Feasibility of WA Blocker Operations

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

Well the GA isn't even predominantly about RP, even in terms of population.

That isn't my point. My point is that it's stupid to force people to partake in Gaemplay in order to play how they want to, just as it would be stupid for Gameplayers to need to partake in the GA and RP in order to play how they want to.

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.

You can work around that by simply making a puppet, which takes two minutes. You can't work around 20 approvals for your proposal dropping at the last minute and missing quorum, forcing you to spend more money to get it to quorum.

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.

Some people might, but I imagine a lot of people would rather just quit instead of being forced to RP, especially those less dedicated to R/D, similar to how it would chase people off of participating in the GA. This effect would be even worse for new players I would imagine.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If the GA 'regulars' were to be serious about dealing with this issue, the solution is simple: weight approvals by delegate endorsements. This problem basically goes away, simply by eliminating the importance of Delegates getting overthrown in rapid successive raids of this sort.

[Wallenburg]

Did it ever occur to you that some people don't want to play the R/D game? That some people don't like having people come in and destroy things just because they think it's fun to ruin things for other people? Gameplay has already forced highly debilitating concessions out of the GA community. Tactics like these further exacerbate the situation, and only make people want to leave NationStates entirely.

[Lord Dominator]

I should clarify my opposition is more to repeated use on lots of things rather than the occasional use against something you rather dislike, and to the GA part more in general against stuff that isn't from people submitting and paying for garbage we all hate.

[Galiantus III]

For those of you trying to persuade me to not use this, sorry, but there's not much you can do. I've been on NS since 2012, and 95% of that time has been me being anti-WA for one reason or another. I have gone back and forth between raiders and defenders, but I have always, always opposed the WA as an illegitimate, corrupt organization.

For those of you saying it's a terrible thing to force this on WA resolution authors because it threatens people who don't want to participate in military gameplay, you must also be willing to say the same about raiding and natives if you are going to be consistent. This is simply a newfound application of military gameplay, and there is nothing wrong with putting the knowledge of it out in the open for organizations within Gameplay to make use of for their own purposes.

If you oppose people doing this, don't go crying to Admin to fix the system. The system has existed this way since the creation of the WA, and it has benefited greatly from having no one utilize this strategy so far. Instead, adapt and oppose this in gameplay. Get creative. I know there are those out there who possess the skills and desires to counter this kind of attack. And frankly, the game needs this kind of shakeup, so take it and have fun with it, because this is soon to be a normal point of conflict.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

WA authors who worked to message the delegates to put it in quorum and seeing that approvals are short because of raids, it comes off as undoing efforts from API or stamps the author ended up using and as Auralia noted telegrams will have to be revised. However applying the same standards, like invasions where raiders eject people, I don't think that this WA blocker ability should be removed but the comparison between the two is not exact as one is about you doing work at something to pass a resolution but the other involves emotional relevance and someone being dislocated from one region to another.

[Wallenburg]

For those of you trying to persuade me to not use this, sorry, but there's not much you can do. I've been on NS since 2012, and 95% of that time has been me being anti-WA for one reason or another. I have gone back and forth between raiders and defenders, but I have always, always opposed the WA as an illegitimate, corrupt organization.

Then don't participate in the WA. Simple enough.

For those of you saying it's a terrible thing to force this on WA resolution authors because it threatens people who don't want to participate in military gameplay, you must also be willing to say the same about raiding and natives if you are going to be consistent. This is simply a newfound application of military gameplay, and there is nothing wrong with putting the knowledge of it out in the open for organizations within Gameplay to make use of for their own purposes.

I more or less do say the same about raiding and natives. When you boil it down, preying on non-GP regions through raids/occupations is just sadism disguised as good fun. Under no other circumstances is it considered reasonable to force someone to play one game in order to enjoy another. Why should anything be different for you and your R/D game?

If you oppose people doing this, don't go crying to Admin to fix the system. The system has existed this way since the creation of the WA, and it has benefited greatly from having no one utilize this strategy so far. Instead, adapt and oppose this in gameplay. Get creative. I know there are those out there who possess the skills and desires to counter this kind of attack. And frankly, the game needs this kind of shakeup, so take it and have fun with it, because this is soon to be a normal point of conflict.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "not everyone likes gameplay". Crap like this is just one more reason why the GA and SC should be entirely separate organizations.

[Old Hope]

If you oppose people doing this, don't go crying to Admin to fix the system.

Actually, that is precisely what I WILL do if this behaviour continues. To clarify: Not to make unseating delegates impossible but the practice of tag/rapid WA raiding.
You know why?

