NATION

PASSWORD

Regional 'opt-out' for R/D? [Gameplay/Proposal]

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Anemos Major
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12675
Founded: Jun 01, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Regional 'opt-out' for R/D? [Gameplay/Proposal]

Postby Anemos Major » Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:48 am

Hullo - apologies if I break any rules or tread over etiquette in some way or another, I'm new here. I'd have posted in the summit sub-subforum above, but I saw the following and decided this might be a more appropriate place to put this.

Sedgistan wrote:The summit is effectively over, with the changes decided on (see the first post of this thread) and now open to anyone for discussion.


I'm coming at this from the point of view of an RPer observing the effects of R/D on my particular side of Nationstates over the course of a number of years; as such, I'll have to apologise in advance for any misconceptions I may have about the nature of the 'other' side of gameplay, so to speak.

The issue at hand revolves around the somewhat 'forced' participation of RP-focal regions in the R/D side of gameplay; during my time here, I've seen fairly large and varied RPing regions from Haven to Greater Dienstad earlier today being subjected to invasions and the inevitable RPer response has always been a very, very negative one. The usual prescription (passwords, more WA endorsements) is a perfectly rational one from a technical standpoint that takes the R/D side of things to be the status quo, but the real issue I have is that things have come this far without much consideration given to whether RPers want to subscribe to that status quo in the first place - and I'm sure the same applies to many non-RPers.

With many RPing nations and regions, it's actually arguable that adopting the prescribed protective measures against raiding inhibit their ability to exist in the form that RPers want them to; not as technical aspects of a separate form of gameplay, but as an association of accounts around which players can build up in-character interstate relations. With WA endos, plenty of players in major RPing regions aren't part of the WA in the first place, for a variety of reasons; whether it's because they exist on NS on an on-and-off basis and don't see the pressing need to reapply for WA membership every time they come back, or because the RPing region has a large proportion of puppets and 'alt' accounts, there are legitimate reasons for RPers neglecting to or otherwise not joining the WA - it's an optional game mechanic, and yet the disruption caused by R/D gameplay to our regions makes it a virtual necessity. Sometimes, the region is just small by virtue of its nature and the nature of the association of accounts within it, and that shouldn't have to be a cause for fear for those nations within it.

Passwords are the end-all, in effect, and it's absolutely true that they considerably negate the chances of a successful invasion. But it needs to be understood that the decision to adopt a password or not is one that fundamentally alters the nature of an RPing region, and I note this with specific reference to Greater Dienstad; as an open region more or less since its foundation, the fact that the region doesn't have a password has made it a destination where old and new RPers alike can pop in and out and interact without the long, bureaucratic acceptance and password distribution procedures that other regions have adopted. The fact that the region doesn't have a password is part of its unique and important identity (and role) in the RPing community, and as a result of the invasion today I know for a fact that there are many in the region who are considering adopting a password, not because of any issues related to the game they want to play but because of a completely different part of gameplay coming in and disrupting them for, as far as they are concerned, completely irrelevant reasons - a very, very unfortunate occurrence.

In light of all the above, it seems as though the rational course of action would be a more informed debate on the place of roleplayers and roleplaying regions in the whole R/D mechanic; yes, it's a perfectly legitimate part of Nationstates and that's a long established fact, but regions serve completely a completely different function for RPers and the R/D mecahnic fundamentally disrupts that function. To suggest that RPers 'must' be part of the R/D side of gameplay effectively places the concerns of the large and active roleplaying community below that of another part of gameplay, and I don't see why that ought to be the case at all.

What I'm positing below is just a loose proposal; even if it isn't a particularly good idea or a workable plan, that shouldn't detract from the need to have a more educated and informed debate concerning the relationship between RPing and R/D.

As it stands, what I have in mind isn't really all that complex, and doesn't necessarily have to apply entirely to RPers; simply put, an 'opt out' function for regional founders and delegates with the relevant powers would go a long way towards preserving regions that exist in a slightly different realm to that of R/D without infringing upon the right of raiders and defenders to do what they do best. Noting that the R/D mechanic is, in practice, a matter of WA endorsements and regional migration, both functions used for a wide variety of reasons other than that particular corner of gameplay, I fully acknowledge that a 'hard' change to gameplay mechanics (i.e. 'preventing' raiding and defending in strict and technical gameplay terms) would be practically unworkable.

