Feasibility of WA Blocker Operations

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

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.

I would imagine this would become a very common problem.

[Galiantus III]

But it is frustrating that this is going to be a thing now. Expect a certain amount of justified and deserved backlash.

Yeah, I fully expect backlash. It doesn't particularly bother me, though. If I can have some fun for a few months, then this transitions to something only ever used by parties with a specific agenda to push in the WA, that is only attempted on 10-25% of proposals, I'll be happy.

[The Tri State Area and Maine]

But it is frustrating that this is going to be a thing now. Expect a certain amount of justified and deserved backlash.

Yeah, I fully expect backlash. It doesn't particularly bother me, though. If I can have some fun for a few months, then this transitions to something only ever used by parties with a specific agenda to push in the WA, that is only attempted on 10-25% of proposals, I'll be happy.

and by having fun for a few months, you ruin the game for a bunch of other people.

[Yelda]

This is an interesting concept and, frankly, could be fairly entertaining. I'll be watching to see how it progresses.

[Sciongrad]

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.

To what extent do you think GA players participating in GP politics makes GP significantly less playable?

[Kiravian WA Mission]

WA blocker operations are, of course, a thing that I support one hundred percent. It should be done much more, and I believe it will be done much more in the future.

[Lord Dominator]

I believe it will be done much more in the future.

Keep dreaming

[Galiantus III]

I believe it will be done much more in the future.

Keep dreaming

What's hilarious is that he also approves pretty much everything, which would make him a very likely target of this.

[Zizou]

Even though messing with the WA will upset more people than tagging some long dead region, targeting certain WA resolutions also actually adds a purpose to otherwise dry and routine tag runs.

I believe it will be done much more in the future.

Keep dreaming

I do believe that certain orgs, or at least Amestris, will use delegates approving certain WA proposals as a primary factor for targeting certain regions on their tags.

[Lord Dominator]

Keep dreaming

What's hilarious is that he also approves pretty much everything, which would make him a very likely target of this.

And voting against everything, so it would almost even out if not for small delegate approvals being more worthwhile than large delegate ones to them.

[Kiravian WA Mission]

Keep dreaming

What's hilarious is that he also approves pretty much everything, which would make him a very likely target of this.

That and I've only got one endorsement to my name. I think this would be swell, though.

[Lord Dominator]

What's hilarious is that he also approves pretty much everything, which would make him a very likely target of this.

That and I've only got one endorsement to my name. I think this would be swell, though.

Having one endorsement isn't terribly impressive, but okay

[Ransium]

I don't care for this. I don't actually think this will become something that happens all the time, but let's think about what will happen if it did. The WA is already the aspect of the game with the highest barriers to entry, why make it even harder? Most authors have spent around a dollar campaigning for their proposal, which may not seem like a large amount to most people can be a real challenge for some. The authors who get their proposals killed have to send out more TGs, and all the WA delegates have to get another TG. If this becomes super common place, I imagine admin will probably just lower the quorum percentage required, which will likely allow shittier proposals come to vote. So practically the effect will be: 1) Authors, many of whom have already gone to great effort to draft a quality proposal, will have to spend more money getting a proposal to vote, making higher barriers to entry and fewer incentives to actually participate 2) WA delegates will have to receive more campaign TGs without any good reason, and 3) There could be more shitty proposals making it to quorum.

[Arasi Luvasa]

It sounds to me like the only thing Admin would do is modify the rules surrounding TG use, so that when an organization does one of these runs it is legal for a campaign to contact the delegate, explain what happened, and ask that they extend their approval again. And right now there also isn't anything keeping a group of nations from joining together and watching for when these operations happen, specifically so they can do just that. There are ways to counter this without looking to admin for major technical changes, you just aren't thinking of them.

As Ransium mentioned, what about those of us who are not American? Having to spend multiple dollars can get quite costly for some of us and some don't necessarily have great reservoirs of cash to use on campaigning, instead placing budgeting a portion of what they have.

[Malphe]

I don't care for this. I don't actually think this will become something that happens all the time, but let's think about what will happen if it did. The WA is already the aspect of the game with the highest barriers to entry, why make it even harder? Most authors have spent around a dollar campaigning for their proposal, which may not seem like a large amount to most people can be a real challenge for some. The authors who get their proposals killed have to send out more TGs, and all the WA delegates have to get another TG. If this becomes super common place, I imagine admin will probably just lower the quorum percentage required, which will likely allow shittier proposals come to vote. So practically the effect will be: 1) Authors, many of whom have already gone to great effort to draft a quality proposal, will have to spend more money getting a proposal to vote, making higher barriers to entry and fewer incentives to actually participate 2) WA delegates will have to receive more campaign TGs without any good reason, and 3) There could be more shitty proposals making it to quorum.

