players. I'm hostile to attitudes such as OP's.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:26 pm**

Reploid Productions wrote:
Belmaria wrote:I wasn't trying to sell anything. I was posting a new project, which was never claimed to be finished, and just got slammed with doubt and attacks. Without any external support, or desire to use our project, we will likely be suspending development.

*kicks self for trying to do something different and new with the world's most cynical people*

That's why I had "sell" in quotes- you're not actually selling something in terms of a financial exchange, but you are trying to "sell" your project to a group of people, as in convincing them to support it or give it a shot. It's still a type of marketing, even if there's no money involved. You have a thing, you want people to use your thing and like it; and you've repeatedly taken actions that run directly opposite to that goal.

People asking you questions and raising concerns about the project are not your enemy, and treating them as though they are will not serve your goals well in the slightest. They can provide you with very useful information you can then use to improve your project and fine-tune it to work better. It would help your project out immensely if you actually listen to the concerns and things people are telling you. By your own admission you're not very familiar with the minefield that is Gameplay, these are the people who can help you learn so that you can avoid embarrassing situations like The Mountains to the East.

That people are asking questions and raising concerns in the first place shows that there IS an interest in your project, but people need more information and hard data to justify whether or not it's a tool that will serve their needs safely and more effectively than what they're using currently. Brushing off their concerns and treating them like a bunch of hostiles doesn't serve your interests or theirs.

So basically you're saying that people don't want to at least give us a chance, and are just automatically assuming that we are either going to:

Break the rules
Not execute properly
Not release a project
Not provide anything of substance that will actually help anyone
Or waste time in some other way

And you expect me to take anything these people say seriously? When they just blindly dismiss new ideas and projects because said ideas and projects haven't been completely implemented yet?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:30 pm**

Belmaria wrote:
Reploid Productions wrote:That's why I had "sell" in quotes- you're not actually selling something in terms of a financial exchange, but you are trying to "sell" your project to a group of people, as in convincing them to support it or give it a shot. It's still a type of marketing, even if there's no money involved. You have a thing, you want people to use your thing and like it; and you've repeatedly taken actions that run directly opposite to that goal.

People asking you questions and raising concerns about the project are not your enemy, and treating them as though they are will not serve your goals well in the slightest. They can provide you with very useful information you can then use to improve your project and fine-tune it to work better. It would help your project out immensely if you actually listen to the concerns and things people are telling you. By your own admission you're not very familiar with the minefield that is Gameplay, these are the people who can help you learn so that you can avoid embarrassing situations like The Mountains to the East.

That people are asking questions and raising concerns in the first place shows that there IS an interest in your project, but people need more information and hard data to justify whether or not it's a tool that will serve their needs safely and more effectively than what they're using currently. Brushing off their concerns and treating them like a bunch of hostiles doesn't serve your interests or theirs.

So basically you're saying that people don't want to at least give us a chance, and are just automatically assuming that we are either going to:
Break the rules
Not execute properly
Not release a project
Not provide anything of substance that will actually help anyone
Or waste time in some other way

And you expect me to take anything these people say seriously? When they just blindly dismiss new ideas and projects because said ideas and projects haven't been completely implemented yet?

Gameplay has been recently burned by scripts, so it is still a topic weighing heavy in the air. People are cautious.

As was also stated, you simply don't have enough evidence to your crediblity or this project's crediblity. If you really are earnest about this and think it has a shot, you should have waited until you had more to show for it.

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I said it before and I'll say it again.

@*both* parties -

Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I think you're wrong to dismiss this entirely. I see potential, if executed right. Is it more effective than leaks and straight following? I'm not sure. But it could be worth trying. Maybe you should both play nice and realize you could help each other, instead of alternating between attacking the op as not a real defender and attacking their intelligence back? I mean, come on guys, how often do you get someone who actively wants to help defending and is putting in work towards it in their own way?

I don't dimiss the idea behind the project itself (although I do have doubts). I dismiss it based on what OP has presented in regards to the project and his experience.