1. It is - including a password which is a far to drastic step especially for regions with a non-exec delegate - not counterable without excessive effort(continuous ejections watch) by those raided(excessive compared to the effort by raiders)
2. It actively targets active regions(in the WA) mostly(there must be a delegate interested in doing something in the WA)
3. It actively harms regions with an executive founder and a non- executive delegate.
4. It is basically based on an exploit that makes the WA endorsements of raiders count massively more than the ones of the natives affected.
5. The above exploit is relatively easy to fix, and said fix does not make regular raiding(as opposed to tag or WA raiding) impossible or even substantially more difficult.
6. It harms users using stamps through an abusive and, for them, uncounterable process.

One or two things on the list alone would probably not be suitable for crying for admin intervention.
All six?
...Definitely!

[Armaros]

-snip-

What a load of bullshit. All 6 points you just named are entirely fair game. This is just as fair as normal raiding, except that it does less harm (non-executive delegacies) and is targeted against a resolution rather then the region itself.

[Old Hope]

-snip-

What a load of bullshit. All 6 points you just named are entirely fair game. This is just as fair as normal raiding, except that it does less harm (non-executive delegacies) and is targeted against a resolution rather then the region itself.

No:
1.It is - including a password which is a far to drastic step especially for regions with a non-exec delegate - not counterable without excessive effort(continuous ejections watch) by those raided(excessive compared to the effort by raiders)
Applies to Tag raiding(which would be impossible then). Does not apply to normal raiding- which is counterable by liberation. Does apply to rapid WA raiding(mind you, not slow WA raiding which would not be effected)
2.It actively targets active regions(in the WA) mostly(there must be a delegate interested in doing something in the WA)
Tag raiding targets pretty much every nation. Normal raiding and WAraiding(rapid or not) do this.
3.It actively harms regions with an executive founder and a non- executive delegate.
Neither normal nor tag raiding can do this. WA raiding(rapid or not) can.
4.It is basically based on an exploit that makes the WA endorsements of raiders count massively more than the ones of the natives affected.
Does not apply to normal raiding, but does apply to tag and rapid WA raiding.
5.The above exploit is relatively easy to fix, and said fix does not make regular raiding(as opposed to tag or WA raiding) impossible or even substantially more difficult.
The fix makes tag raiding impossible and rapid WA raiding impossible, while making WA raiding in general less effective.
6.It harms users using stamps through an abusive and, for them, uncounterable process.
This basically in its entirety only happens to WA raiding.

Clarification: The fix I am going to suggest does not make WA raiding impossible, but rather limits it's disproportionate power.
Note:I cannot say if the admins will do anything, but it would be better if I didn't have to ask them.

[Armaros]

No:
1.It is - including a password which is a far to drastic step especially for regions with a non-exec delegate - not counterable without excessive effort(continuous ejections watch) by those raided(excessive compared to the effort by raiders)
Applies to Tag raiding(which would be impossible then). Does not apply to normal raiding- which is counterable by liberation. Does apply to rapid WA raiding(mind you, not slow WA raiding which would not be effected)
2.It actively targets active regions(in the WA) mostly(there must be a delegate interested in doing something in the WA)
Tag raiding targets pretty much every nation. Normal raiding and WAraiding(rapid or not) do this.
3.It actively harms regions with an executive founder and a non- executive delegate.
Neither normal nor tag raiding can do this. WA raiding(rapid or not) can.
4.It is basically based on an exploit that makes the WA endorsements of raiders count massively more than the ones of the natives affected.
Does not apply to normal raiding, but does apply to tag and rapid WA raiding.
5.The above exploit is relatively easy to fix, and said fix does not make regular raiding(as opposed to tag or WA raiding) impossible or even substantially more difficult.
The fix makes tag raiding impossible and rapid WA raiding impossible, while making WA raiding in general less effective.
6.It harms users using stamps through an abusive and, for them, uncounterable process.
This basically in its entirety only happens to WA raiding.

Clarification: The fix I am going to suggest does not make WA raiding impossible, but rather limits it's disproportionate power.

You literally repeated your points. To begin:
1 your "fix" would ban tag raiding, one of the most harmless types of raiding.
2, I'm not gonna address that since I don't see what point you're making,
3 it does almost no harm, just disrupts the WA, not necessarily the region,
4 what? "Raider endorsements count massively more then the ones of affected natives"? What fanatasy world do you live in?
5 ...
6 ok? Still doesn't look that bad to me.