I do think this is an interesting idea and I'm all for different ways to play the game and interact in R/D but yeah, Ransi has got a point.

[Cormactopia Prime]

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.

To what extent do you think GA players participating in GP politics makes GP significantly less playable?

If your part of the game is less playable with more people participating, maybe you need to reevaluate what's wrong with your part of the game that makes it so exclusionary. The World Assembly, including the General Assembly, is supposed to be for all players, not just the tiny few who happen to hang out in the General Assembly forum -- a smaller subset than gameplay even. So no, I don't accept that other players should just butt out of your sandbox.

For what it's worth, the complaints being made here about WA-related invasions are only making me more interested in them.

[Arasi Luvasa]

To what extent do you think GA players participating in GP politics makes GP significantly less playable?

If your part of the game is less playable with more people participating, maybe you need to reevaluate what's wrong with your part of the game that makes it so exclusionary. The World Assembly, including the General Assembly, is supposed to be for all players, not just the tiny few who happen to hang out in the General Assembly forum -- a smaller subset than gameplay even. So no, I don't accept that other players should just butt out of your sandbox.

For what it's worth, the complaints being made here about WA-related invasions are only making me more interested in them.

Not what is being argued. What is being argued is that GA has practically no effect on GP but this measure, which is essentially an abuse of a system, will inevitably have a large effect on GA. There is no argument that people shouldn't get involved in the GA, just that it should not be through raiding gameplay (particularly as that forces those who do not want to take part of that function of the game to participate in some form).

[Frattastan IV]

What is being argued is that GA has practically no effect on GP but this measure, which is essentially an abuse of a system, will inevitably have a large effect on GA. There is no argument that people shouldn't get involved in the GA, just that it should not be through raiding gameplay (particularly as that forces those who do not want to take part of that function of the game to participate in some form).

Yes, this (abuse of the system, forces others to get involved when they don't want to) is a standard anti-raiding argument that has been made and ignored for years. The best you can expect is "it's a game lolz".

I think Lord Dominator takes a balanced view here.

I think that Lord Dominator traces an arbitrary distinction (to the point of arguing that the emptying and passwording of a region is more 'reversible' than a proposal failing quorum!) dictated by the fact the he authored WA proposals himself.

And lol at everyone who suggested that founderless regions 'deserve it' because they aren't home to active communities or because their founders are incapable of logging in.

[Bears Armed]

If your part of the game is less playable with more people participating

Trying to draft proposals is participating in the GA.
Commenting -- hopefully in a helpful way -- on other people's proposals is participating in the GA.
Taking part in the debates once the proposals have been submitted is participating in the GA.
Roleplay about the drafting & voting on proposals/resolutions, and about interactions between the diplomats that nations have posted to GA HQ, is participating in the GA.
Discussing (and maybe voting on) the merits of proposed resolutions in regions' & organisations' offsite forums is participating in the GA.
Voting directly on GA resolutions is participating in the GA.
Even trying to keep GA proposals that you actually dislike from reaching the floor is participating in the GA (although hopefully you would try discussion in the drafting threads first).

Unseating delegates to remove proposed resolutions from quorum, without caring what those proposals are about, just because you enjoy wrecking things? That isn't "participating" in the GA, it's trying to wreck it... so don't be surprised if some of the players who do "participate" get annoyed and try to get your manner of "playing" restricted.

_________________________________________________________________________

Hypothetical situation: There's a Chess championship in progress, and a bunch of people who've never shown any obvious interest in chess burst into the location and start playing a 'Dodgeball' game in which the chess-players are treated as targets: Would you say that they were "participating" in the Chess championship?

[Lord Dominator]

I think Lord Dominator takes a balanced view here.

I think that Lord Dominator traces an arbitrary distinction (to the point of arguing that the emptying and passwording of a region is more 'reversible' than a proposal failing quorum!) dictated by the fact the he authored WA proposals himself.

I don't believe I've ever stated that I'm not biased in this.
But, for the sake of argument, a thought experiment if you will.

1) A typical region occupation and total destruction, led by yours truly if you feel like that would be accurate. Upon realization that the region is going to be destroyed and defenders won't be helping for whatever reason, the population splits into multiple regions, joins other ones, or etc. Most of them (yes I recognize the most) continue playing the game in some way.
2) GA blocker operations, taken up to large scale against most or all proposals in queue (for comparison sake, or because someone is extremely anti-GA). Most or all proposals end up failing to make queue, requiring multiple submissions if queue making remains possible.