Also, supporting such a project would run counter to my general "alignment" (if you could call it that) anyways

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:35 pm**

Tano wrote:
Belmaria wrote:So basically you're saying that people don't want to at least give us a chance, and are just automatically assuming that we are either going to:
Break the rules
Not execute properly
Not release a project
Not provide anything of substance that will actually help anyone
Or waste time in some other way

And you expect me to take anything these people say seriously? When they just blindly dismiss new ideas and projects because said ideas and projects haven't been completely implemented yet?

Gameplay has been recently burned by scripts, so it is still a topic weighing heavy in the air. People are cautious.

As was also stated, you simply don't have enough evidence to your crediblity or this project's crediblity. If you really are earnest about this and think it has a shot, you should have waited until you had more to show for it.
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:I said it before and I'll say it again.

@*both* parties -

I don't dimiss the idea behind the project itself (although I do have doubts). I dismiss it based on what OP has presented in regards to the project and his experience.

Also, supporting such a project would run counter to my general "alignment" (if you could call it that) anyways

We haven't released anything because what we have at the moment isn't much. That's why the thread was posted in the first place. We don't have the resources to complete this project without help from people who are more knowledgeable in the fields of statistics, Ruby on Rails, PHP/SQL, and general heuristics (which we may never find, since heuristic detection is pretty much exclusive to antivirus software).

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:41 pm**

Belmaria wrote:
Reploid Productions wrote:That's why I had "sell" in quotes- you're not actually selling something in terms of a financial exchange, but you are trying to "sell" your project to a group of people, as in convincing them to support it or give it a shot. It's still a type of marketing, even if there's no money involved. You have a thing, you want people to use your thing and like it; and you've repeatedly taken actions that run directly opposite to that goal.

People asking you questions and raising concerns about the project are not your enemy, and treating them as though they are will not serve your goals well in the slightest. They can provide you with very useful information you can then use to improve your project and fine-tune it to work better. It would help your project out immensely if you actually listen to the concerns and things people are telling you. By your own admission you're not very familiar with the minefield that is Gameplay, these are the people who can help you learn so that you can avoid embarrassing situations like The Mountains to the East.

That people are asking questions and raising concerns in the first place shows that there IS an interest in your project, but people need more information and hard data to justify whether or not it's a tool that will serve their needs safely and more effectively than what they're using currently. Brushing off their concerns and treating them like a bunch of hostiles doesn't serve your interests or theirs.

So basically you're saying that people don't want to at least give us a chance, and are just automatically assuming that we are either going to:
Break the rules
Not execute properly
Not release a project
Not provide anything of substance that will actually help anyone
Or waste time in some other way

And you expect me to take anything these people say seriously? When they just blindly dismiss new ideas and projects because said ideas and projects haven't been completely implemented yet?

Well, they asked how this was better than what defenders are currently doing now, and your reply, in a nutshell, was 'it's a script, it'll be better than manual defending, if you don't see that then you are close-minded and technology hating', and that is not an answer. First off, at least with raiders, manual triggering is typically more consistently reliable, and is preferred for important stuff.

Again, if you tell defenders how this will be better than what they do now, they might support you. Everyone is being 'anti-technology' because people are still serving out punishments from a massive illegal script scandal that lead to 2 people being marked DoS and plenty others being banned from the WA and puppetswept. You are attempting to introduce a script with no way of proving it is legal, which is the current primary concern of EVERYONE in GP.

We didn't all come in saying it was illegal or the other things on your list, we just came in with very real, very reasonable concerns, and you gave us non-answers.

So I will ask, what specific advantage will this have over current defender methods once it is done?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:42 pm**

Belmaria wrote:
Reploid Productions wrote:That's why I had "sell" in quotes- you're not actually selling something in terms of a financial exchange, but you are trying to "sell" your project to a group of people, as in convincing them to support it or give it a shot. It's still a type of marketing, even if there's no money involved. You have a thing, you want people to use your thing and like it; and you've repeatedly taken actions that run directly opposite to that goal.

People asking you questions and raising concerns about the project are not your enemy, and treating them as though they are will not serve your goals well in the slightest. They can provide you with very useful information you can then use to improve your project and fine-tune it to work better. It would help your project out immensely if you actually listen to the concerns and things people are telling you. By your own admission you're not very familiar with the minefield that is Gameplay, these are the people who can help you learn so that you can avoid embarrassing situations like The Mountains to the East.

