Feasibility of WA Blocker Operations

[Galiantus III]

Some of you might remember I founded an anti-WA region called Gilgamesh earlier this year. As it turns out, I am pretty terrible at region building, and it was a mistake to try and balance real life commitments with that. However, this weekend, I have finally been able to carry out successful blocker operations against WA proposals. Side note: for those of you who don't know what a blocker operation is, it is essentially a series of raids carried out against select WA delegates approving a proposal, the goal being to remove their approvals from the proposal, thus blocking the proposal from reaching the floor of the WA.

Anyways, this past weekend, I worked with forces from Amestris and Lily to try and block this GA proposal and this SC proposal. I should note that the proposals targeted were not selected for any other reason than that they exhibited good test targets, one being barely in queue, the other nearing queue.

Over the course of two updates, a relatively small force of four, then five members, some experienced, some amateurs, displaced ~20 selected delegates. Several of the target delegates were approving both proposals we intended to block. Before our first run on Friday Major, the proposal in the SC was within 10 approvals of reaching the floor, but after our removals the author of the proposal determined that the proposal could not reach quorum by the deadline, and pulled it. After our run Saturday Minor, the GA proposal which had been in quorum fell out of queue. Although it received approvals over the next 11 hours, it did not receive enough to go back in queue. By the next update, it was lacking two needed approvals, and was removed.

The point of my posting this topic is simply to show the gameplay community that this kind of military action is absolutely feasible and effective. If a small group of soldiers with mixed skill, a short list of targets, and a couple updates can make this kind of difference, imagine what a slightly larger group highly skilled ones could do. If TBH were to direct their efforts away from tag raids and towards blocker operations, they could pose a significant problem to anyone involved in the WA.

Naturally, I am quite excited about all this, being anti-WA and all. However, there is no reason this kind of tactic need be limited to the particular minority of gameplay I am a part of. Raiders could use this to oppose liberation attempts on regions they have raided (indeed, TBH once executed a similar operation to prevent the passage of "Liberate Illuminati" a couple years ago). Organizations with interest in the WA could use this to oppose proposals they dislike for ideological reasons, such as a repeal of legislation they supported and wish to defend. Then there's the whole question of SC legitimacy held by some. This is an unexplored arena of gameplay, and I hope to see more military organizations make use of it.

[Tinhampton]

No hard feelings on my part, lads. I can tell from first-hand experience that this is an interesting concept!

[Armaros]

Im generally indifferent to the WA as a whole. It could be useful against liberations, but there it's use ends for about 90% of GP.

[Roavin]

TGW and friends also once raided KAISERREICH at the update before "Condemn The Order of the Grey Wardens" completed the vote. KAISERREICH's MoFA at the time, Cresenthia, had written the proposal, and KR itself voted for it. Upon taking the Delegacy, the invading Delegate then voted against it. It was purely symbolic, of course, since it was failing anyway, but that didn't matter - the point was made.

I like the idea in principle, despite not being anti-WA whatsoever, though it's not something I'd do particularly often.

[Indo-Malaysia]

This is certainly very interesting. I might give TMO a poke and try it out one day.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

I wonder if the reverse is feasible also, raiding regions to be able to approve resolutions. You'd probably need a larger force than you do to block resolutions.

[Vando0sa]

Ooohh I need to get WA mobile again! New forms of raiding sound nice!

[Frattastan IV]

TBH did it to weaken the 'For' vote in Liberate Illuminati too, iirc.

I wonder if the reverse is feasible also, raiding regions to be able to approve resolutions. You'd probably need a larger force than you do to block resolutions.

Possible, but you would need to hold the region until the proposal reaches the floor, which makes it a bit more complicated.

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

Should there be a mechanic where a nation can "Collapse" the WA?

[Indibagion Mer]

Yeah no we won’t be doing that

[Galiantus III]

Im generally indifferent to the WA as a whole. It could be useful against liberations, but there it's use ends for about 90% of GP.

My personal hope is that this will involve people who care about the WA in gameplay more, adding more activity and depth here. Raiders and Defenders will keep doing their thing, but other people will be attacking or defending WA proposals.

I wonder if the reverse is feasible also, raiding regions to be able to approve resolutions. You'd probably need a larger force than you do to block resolutions.