[Old Hope]

snip

Ok. I think you don't see the size of the problem:
During a every update...
the current state would allow just 25 people with WA access to remove around 100 or maybe more low endorsement WA delegates.
It would allow just 25 people with WA access to remove around 50 or maybe more WA delegates with 20 WA endorsements, effectively removing up to 1000 endorsements
Again, every update!
That's enough to push even the best written, heavily campaigned proposals off the queue without any possible countermeasure by the proposers. Why is this not a massive problem?

[Xoriet]

I’m against messing with the GA proposals. SC proposals based in Gameplay are fair game, but the GA proposals? That’s not Gameplay business in the way the Gameplay community sees it. Their community has enough reason to dislike us without this nonsense worsening things. It might suit you to mess with the WA for arbitrary reasons, but this would ultimately prove detrimental. Leave the GAers alone.

[Armaros]

snip

Ok. I think you don't see the size of the problem:
During a every update...
the current state would allow just 25 people with WA access to remove around 100 or maybe more low endorsement WA delegates.
It would allow just 25 people with WA access to remove around 50 or maybe more WA delegates with 20 WA endorsements, effectively removing up to 1000 endorsements
Again, every update!
That's enough to push even the best written, heavily campaigned proposals off the queue without any possible countermeasure by the proposers. Why is this not a massive problem?

Why would it? Gathering 25 updaters would be an achievement on itself, removing 50 delegates is also not an easy task, and to do it every update is ridiculous. Tag raids involve about 3-10 people at highest, and they don't happen every update. Sure, tag raiding is fast, but it requires skill to do it, skill not every org has. None of that is unfair.

I’m against messing with the GA proposals. SC proposals based in Gameplay are fair game, but the GA proposals? That’s not Gameplay business in the way the Gameplay community sees it. Their community has enough reason to dislike us without this nonsense worsening things. It might suit you to mess with the WA for arbitrary reasons, but this would ultimately prove detrimental. Leave the GAers alone.

^ also this. GAers have nothing to do with GP and shouldn't be forced to.

[Old Hope]

Ok. I think you don't see the size of the problem:
During a every update...
the current state would allow just 25 people with WA access to remove around 100 or maybe more low endorsement WA delegates.
It would allow just 25 people with WA access to remove around 50 or maybe more WA delegates with 20 WA endorsements, effectively removing up to 1000 endorsements
Again, every update!
That's enough to push even the best written, heavily campaigned proposals off the queue without any possible countermeasure by the proposers. Why is this not a massive problem?

Why would it? Gathering 25 updaters would be an achievement on itself, removing 50 delegates is also not an easy task, and to do it every update is ridiculous. Tag raids involve about 3-10 people at highest, and they don't happen every update. Sure, tag raiding is fast, but it requires skill to do it, skill not every org has. None of that is unfair.

More than 70% of all WA delegates have less than 10 endorsements. More than 90% have less than 20. It is probably possible to fully disrupt the entire World Assembly with 10 tag raiders, and definitely possible with 20. And you actually don't need to do it every update - only once or twice per proposal because the site rules prohibit more than one campaign telegram per proposal. And the long term negative effects of such behaviour isn't even factored in. You don't have to take my word for it:

Over the course of two updates, a relatively small force of four, then five members, some experienced, some amateurs, displaced ~20 selected delegates.

5 not very well organized people did this amount of damage, already.

As such, these attempts should be forcibly shelved by the community quickly.

I’m against messing with the GA proposals. SC proposals based in Gameplay are fair game, but the GA proposals? That’s not Gameplay business in the way the Gameplay community sees it. Their community has enough reason to dislike us without this nonsense worsening things. It might suit you to mess with the WA for arbitrary reasons, but this would ultimately prove detrimental. Leave the GAers alone.

^ also this. GAers have nothing to do with GP and shouldn't be forced to.

[Bears Armed]

Tried this once, not something I want to do for anything other than the occasional SC proposal (probably Liberations for the most part).

On an occasional basis, for dealing with specific proposals about which you feel strongly (especially SC ones; and preferably, especially f they're in the GA instead, ones that you've already been arguing against in the relevant forum), fair enough.
I haven't & wouldn't try this approach myself, but i did use a [manua] TG campaign successfully to get approvals removed from one SC proposal (specifically a repeal of 'Liberate Christmas', whose author was apparently relying on repeated submissions & word-of-mouth rather than TGs to gather support) that I opposed.

At the same time, though, there is an argument to be made that the WA ought to put some effort into existing and functioning.

Try writing a good GA proposal yourself, and getting it passed, before you have the arrogance to say that we aren't putting in any "effort": That might not be the sort of sandcastle-kicking "effort" that you enjoy, but it certainly does take work.