That people are asking questions and raising concerns in the first place shows that there IS an interest in your project, but people need more information and hard data to justify whether or not it's a tool that will serve their needs safely and more effectively than what they're using currently. Brushing off their concerns and treating them like a bunch of hostiles doesn't serve your interests or theirs.

So basically you're saying that people don't want to at least give us a chance, and are just automatically assuming that we are either going to:
Break the rules
Not execute properly
Not release a project
Not provide anything of substance that will actually help anyone
Or waste time in some other way

And you expect me to take anything these people say seriously? When they just blindly dismiss new ideas and projects because said ideas and projects haven't been completely implemented yet?

Yes. You're trying to drum excitement for a self driving car at convention of professional drivers, whose competition recently had half their team injured or killed in an accident involving a self driving car. They, perhaps too agressively, question how someone who admittedly only has taken driving theory classes and not actually driven a lot before, can create a mechanism that drives better than they do, safely, especially since you don't even have a prototype to show them, just a fancy PowerPoint. And unfortuantly, you're also not nearly as charismatic as, say, Elon Musk.

If you want to prove yourself to this audience, you've got a steep hill to climb. Would I prefer they give you advice instead of attacks? Of course. But at its root, their criticism isn't entirely off course. Hotheaded or not, they are the experts in this field, and have experience and information that'd be quite useful to you - if, that is, you can both take a deep breath and get the hell along.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:46 pm**

Raionitu wrote:
Belmaria wrote:So basically you're saying that people don't want to at least give us a chance, and are just automatically assuming that we are either going to:
Break the rules
Not execute properly
Not release a project
Not provide anything of substance that will actually help anyone
Or waste time in some other way

And you expect me to take anything these people say seriously? When they just blindly dismiss new ideas and projects because said ideas and projects haven't been completely implemented yet?

Well, they asked how this was better than what defenders are currently doing now, and your reply, in a nutshell, was 'it's a script, it'll be better than manual defending, if you don't see that then you are close-minded and technology hating', and that is not an answer. First off, at least with raiders, manual triggering is typically more consistently reliable, and is preferred for important stuff.

Again, if you tell defenders how this will be better than what they do now, they might support you. Everyone is being 'anti-technology' because people are still serving out punishments from a massive illegal script scandal that lead to 2 people being marked DoS and plenty others being banned from the WA and puppetswept. You are attempting to introduce a script with no way of proving it is legal, which is the current primary concern of EVERYONE in GP.

We didn't all come in saying it was illegal or the other things on your list, we just came in with very real, very reasonable concerns, and you gave us non-answers.

So I will ask, what specific advantage will this have over current defender methods once it is done?

Well, let me ask you this: How much effort does it require to manually spot raider activity and act on it at present?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 3:54 pm**

Belmaria wrote:Well, let me ask you this: How much effort does it require to manually spot raider activity and act on it at present?

With a decent grasp on R/D mechanics and the various R/D groups, not much at all. Even if we don't have people on and off spotting throughout the day, we can easily pull up the move+member+endorsement selected Activity Page and just scan through the 12 hours between the updates for any moves, suspicious WA's, or the like. That's really only applicable to the rare shows of stealth and then non-update noobs moving though. In terms of actual update operations, pretty similar, we can rather easily see them WA up, potentially cross-endorse, and all that. Then just dossier them, hop on over to the reports page, absolutely batter that "generate report" button and follow the second you see them move.

To follow up on Souls' brilliant analogy, if R/D is driving a racecar, it's as simple as buckling in and starting the engine once you're acclimated to it. It's the driving, i.e the quick jumping to follow, that takes time to master.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:03 pm**

Tim-Opolis wrote:
Belmaria wrote:Well, let me ask you this: How much effort does it require to manually spot raider activity and act on it at present?

With a decent grasp on R/D mechanics and the various R/D groups, not much at all. Even if we don't have people on and off spotting throughout the day, we can easily pull up the move+member+endorsement selected Activity Page and just scan through the 12 hours between the updates for any moves, suspicious WA's, or the like. That's really only applicable to the rare shows of stealth and then non-update noobs moving though. In terms of actual update operations, pretty similar, we can rather easily see them WA up, potentially cross-endorse, and all that. Then just dossier them, hop on over to the reports page, absolutely batter that "generate report" button and follow the second you see them move.