That's an interesting concept. One way to do this would be to have a group of people go out and create a bunch of new regions a few updates before, have them password the regions with the same password, and then go through the update before to push them all to be delegates. As long as the people you push to be delegate know to approve the proposal you want, then you can get an approval for each one you've set up.

But arguably it is easier to just defend from blocking: The list of targets for a force trying to block is significantly smaller, and already known, which is very different from raids. However, such a preserver force needs to be especially proactive about setting up that kind of operation.

TBH did it to weaken the 'For' vote in Liberate Illuminati too, iirc.

They did! I was there, I participated, and I take partial credit for helping them plan that operation. I will say though, the relative effectiveness between proposals awaiting approval and those on the floor is pretty different. On the floor, the only delegates that make sense to target are the ones with a lot of endorsements, since they are the ones with the most influence. With approvals, however, the number of endorsements is irrelevant, so a small force can make a huge difference.

[Bears Armed]

Im generally indifferent to the WA as a whole. It could be useful against liberations, but there it's use ends for about 90% of GP.

My personal hope is that this will involve people who care about the WA in gameplay more, adding more activity and depth here. Raiders and Defenders will keep doing their thing, but other people will be attacking or defending WA proposals.

Oh, the old "let's try forcing everybody to play R/D, they'll enjoy it if they ever try it" argument again.

Speaking as a GA regular, this will not get me involved in so-called "gameplay". Even if my computer access was at suitable times for the updates (which, due to time zones, it isn't), I only have a limited amount of time available for playing NS and am not going to use most of it on that time on an aspect of the game that I don't find at all enjoyable in the hope of having a few minutes left in which to play one of the aspects that I do enjoy. If raiders keep on mucking-up the GA like this then I'll probably just take a break from the GA, and spend more time on another aspect of the game that I actually enjoy -- so, not R/D -- instead.

I wonder how those authors who spend money on stamps to lobby for delegate approvals feel about raiders -- who apparently don't even care about the contents and merits of the proposals concerned -- deliberately taking those approvals away again just for schadenfreude?
I suspect that if more raiders had experience with trying to get proposals to the floor then fewer of them would be interested in this sort of wrecking.

[Frattastan IV]

If raiders keep on mucking-up the GA like this then I'll probably just take a break from the GA, and spend more time on another aspect of the game that I actually enjoy -- so, not R/D -- instead.

I wonder how those authors who spend money on stamps to lobby for delegate approvals feel about raiders -- who apparently don't even care about the contents and merits of the proposals concerned -- deliberately taking those approvals away again just for schadenfreude?
I suspect that if more raiders had experience with trying to get proposals to the floor then fewer of them would be interested in this sort of wrecking.

I don't think "this" sort of wrecking is particularly different or harsher than any other form of raiding-caused wrecking, so I don't expect any regrets.

If anything, the lack of interest would stem from the fact that the disruptive potential of this is too limited to be worth the effort as a regular thing.

[Lord Dominator]

Tried this once, not something I want to do for anything other than the occasional SC proposal (probably Liberations for the most part). As noted by BA directly above, deliberately targeting GA proposals (especially) is rather rude to the people who play that game (myself included on occasion), and moreover in my opinion is rather a step above regular raiding since it involves deliberate targeting of something someone created as part of an entirely different game to destroy (not that regular raiding doesn't do something similar anyways, but it's usually not so essentially personal). I could go on about my thoughts with the forces needed to successfully run these sorts of things, but I think I've made my other point effectively.

[Kranostav]

I know the topic of approvals has always been somewhere on the docket in the WA, this becoming popularized could impact how approvals are dealt with in the future, and would also probably incentivize approval stacking among authors and various WA blocs.

I imagine a more effective version of this would be to displace vulnerable delegates during close votes to sway the results. However I am not too experienced on the intricacies of how a delegate losing power at the final update of a vote closing or the update before a vote closes works with WA votes.

[Lord Dominator]

I know the topic of approvals has always been somewhere on the docket in the WA, this becoming popularized could impact how approvals are dealt with in the future, and would also probably incentivize approval stacking among authors and various WA blocs.

Approval stacking isn't much of an option, there are very few delegates in the grand scheme of things that actually would care enough to do so who don't already.