Neither is reversible, but which one (at-scale, because it's largely harmless as a party trick) is more involved in blocking players from playing their game, if I might?

And yes, regional destruction is bad. I like being the villain. Get over it.

[King Bradley]

And yet raiding is as much a part of the private property of NationStates as the World Assembly is. Unlike dodge ballers during a private world chess championship. Nice false correlation.

Amestris will continue these actions against the World Assembly. Now that we have completed this test, I will concede that we will focus on the SC since that obviously has the most impact on GP. However if there is an interest to take action against the GA, I won’t restrict it. Additionally I’ve told Galiantus that I’m also interested in playing both sides of this concept since it doesn’t violate my personal philosohphy on standard R/D. I look forward to seeing other orgs trying to stop us, and us trying to potentially stop other orgs from doing the same to proposals we want to see pass.

[Lord Dominator]

And yet raiding is as much a part of the private property of NationStates as the World Assembly is. Unlike dodge ballers during a private world chess championship. Nice false correlation.

Amestris will continue these actions against the World Assembly. Now that we have completed this test, I will concede that we will focus on the SC since that obviously has the most impact on GP. However if there is an interest to take action against the GA, I won’t restrict it. Additionally I’ve told Galiantus that I’m also interested in playing both sides of this concept since it doesn’t violate my personal philosohphy on standard R/D. I look forward to seeing other orgs trying to stop us, and us trying to potentially stop other orgs from doing the same to proposals we want to see pass.

So you're going independent then? Chasing and preserving delegacies is a defender thing after all.

[King Bradley]

Only within the concept of pushing or blocking WA proposals am I considering it, and only because I would like to see this become more mainstream. As far as standard R/D I am still staunchly raider.

[Fahran]

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.

In my experience, it is, albeit with a bit more difficulty. Hypothetically, a group of raiders or WA puppets could seize or found regions and could with two members per region push a resolution to quorum within a single update. I have toyed with this method for a past commendation and added a couple votes, though, notably, the resolution would have come to quorum anyhow.

LOTS OF TEXT

Excellent work on your test run, Gali, even if it removed a resolution I wanted to see make quorum. I believe your method has a lot of potential to spice up GP, and it was nice to see some of that potential realized. If we as a community pursue the basic premise further, it could radically transform raiding - which seems to emphasize refounds and tags at the moment. I'm really quite excited about all this. Sorry I could tag along. Maybe next time?

[Old Hope]

You all who think that admin will never intervene seem not to have looked at the facts, most importantly the massive difference between control raiding(to get total control over a region by occupying and refounding), tag raiding, and WA raiding. This is not to say that admin will intervene but...
Fact 1:Control Raiding was initially banned. I know the history of nation states. The only reason why it was ever allowed was that the manual mod policing required was too tedious, and even then admin intervened and created influence.
Fact 2:A reason often provided for not banning raiding again was that regions(and by extent, nations) can be secured by a founder against control raiding. It isn't exactly full opt-out but as long as the region and founder are active and not completely stupid(such as giving dubious people Border Control) nothing bad should happen.
Fact 3: The above reason does not exist in the WA. The only way for a region to mitigate this is having too much WA endorsements.
Fact 4: Unlike Control and tag raiding, WA raiding affects proposers regardless of the safety of the region they reside in.
Fact 5: WA autor proposers have no say over the WA delegate numbers or distribution; or the safety measures those enact.
Fact 6: The safety measure that works(password) is highly prohibitive for growth, and often incompatible with the nature of a region.
Fact 7:No WA delegate is required to solely align their decisions in the interest of the World Assembly.
Fact 8:The barriers due to Fact 5 and 7 do not exist in tag- and/or control raiding; and a password is more prohibitive than a founder.
Fact 9:Control raiding needs numbers, and can be countered by numbers and swift execution. Tag raiding can be countered by detags, and/or manual actions by native delegates taking the seat again. None of those defensive methods require excessive responses. By contrast, WA raiding can not be countered by simply waiting. The removal of the approval is automatic when a new nation assumes power. When the old nation comes back the approval is not reinstated. Counter - operations have NO practical effect. Only the delegate can give the approval again, and it is unreasonable to ask all WA delegates to be online 24/7. Passwords are excessive. Having to rally more than 200 people to create new endorsements for a quick support chain is absolutely out of proportion with the number of people needed to remove any proposal - ten.

The gigantic differences should now be obvious. But there is more.

Fact 10:The manner of tag raiding which greatly strengthens WA raiding as well is based on an exploit that allows nations to elect more than one WA delegate in a single update, and that can be fixed much more easily than the existance of raiding.

The players who still support this measure should think about the above points very carefully.