To follow up on Souls' brilliant analogy, if R/D is driving a racecar, it's as simple as buckling in and starting the engine once you're acclimated to it. It's the driving, i.e the quick jumping to follow, that takes time to master.

It sounds like we were trying to do the same thing, only in automated form, to save time and effort. And it looks like automation would significantly decrease the workload of defenders, considering the fact that the moves from the last 20 minutes alone take up an entire page and a half in my activity screen. If you're checking the last 12 hours of moves and WA activity, you have a lot to look through.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:23 pm**

Belmaria wrote:
Tim-Opolis wrote:With a decent grasp on R/D mechanics and the various R/D groups, not much at all. Even if we don't have people on and off spotting throughout the day, we can easily pull up the move+member+endorsement selected Activity Page and just scan through the 12 hours between the updates for any moves, suspicious WA's, or the like. That's really only applicable to the rare shows of stealth and then non-update noobs moving though. In terms of actual update operations, pretty similar, we can rather easily see them WA up, potentially cross-endorse, and all that. Then just dossier them, hop on over to the reports page, absolutely batter that "generate report" button and follow the second you see them move.

To follow up on Souls' brilliant analogy, if R/D is driving a racecar, it's as simple as buckling in and starting the engine once you're acclimated to it. It's the driving, i.e the quick jumping to follow, that takes time to master.

It sounds like we were trying to do the same thing, only in automated form, to save time and effort. And it looks like automation would significantly decrease the workload of defenders, considering the fact that the moves from the last 20 minutes alone take up an entire page and a half in my activity screen. If you're checking the last 12 hours of moves and WA activity, you have a lot to look through.

Well, I wouldn't say it takes much time or effort. A lot of that may be from the experience and practice from knowing what to look for though, which is again one of my skepticisms with your project particularly given how dismissive you've been of needing an understanding of R/D.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think the idea in itself is interesting, the cause of a fair bit of my recent criticism has been more your inability to give actual replies to concerns raised, instead dismissing them as ones you don't consider worth answering. Again, as I pointed out, checking that far back is really only important for noob raids and worst comes to worst you can honestly liberate those with ease. In terms of in-update stuff, I can't really see myself using it because ultimately I know I can spot better than a script. Even then, the skepticism rises simply because you haven't really given specifics on those factors you'd be using and therefore folks don't really have much assurance that there's any sort of potential in it. The fiasco in TMTE where you mis-identified Grey Wardens as invaders only compounds that.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 4:42 pm**

Tim-Opolis wrote:
Belmaria wrote:It sounds like we were trying to do the same thing, only in automated form, to save time and effort. And it looks like automation would significantly decrease the workload of defenders, considering the fact that the moves from the last 20 minutes alone take up an entire page and a half in my activity screen. If you're checking the last 12 hours of moves and WA activity, you have a lot to look through.

Well, I wouldn't say it takes much time or effort. A lot of that may be from the experience and practice from knowing what to look for though, which is again one of my skepticisms with your project particularly given how dismissive you've been of needing an understanding of R/D.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think the idea in itself is interesting, the cause of a fair bit of my recent criticism has been more your inability to give actual replies to concerns raised, instead dismissing them as ones you don't consider worth answering. Again, as I pointed out, checking that far back is really only important for noob raids and worst comes to worst you can honestly liberate those with ease. In terms of in-update stuff, I can't really see myself using it because ultimately I know I can spot better than a script. Even then, the skepticism rises simply because you haven't really given specifics on those factors you'd be using and therefore folks don't really have much assurance that there's any sort of potential in it. The fiasco in TMTE where you mis-identified Grey Wardens as invaders only compounds that.