All that would be necessary are three things. First, a founder/particular delegate would have access to a tick box allowing them to 'opt out' or 'opt into' the R/D side of gameplay. There could be a link of some sort to a short explanation of what that entails - I'm sure there's a handy one somewhere. Secondly, 'opting out' wouldn't necessarily change things in hard gameplay terms; rather, a line could be added to the regional front page, much in the same way that the tags system was implemented, noting whether a region has opted in or opted out. Finally (and not necessarily), the enforcement of a region's right to opt out of the R/D side of gameplay could be written into the rules of the game; without making any significant technical changes, the above would allow for the case-by-case prevention of the rare instances (I would hope so, at least) where invasions occur in regions which would rather choose not to be part of R/D gameplay in the first place.

It's a somewhat crude and rudimentary proposal, and for that I apologise, but it seems as though the options are limited and yet vital in a tightrope situation like this where the problem needs a solution and the solutions have the potential to be, from a technical standpoint, equally problematic. Even if the above is unworkable, and that may well be the case, I would ask that those considering this particular post refrain from calling it a day and just putting a lock on this thread; the fact remains that regions fulfil a different and arguably mutually incompatible role for RPers and R/Ders, that the prescribed manners in which RPing regions can 'protect' themselves against invasions can actually infringe upon and limit the functions regions can play for a wide variety of RPers (from mandatory WA membership, to larger numbers, to passwords) and that, after many, many years of watching RPing regions being roped into a game they don't want to play, there needs to be a more sophisticated understanding of what exactly it is that RPers want from their regions and what that ought to mean for their relationship with the R/D side of Nationstates.



E: Added 24/12/13, for new arrivals to this debate

The input from the raider side seems to be focusing almost exclusively on the realm of how R/D is effectively an integral 'part of the game'. It's been abundantly proven already that it isn't (R/D is a player-created construction making use of the WA and regions in an unintended fashion, changes were made to the game to accommodate that form of gameplay over time but by the time these developments occurred, there were people RPing, people who played NS for the WA side of things and so on and so forth) -

Luna Amore wrote:It makes about as much sense as playing chess and asking to be safeguarded against the queen. It's part of the game.


- which means that it's less this, and more asking to be safeguarded against the queen from the chess table across the room when you're trying to play bridge, whereas the way things are mean that the queen is allowed to trash our game of bridge unless we follow a particular set of rules. And all this in a room where, in theory, people are allowed to play chess, or bridge, or whatever strikes their fancy. There've been a number of slight variations along this theme that're equally questionable - there're those, for example, who seem to believe that raiding's inherent superiority derives from the fact that this site describes itself as a political simulation (somewhat satirically, may I add) and R/D is the most authentic form of simulation on this site. Which is equally questionable; if you think that the vandalising of geopolitical regions whose security and stability rests on the shoulders of a single UN delegate is a genuine reflection of international politics, so be it, but RPers have their own brand of politcking and geopolitical interaction that's flourishing on the forums. Even disregarding the fact that this site shouldn't be treated with such a closed mind, there should be no reason why one brand of 'politics' should be hoisted over another.

All that having been said, I think this discussion has developed, for the most part, to the point where RPers aren't trying to bash in the head of raiding once and for all. Nor are we asking for a blanket opt-out, despite the fact that, in theory, there's absolutely no reason why an RPer should have to find themselves dragged into the consequences of raiding - most are doing this because they recognise that the ability to opt out entirely would have an impact of sorts upon raiding, and that raiding can't really continue unless it continues to be foisted onto others against their will. And really, if raiders can't see that and understand that it's a concession being made on a terrible point out of nothing but the view that the R/D game should be preserved alongside what we're trying to build up and given its own room, there really are no greater concessions we can make during the course of a discussion such as this.

