Why are invaders allowed?

[Soups and Sandwiches]

I haven’t understood this before, why?

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

Because the site owner thinks it's cool.

[Nationstatorship]

I haven’t understood this before, why?

Because they add a dimension to the game that isn't possible with just roleplaying.

[Soups and Sandwiches]

I haven’t understood this before, why?

Because they add a dimension to the game that isn't possible with just roleplaying.

Well, many regions can collapse because of it, right?

Because the site owner thinks it's cool.

Cool.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I haven’t understood this before, why?

Tell us, mysterious puppet of a player who has existed for awhile, why do you think invaders are allowed?

My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who abuses her power! Make her stop!
Delegates are elected: If you don't like yours, it's up to you to get that nation unelected! Delegates are free to use and abuse their power as they see fit.

[Reploid Productions]

Oh goodie, this sort of thing again. A moment, while I go dig up old posts on the subject...

Bajillionth verse, same as the first as to why that will not happen. Unless someone ever finally manages to come up with an actual, solid, useful answer to the the same set of questions I ask every time "ban raiding!" has been brought up.

Or, the tl;dr version for those who don't want to go through the links: "Game can't automatically tell a raid WA delegate change from a not-raid WA delegate change. Since raids and not-raids look completely identical to the game, we can't ban raids without also banning not-raids. Banning not-raids would really, really suck for the vast majority of players, so we don't ban either."

[Soups and Sandwiches]

I haven’t understood this before, why?

Tell us, mysterious puppet of a player who has existed for awhile, why do you think invaders are allowed?

My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who abuses her power! Make her stop!
Delegates are elected: If you don't like yours, it's up to you to get that nation unelected! Delegates are free to use and abuse their power as they see fit.

It exists because people are bored and want something to actually get affected. So they invented raiding.

Oh goodie, this sort of thing again. A moment, while I go dig up old posts on the subject...

Bajillionth verse, same as the first as to why that will not happen. Unless someone ever finally manages to come up with an actual, solid, useful answer to the the same set of questions I ask every time "ban raiding!" has been brought up.

Or, the tl;dr version for those who don't want to go through the links: "Game can't automatically tell a raid WA delegate change from a not-raid WA delegate change. Since raids and not-raids look completely identical to the game, we can't ban raids without also banning not-raids. Banning not-raids would really, really suck for the vast majority of players, so we don't ban either."

A solid answer? I may not succeed.

[Queen Yuno]

Because the site owner thinks it's cool.

This and it only affects like 0.001% of abandoned regions

People who notice their founder's gone missing should sieze the opportunity to claim all their members

[Aurum Raider]

It exists because people are bored and want something to actually get affected. So they invented raiding.

I think it should go without saying that bored people play games online, yeah.

Raiding - in most cases - doesn't do that much damage. Regions rarely get devastated beyond recovery, and you'll enjoy life a lot more going along with the flow and enjoying the ride.

[WayNeacTia]

I haven’t understood this before, why?

Because it is the way the game works. You have the most endorsements, you become delegate.

[Lord Dominator]

To summarize what Reppy said, because to remove the ability to raid entirely would make an entirely different game, in both technical and play terms.