Experienced raiders and defenders shouldn't be the only people with access to intelligence regarding potential attacks, and having an easy to use tool which can reliably identify potential raids would increase the amount of people interested in helping in the defense effort significantly. The rules-based detection project was an off-shoot from an original project with similar goals. We attempted to distribute a blacklist of known and suspected raiders in the form of a dossier file, so that regions could monitor activity and protect themselves from raiders. It failed because it couldn't detect new, "clean" nations, so we decided to create a rules-based engine that could be installed in most common browsers, which would assist non-defenders in keeping their individual regions safe from attack, without having to ask for help from organizations like the Wardens. However, we don't currently have a way to merge our code into a browser plugin, and also don't have stable detection rules.

As I've mentioned to a few others in private chat and telegrams, we're using Spam Assassin as the basis for our engine, and are finding it difficult to get SA working in a browser-only environment, which is why we need help from experienced programmers. We also need to gain more information about how to construct our SA rulesets, so as to increase the accuracy of our detection. And finally, we will need to create an integrated web interface for nations to use, similar to the altered interface provided by NS++. Without all of these components, the work we have accomplished will be pointless.

So to reiterate, we need help with statistics, Perl code (SA is written in it), Possibly Ruby on Rails, Possibly PHP/SQL, SA rulesets, and XHTML integration into NationStates. If anyone thinks they can help, and is interested, that's the purpose of this thread.

And as a PS, the misidentification of defender nations could be solved by whitelisting.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:02 pm**

Belmaria wrote:
Raionitu wrote:Well, they asked how this was better than what defenders are currently doing now, and your reply, in a nutshell, was 'it's a script, it'll be better than manual defending, if you don't see that then you are close-minded and technology hating', and that is not an answer. First off, at least with raiders, manual triggering is typically more consistently reliable, and is preferred for important stuff.

Again, if you tell defenders how this will be better than what they do now, they might support you. Everyone is being 'anti-technology' because people are still serving out punishments from a massive illegal script scandal that lead to 2 people being marked DoS and plenty others being banned from the WA and puppetswept. You are attempting to introduce a script with no way of proving it is legal, which is the current primary concern of EVERYONE in GP.

We didn't all come in saying it was illegal or the other things on your list, we just came in with very real, very reasonable concerns, and you gave us non-answers.

So I will ask, what specific advantage will this have over current defender methods once it is done?

Well, let me ask you this: How much effort does it require to manually spot raider activity and act on it at present?

I'm a raider, so I've never done it

Thank you for explaining some of the technical stuff behind this though

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:04 pm**

Belmaria wrote:Well, let me ask you this: How much effort does it require to manually spot raider activity and act on it at present?

Too little.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:05 pm**

The OP has been updated to reflect a shift in the goals of the group.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:16 pm**

Belmaria wrote:The OP has been updated to reflect a shift in the goals of the group.

This may have already been asked, but who is in this group that you keep talking about?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 7:03 pm**

Gatito wrote:
Belmaria wrote:The OP has been updated to reflect a shift in the goals of the group.

This may have already been asked, but who is in this group that you keep talking about?

We keep our members' identities secret to protect the integrity of the group's projects. It's a rather small group, though, so we're always looking for more members.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:14 pm**

Belmaria wrote:
Gatito wrote:This may have already been asked, but who is in this group that you keep talking about?

We keep our members' identities secret to protect the integrity of the group's projects. It's a rather small group, though, so we're always looking for more members.

What benefit would the get out of being anonymous?

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:21 pm**

Gatito wrote:
Belmaria wrote:We keep our members' identities secret to protect the integrity of the group's projects. It's a rather small group, though, so we're always looking for more members.

What benefit would the get out of being anonymous?

A couple of our members are using their primary nations for human intelligence, so we can't reveal their identities. The others may accidentally log into the wrong account, so we've decided that we'll only have one front account for the whole group. In fact, we're discussing the idea of creating a group account solely for the purpose of being the face of the group.

Posted: **Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:26 pm**

Belmaria wrote:
Gatito wrote:What benefit would the get out of being anonymous?

A couple of our members are using their primary nations for human intelligence, so we can't reveal their identities. The others may accidentally log into the wrong account, so we've decided that we'll only have one front account for the whole group. In fact, we're discussing the idea of creating a group account solely for the purpose of being the face of the group.

So why have you chosen to reveal your connection with the project?

NationStates

NARIS: The Fly on the Wall Your Mother Warned You About