Most of what we're trying to look for - founder succession, regional officers, the assurance that raiders will stop tearing apart regions every time they finish an invasion (and that they can be held to enforced standards of behaviour) - is being pushed because we're looking for some degree of assurances having made that concession. We recognise that raiders have their own particular way of enjoying the game and that's something we don't want to get rid of outright, but we also think it's highly unlikely that raiders will suddenly find themselves incapable of enjoying that game if we secure particular means by which to keep things functioning and to allow regions to exist in a fashion that meets the needs and circumstances with which RPers find themselves saddled with. Will it become harder? Quite possibly, in a very limited capacity across a limited number of regions. Will you no longer get to do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it? Absolutely - to which I have to ask, since when was defacing regional pages outright and the RMB to the point where natives can't use either at all acceptable in the first place? All the arguments that've been thrown out completely disregard everything we've been saying for nearly fifty pages now. Get a password? Page one, and a few pages since then - Morrdh made a good point here - it's been discussed. Strip your delegate of powers? Again, page one, and this has been discussed all the way up until the last few pages as well. Move to a new region when your founder CTEs? Many people have pointed out that trying to get an entire RPing region to move, especially with the intermittent membership that defines a lot of these older regions, is a far, far more immense task than raiders can possibly imagine. And there's no decent reason why, after a few months away from the site, an older player should come back and suddenly find that they have no region to return to, no community with which to talk.

We're making our concessions, we're providing our defences. Continually parroting the same, inane mixture of 'get a thicker skin' and 'it's part of the game' doesn't do anything about that, and it doesn't develop this discussion in any way. Yes, we get that the current status quo wildly favours raiders against everybody who doesn't want to have anything to do with them - no wonder you don't want it changed. But that's the root of this entire problem, a problem that's drawn countless RPers to this thread with more to come, inevitably, and something's got to give, eventually. Again - you can't have your cake and eat it. R/D isn't the most important form of gameplay on NS, just as RPing isn't, and if we're all supposed to co-exist we need to do so under terms that are as equitable, and mindful and respectful of the other as we can make them. As it stands, they're not - and thus things need to change.
Last edited by Anemos Major on Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:50 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Andacantra
Diplomat
 
Posts: 570
Founded: Jul 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Andacantra » Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:51 am

As I understand it, Founders themselves have acted, previously, as this opt-out. In a region with a founder and Del controls turned off, then raiders might nab the delegacy but they can do nothing else. The problem with this suggestion becomes those situations which aren't obviously raids, but could argued to be, in regions with this opt-out in place. For instance, a long-term member gaining control, turning on the region, and bringing others in to hold it...part of me doubts that this would never happen in regions which "opt out" because it won't just be RPers with this opt-out on - basically anybody who could, probably would, so you could end up with "GP" regions doing this (and that sort of drama most definitely happens there). Then we end up with a situation of mod judgement calls as to what consists a raid and what doesn't, and I can't see that ending well.

It would be nice if raiders respected that "historical" (can't think of a better word) opt-out, but I can't think of any technical solutions that doesn't end up in a mess.
Last edited by Andacantra on Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Abbey Anumia
Chief Kitty of the Cat Burglars
Bi-gameplayers: Raiding and defending because both are fun and ok
Nationstates Issues **SPOILER ALERT**

User avatar
Anemos Major
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12675
Founded: Jun 01, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Anemos Major » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:13 am

Andacantra wrote:As I understand it, Founders themselves have acted, previously, as this opt-out. In a region with a founder and Del controls turned off, then raiders might nab the delegacy but they can do nothing else. The problem with this suggestion becomes those situations which aren't obviously raids, but could argued to be, in regions with this opt-out in place. For instance, a long-term member gaining control, turning on the region, and bringing others in to hold it...part of me doubts that this would never happen in regions which "opt out" because it won't just be RPers with this opt-out on - basically anybody who could, probably would, so you could end up with "GP" regions doing this (and that sort of drama most definitely happens there). Then we end up with a situation of mod judgement calls as to what consists a raid and what doesn't, and I can't see that ending well.

It would be nice if raiders respected that "historical" (can't think of a better word) opt-out, but I can't think of any technical solutions that doesn't end up in a mess.


The issue is that Founders aren't always around; some RPing regions have been around for a very long time, and where the Founders may CTE the need for regional administration doesn't die with them. What you'd find in the event that delegate controls are turned off is that RPing regions have a sort of 'time limit', where their existence only lasts as long as the founder account itself does - again, take Greater Dienstad, where the founder is relatively inactive and day-to-day administrative issues are resolved by the delegate. There's no reason why delegates shouldn't be able to fulfil their function in RPing regions, and why RPing regions can't last longer than their founders, simply because of some sort of perceived incompatibility with the R/D side of this website.