[Galiantus III]

If anything, the lack of interest would stem from the fact that the disruptive potential of this is too limited to be worth the effort as a regular thing.

The interest for me, personally, comes from knowing I am disrupting the activities of more powerful players in the game.

Tried this once, not something I want to do for anything other than the occasional SC proposal (probably Liberations for the most part). As noted by BA directly above, deliberately targeting GA proposals (especially) is rather rude to the people who play that game (myself included on occasion), and moreover in my opinion is rather a step above regular raiding since it involves deliberate targeting of something someone created as part of an entirely different game to destroy (not that regular raiding doesn't do something similar anyways, but it's usually not so essentially personal). I could go on about my thoughts with the forces needed to successfully run these sorts of things, but I think I've made my other point effectively.

I could say the same thing about raiders: It's rude to the community you are harming, and involves deliberate targeting of something never created to be involved in a raid - oftentimes with indifference to the existence of the WA. And yes, it can be intensely personal for the natives affected. This doesn't mean raiders are being mean, they're just doing what they see as fun. This is no different than if me or someone else carries out this kind of operation for fun.

In fact, both authors of the proposals I blocked have taken it extremely well - Tinhampton even posted here and says he thinks this is "an interesting concept". The people opposing this have not been personally affected. I could also argue that my vision for military gameplay is more likely in line with what Max Barry expected people to do than what raiders actually do: The WA is at the center of this game, and regions are the ones with strings to pull in the WA. From a design perspective, this is what you would have expected to happen, but in practice what actually happened is military gameplay was severed from the WA and became its own thing.

[Kranostav]

I know the topic of approvals has always been somewhere on the docket in the WA, this becoming popularized could impact how approvals are dealt with in the future, and would also probably incentivize approval stacking among authors and various WA blocs.

Approval stacking isn't much of an option, there are very few delegates in the grand scheme of things that actually would care enough to do so who don't already.

There are a fair amount of WA active delegates who don't approve proposals but proceed to vote for them. Especially with how easily you can get something to vote by a campaign TG, I imagine that could be used far more extensively on proposals than it is already.

[Frattastan IV]

I could also argue that my vision for military gameplay is more likely in line with what Max Barry expected people to do than what raiders actually do: The WA is at the center of this game, and regions are the ones with strings to pull in the WA. From a design perspective, this is what you would have expected to happen, but in practice what actually happened is military gameplay was severed from the WA and became its own thing.

Yes, Max Barry totally expected people to try and prevent any proposal from reaching the voting floor.

[Galiantus III]

I could also argue that my vision for military gameplay is more likely in line with what Max Barry expected people to do than what raiders actually do: The WA is at the center of this game, and regions are the ones with strings to pull in the WA. From a design perspective, this is what you would have expected to happen, but in practice what actually happened is military gameplay was severed from the WA and became its own thing.

Yes, Max Barry totally expected people to try and prevent any proposal from reaching the voting floor.

Not what I was saying. I meant that he probably expected people to try and influence the WA by moving to other regions and endorsing a different delegate. I wasn't saying he expected military gameplay or anything resembling what we see today.

I know the topic of approvals has always been somewhere on the docket in the WA, this becoming popularized could impact how approvals are dealt with in the future, and would also probably incentivize approval stacking among authors and various WA blocs.

I imagine a more effective version of this would be to displace vulnerable delegates during close votes to sway the results. However I am not too experienced on the intricacies of how a delegate losing power at the final update of a vote closing or the update before a vote closes works with WA votes.

Yeah, it likely will serve to either create more defined political parties within the WA or it will result in the WA acting like a more homogeneous organization. Either way, it should lend some realism and depth to the WA.

By my calculation, the effectiveness of approvals significantly outweighs votes, and if you are going to oppose a proposal it makes sense to try and stop it sooner than later anyways. However, I will not discount the possibility of swinging votes (especially close ones) with that kind of strategy.

[Lord Dominator]

I could say the same thing about raiders: It's rude to the community you are harming, and involves deliberate targeting of something never created to be involved in a raid - oftentimes with indifference to the existence of the WA. And yes, it can be intensely personal for the natives affected. This doesn't mean raiders are being mean, they're just doing what they see as fun. This is no different than if me or someone else carries out this kind of operation for fun.