For those of you saying it's a terrible thing to force this on WA resolution authors because it threatens people who don't want to participate in military gameplay, you must also be willing to say the same about raiding and natives if you are going to be consistent.

I have said that about raiding and natives, on numerous occasions.

[Old Hope]

For those of you saying it's a terrible thing to force this on WA resolution authors because it threatens people who don't want to participate in military gameplay, you must also be willing to say the same about raiding and natives if you are going to be consistent.

I have said that about raiding and natives, on numerous occasions.

I don't like raiding either -
and even people who did not say that about raiding and natives could reasonably say that there are founders and non-executive delegates that make raiding for occupation and tag raid purposes impossible - which is not the case with WA raids. You'd need passwords for that. And passwords destroy most regions(unlike founders, who, while a potential of problems, will not always cause the death or at least stagnation of an entire region)!
Not that there should principally a blockage against WA centered invasions(although I really don't like invading for the sake of disruption); just a blockage of the rapid WA removal that gives disproportionate power to disruptive nations.
(If you still don't know what this measure is: It's simply a 1-hour cooldown after joining the World Assembly before you can leave it)

[Sciongrad]

Another GP edgelord that wants to turn the GA into a plaything? *yawn*

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

^ also this. GAers have nothing to do with GP and shouldn't be forced to.

That's what the problem is. I agree that the SC is fair game, but targeting the GA is dumb.

[Cormactopia Prime]

^ also this. GAers have nothing to do with GP and shouldn't be forced to.

That's what the problem is. I agree that the SC is fair game, but targeting the GA is dumb.

If people interested in the GA target regional Delegacies for the purpose of influencing the GA, are they really GPers influencing the GA, or GAers working through GP to influence the GA? I'm not sure how exactly anyone is arriving at these arbitrary distinctions. One can be more than one category of player.

This type of raiding would be neither more nor less legitimate than any other type of raiding. It is what it is.

[All Wild Things]

I think Lord Dominator takes a balanced view here.

Regular raiding mainly targets regions whose founders are incapable of logging in once every four weeks.

Raiding a WA proposal is destroying something that a player has put a significant amount of very recent effort into.

I can see that there is argument for thinking that it's okay to raid proposals for SC Liberations, and possibly also Commendations and Condemnations for Gameplayers.

But raiding Commends/Condemns for other players, and for GA proposals seems vindictive. I imagine both the Gameplay and wider community would frown upon that, and blacklist players involved in that kind of action.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

For those of you saying it's a terrible thing to force this on WA resolution authors because it threatens people who don't want to participate in military gameplay, you must also be willing to say the same about raiding and natives if you are going to be consistent...

Check.

I enjoyed playing issues and being in the chill region of Anarchy. Then TBR occupied it for months. So I got into the GA and have been having a blast, and learned to suffer the occasional raid gracefully. Now you people are following me to the GA too. I don't necessarily want to say "go to hell" because I do understand the appeal of expanding the frontiers of your game, and I've even enjoyed following some of your goings-on from time to time. But it is frustrating that this is going to be a thing now. Expect a certain amount of justified and deserved backlash.

This type of raiding would be neither more nor less legitimate than any other type of raiding. It is what it is.

Legitimate? Sure, to the extent that any raiding at all is "legitimate."

What it is is 1) annoying, and measurably more so than simple regional occupation (e.g., TRR players will endorse you right back, so your submission/campaign schedule doesn't get too badly messed with); and 2) yet another possible hurdle to success at what is by all accounts the most difficult part of NS to begin with.

Nice work. [/sarc]

[Lord Dominator]

I'll note that I do agree that regular regional destruction is also bad (as is occupations to a lesser extent). And while this may be late-term moralizing, I do see a difference between a situation where a region being destroyed goes to a new region (or splinters into several), and a situation where one blocks a proposal, and then nothing. Proposals only have the one way to get to vote & pass, regions have several ways to survive (and frequently do) post-occupation & destruction.

[Arasi Luvasa]

If the Portal to the Multiverse weren't around, this may very well just get me to quite this game all together. I have absolutely zero interest in raiding and defending, don't like the WA; then pretend it doesn't exist.

[Erithaca]

As a rather less experienced GA author, all I can say is that GA proposals are a whole different thing from inactive regions when it comes to raiding. Raiding an inactive region is reversible and tends to be damaging something quite minor and often simply not cared about. "Raiding" a proposal does much more irreversible damage to something that is very precious to the author and has often required months of drafting and hard work campaigning. It's the difference between smashing a LEGO house and a statue.