I might be misunderstanding your second point, but from what I can see there's a pretty clear set of differences between raids and a long-term member turning on the region; organised raiding isn't necessarily wanton vandalism, it's a matter of getting into a region, taking over and leaving a calling card - at least, within the context of organised R/D, which is what I'm referring to. There's a difference between grudges within a region and the organised practice of raiding and defending as a specific part of NS gameplay, and this proposal is simply a matter of ensuring that there's no spillover from that part of the game into RPing regions that, really, just want to mind their own business. If there's an internal regional fracas and these issues are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, it wouldn't be that hard to take note of that and (not) deal with it accordingly.

And with your third point, I do agree with you to a degree, but I also have to point out that there's no reason why the needs of RPers should be subordinated to those of raiders and defenders. If RPers use their regions for different purposes, and if the R/D side of things disrupts that (as it does), this is something we need to think about harder. A 'technical' solution probably doesn't exist, but I don't think it's unreasonable for RPing regions to not only say that they don't want to be part of R/D, but that they want to preserve the ability to exist without an active founder or a password barrier without the constant worry of raider vandalism at their heels. And if issues like this are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, it isn't awfully hard to tell the difference between an organised raiding groups modus operandi and simple 'internal dissent', so to speak - at the very least, it's worth giving a try for the sake of a lot of frustrated RPers.
Last edited by Anemos Major on Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The IASM
Senator
 
Posts: 3595
Founded: Jan 01, 2012
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby The IASM » Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:35 am

I must show my complete support for this proposal as raiding RP regions who have no quarrel with unless they act completely imarturely, first they attack Sapphire, then they raid Ashazeth now they ruin the glorious womb that is Greater Dienstad. These attacks are nothing more than callous barbarianism with no benefit for nationstates in any light, and are crippling some of the most important aspects of roleplaying which have been taken away in this idiocy. Greater Dienstad the school were most RPer's on this wonderful site when to train and improve themselves, it was a wonderful premise and yet now there is an infernal presence that is named the black raiders who occupied and destroyed this wonderful region for nothing more than their pretty egoist desires and their anti-social, manic and illogical chaos. These raiders are pathetic being who need to be removed from the site as they are nothing more than a deadly parasite capable of destroying this website.
HUN-01

20:22 Kirav Normal in Akai is nightmare fuel in the rest of the world.
11:33 Jedoria Something convoluted is going on in Akai probably.
Transoxthraxia: I'm no hentai connoisseur, but I'm pretty sure Akai's domestic politics would be like, at least top ten most fucked up hentais"
18:26 Deusaeuri Let me put it this way, you're what would happen if Lovecraft decided to write political dystopian techno thriller
20:19 Heku tits has gone mental
20:19 Jakee >gone
05:48 Malay lol akai sounds lovely this time of never


User avatar
Nouvel Ecosse
Diplomat
 
Posts: 899
Founded: Nov 07, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Nouvel Ecosse » Fri Dec 20, 2013 6:50 am

My point is that RPing isn't forced upon Raiders, so why the other way around. It turns people away from the game, and is a waste of time for RPers who frankly have a lot more valuable things to be doing with their time.

User avatar
Mad Jack
Diplomat
 
Posts: 978
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mad Jack » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:13 am

People should be talking about this proposal, not singling out groups you disagree with as 'barbarians' and other antagonistic phrases.

It doesn't help the conversation, especially as GD hasn't been destroyed at all.
Where is Someone Special?
<@Unibot> I don't care about defender unity.

User avatar
The Grim Reaper
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10443
Founded: Oct 08, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Grim Reaper » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:14 am

Nouvel Ecosse wrote:My point is that RPing isn't forced upon Raiders


Perhaps that would be the fairest solution, although I can't really see how.
If I can't play bass, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
Melbourne, Australia

A & Ω

Is "not a blood diamond" a high enough bar for a wedding ring? Artificial gemstones are better-looking, more ethical, and made out of PURE SCIENCE™.

User avatar
Rephesus
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8061
Founded: Aug 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Rephesus » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:20 am

The Grim Reaper wrote:
Nouvel Ecosse wrote:My point is that RPing isn't forced upon Raiders


Perhaps that would be the fairest solution, although I can't really see how.


Fair? Maybe. It would only make everyone unhappy. I believe it would be better to have some sort of enforced anti-raiding/defending policy for RP regions.

User avatar
Mad Jack
Diplomat
 
Posts: 978
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mad Jack » Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:50 am

And what nature would this policy make?

And how would it be enforced?

And what kind of RP would it protect?
Where is Someone Special?
<@Unibot> I don't care about defender unity.