In fact, both authors of the proposals I blocked have taken it extremely well - Tinhampton even posted here and says he thinks this is "an interesting concept". The people opposing this have not been personally affected. I could also argue that my vision for military gameplay is more likely in line with what Max Barry expected people to do than what raiders actually do: The WA is at the center of this game, and regions are the ones with strings to pull in the WA. From a design perspective, this is what you would have expected to happen, but in practice what actually happened is military gameplay was severed from the WA and became its own thing.

I'm well aware that both have taken it fairly well, but I still think that approval runs are going to be more personal than most raids (sans ones on pure defender regions) simply because you are deliberately trashing the effort of a single person to get their thing to vote, which I see as a bit more specifically personal than regional occupations/destruction.

Edit: To be clear I mean that it can appear significantly more personal to the person who's proposal is being nuked in the approval stage, rather than the people doing it are targeting that person specifically (which goes out the window if your political parties become a thing).

Yeah, it likely will serve to either create more defined political parties within the WA or it will result in the WA acting like a more homogeneous organization. Either way, it should lend some realism and depth to the WA.

Which at present, I think I can speak those more regular in the GA forum, but that is not something that is wanted. Maybe it would be something for the SC, but that's already essentially an extension of Gameplay, not a completely separate community from Gameplay that doesn't want to be even more connected to Gameplay.

[Auralia]

In fact, both authors of the proposals I blocked have taken it extremely well - Tinhampton even posted here and says he thinks this is "an interesting concept". The people opposing this have not been personally affected.

This is not true.

As one of the authors affected, I would like to make it clear that I found it quite annoying, as I will now have to telegram delegates again to bring the proposal back into the queue, which will cost extra stamps and require a customized telegram for those who I previously contacted. There will also be some degree of voter fatigue to contend with.

In general, I believe regional gameplay has far too much one-way influence on the GA game already; this is just yet another example. Accordingly, I oppose this practice.

[Galiantus III]

@Auralia

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. You were very composed in your responses in the GA forum, so I thought you weren't terribly annoyed. Sorry to misrepresent you.

At the same time, though, there is an argument to be made that the WA ought to put some effort into existing and functioning. This is the only kind of competitive power that exists to compete with it, and is a perfectly valid form of play. I hope to see many players make use of this, as well as many defend the WA from it. I have made a political move, and it is up to you or others to respond if you oppose it.

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

Gonna have to agree with Auralia, BA, etc, here.

Disrupting roleplaying by raiding RP regions isn't all that popular, so not sure why intentionally disrupting the GA is a good idea.

@Auralia

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. You were very composed in your responses in the GA forum, so I thought you weren't terribly annoyed. Sorry to misrepresent you.

At the same time, though, there is an argument to be made that the WA ought to put some effort into existing and functioning. This is the only kind of competitive power that exists to compete with it, and is a perfectly valid form of play. I hope to see many players make use of this, as well as many defend the WA from it. I have made a political move, and it is up to you or others to respond if you oppose it.

The only way they could do that is to participate in Gameplay, which they don't want to do.

Imagine if you had to RP out a raid in order to take a region.

[Galiantus III]

Gonna have to agree with Auralia, BA, etc, here.

Disrupting roleplaying by raiding RP regions isn't all that popular, so not sure why intentionally disrupting the GA is a good idea.

@Auralia

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. You were very composed in your responses in the GA forum, so I thought you weren't terribly annoyed. Sorry to misrepresent you.

At the same time, though, there is an argument to be made that the WA ought to put some effort into existing and functioning. This is the only kind of competitive power that exists to compete with it, and is a perfectly valid form of play. I hope to see many players make use of this, as well as many defend the WA from it. I have made a political move, and it is up to you or others to respond if you oppose it.

The only way they could do that is to participate in Gameplay, which they don't want to do.

Imagine if you had to RP out a raid in order to take a region.

Well the GA isn't even predominantly about RP, even in terms of population. Most people neither RP nor GP, yet decisions by the GA affect their nations. If GA proposals didn't have any affect on people's stats, just simply existed as laws to RP with, then you would be correct.

And you know full well that gameplayers would RP if it was required to get their GP objectives done. Besides, most gameplayers already RP, and such a structure could allow them to have even more gameplay power than they currently have.