User avatar
Ulthrani
Diplomat
 
Posts: 821
Founded: Feb 14, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ulthrani » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:05 am

This quotation comes from the raider known as the The RP Killer of Nacht Reiter, who wrote on the Greater Dienstad RMB (the post itself seems to have been deleted or suppressed, but there you go):

We're just pinning this on our target list and when it comes up, we make a plan. While we wait for it we raid some other RPers I think this is going to be my next raiding bias, targeting rp regions


Now, I normally don't like to get involved in these affairs due to myself focusing on the RPing aspect of NationStates, but when a raider threatens to scrutinize RPers and their regions and threatening the act of vandalism and outright trolling in fold (which raiding is, let's not deny that). Now coming on here and brandishing insults unto raiders doesn't accomplish much so i'll reserve myself. I'll also like to cite the moderator Sedgistan's comments on a thread on Moderation, who writes:

Sedgistan wrote:There's no separation - they can invade whatever region they like. However, if the founder removes the delegate's access to regional controls, then they won't be able to do anything if they do take the delegacy.


They can invade whatever region they like? Hmm, I don't know about you but this seems like an open invitation for raiding parties to do as they please. Now granted the latter of his message is valid, the founder of those respective regions can deny delegate access, no doubt and yes, you can take the delegacy. But what if these regions had founders who were away from weeks on end due to RL commitments or simply are no longer on NS anymore? What if the region is a small one that wouldn't be able to defend against the raid?

This kind of opt-out option is right, let the R/D remain in Gameside and allow the RPing to remain RPing without the threat of becoming the target of raiding parties, be they the Black Riders or Black Hawks. Giving the choice for regions to say "No, I don't want to partake in this" would be exceptional and would further give no excuse for regions to say there was no concrete way of stopping raiding parties as there would be with this opt-out.
Nation IC name: Ulthrannia

User avatar
Vezaxjari
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jun 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Vezaxjari » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:12 am

I agree on every-tiny bit, hopefully this will make sure roleplayers can continue doing their stuff without a worry about being griefed/bann ejected from their own region or supressed, and with Ulthrannia its nothing but vandalism and griefing.
Last edited by Vezaxjari on Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rephesus
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8061
Founded: Aug 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Rephesus » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:14 am

Mad Jack wrote:And what nature would this policy make?

And how would it be enforced?

And what kind of RP would it protect?


The policy, whatever it would be, would simply protect RP regions from being dragged into annoying games they have no interest in participating in. RPs don't join their regions and start RPing on the raider/defender RMBs, they have no business interfering with a region that is playing a pivotal role in another aspect of nationstates.

Raiding and regions are gameside, so I imagine gameside administration would enforce this.

As for what kind of 'RP's I know it would likely protect Diplomacy Regions (II/GE&T/FB&NI/NS in PT/MT/PMT/FT/FanT)

And possibly regions that deal with RP groups in P2TM, but really that would be up to that community to speak out on. I do not RP outside the Diplomacy forums, so I can't speak as one of them, but I imagine all RPers would lie the sanctity of knowing that their WFE's with important information such as map links, forum links, etc along with their delegate nation who may RP in the WA will not be erased because a group of raiders may find it fun to annoy a separate community.

User avatar
Mad Jack
Diplomat
 
Posts: 978
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mad Jack » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:16 am

And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?

I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?
Where is Someone Special?
<@Unibot> I don't care about defender unity.

User avatar
ArUmdAUM
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23907
Founded: Oct 21, 2009
Left-wing Utopia

Postby ArUmdAUM » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:17 am

I'd definitely support this.

It's really stupid and annoying not being involved in gameplay at all, and then having your region be invaded and destroyed, with all your links relating to RPs, worldbuilding, etc. being erased.
JOIN TIANDI 天地 ALT-HIST MT RP REGION WITH EXCEPTIONAL
APP NOW

User avatar
Anemos Major
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12675
Founded: Jun 01, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Anemos Major » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:19 am

Mad Jack wrote:especially as GD hasn't been destroyed at all.


But that doesn't change the fact that there's no reason why an RPing region founded by RPers to be used by RPers should have to find its operations disrupted and its page vandalised for anything between half a day to whenever the invaders leave because of some aspect of gameplay they have never interacted with and do not intend to interact with in the first place. I don't see R/D players having to suspend their activities because somebody on the forums has ICly declared war on them, and it's not unreasonable at all to ask for the same in return.

Mad Jack wrote:And what nature would this policy make?

And how would it be enforced?

And what kind of RP would it protect?


The point isn't about protecting RPs - it's about explicitly recognising that regions aren't just cannon fodder for raiders and defenders, but that they fulfil a legitimate and different function to players involved in RPing and that this trend of RP-region raiding has and continues to disrupt that function, both in its conduct and its inevitable consequences. RPing regions shouldn't have to strip delegates of power, or introduce passwords, because some other aspect of gameplay is spilling over into the separate game that they're engaged in; there's no reason why the needs of RPers should be subordinated to those of R/D players, and establishing a separation of sorts via an opt-out is a frankly logical step to take in preserving the ability of RPers and RPing regions to enjoy their side of the game without having to change their ways because of the disruption posed by raiders pouring in and vandalising the region.

Concerning the actual manner in which this would be enforced, I put up a sizeable post at the top outlining a potential option, as follows:

Anemos Major wrote:What I'm positing below is just a loose proposal; even if it isn't a particularly good idea or a workable plan, that shouldn't detract from the need to have a more educated and informed debate concerning the relationship between RPing and R/D.

As it stands, what I have in mind isn't really all that complex, and doesn't necessarily have to apply entirely to RPers; simply put, an 'opt out' function for regional founders and delegates with the relevant powers would go a long way towards preserving regions that exist in a slightly different realm to that of R/D without infringing upon the right of raiders and defenders to do what they do best. Noting that the R/D mechanic is, in practice, a matter of WA endorsements and regional migration, both functions used for a wide variety of reasons other than that particular corner of gameplay, I fully acknowledge that a 'hard' change to gameplay mechanics (i.e. 'preventing' raiding and defending in strict and technical gameplay terms) would be practically unworkable.

All that would be necessary are three things. First, a founder/particular delegate would have access to a tick box allowing them to 'opt out' or 'opt into' the R/D side of gameplay. There could be a link of some sort to a short explanation of what that entails - I'm sure there's a handy one somewhere. Secondly, 'opting out' wouldn't necessarily change things in hard gameplay terms; rather, a line could be added to the regional front page, much in the same way that the tags system was implemented, noting whether a region has opted in or opted out. Finally (and not necessarily), the enforcement of a region's right to opt out of the R/D side of gameplay could be written into the rules of the game; without making any significant technical changes, the above would allow for the case-by-case prevention of the rare instances (I would hope so, at least) where invasions occur in regions which would rather choose not to be part of R/D gameplay in the first place.

It's a somewhat crude and rudimentary proposal, and for that I apologise, but it seems as though the options are limited and yet vital in a tightrope situation like this where the problem needs a solution and the solutions have the potential to be, from a technical standpoint, equally problematic. Even if the above is unworkable, and that may well be the case, I would ask that those considering this particular post refrain from calling it a day and just putting a lock on this thread; the fact remains that regions fulfil a different and arguably mutually incompatible role for RPers and R/Ders, that the prescribed manners in which RPing regions can 'protect' themselves against invasions can actually infringe upon and limit the functions regions can play for a wide variety of RPers (from mandatory WA membership, to larger numbers, to passwords) and that, after many, many years of watching RPing regions being roped into a game they don't want to play, there needs to be a more sophisticated understanding of what exactly it is that RPers want from their regions and what that ought to mean for their relationship with the R/D side of Nationstates.


As noted above, I fully acknowledge that my proposal may well be unworkable; I, after all, am not entrusted with the day to day workings of the site and I'm sure there're things I've missed out, or don't know about at all. But this is primarily about establishing the principle that RPing regions shouldn't have to change their ways because of raiders and defenders, and that some sort of 'opt-out', whether via a technical mechanism or through a more tacit, rules-based system (raiders aren't 'barbarians', as some people have posited, but players doing their own thing and enjoying themselves via a particular set of functions on this site - there's no reason they can't follow rules in much the same way we do), is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. From there, I'm confident a satisfactory solution can be worked out between us all.
Last edited by Anemos Major on Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rephesus
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8061
Founded: Aug 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Rephesus » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:22 am

Mad Jack wrote:And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?

I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?

It's likely that there will be some sort of function allowing a region to distinguish itself as an RP region that takes no part in the R/D game.

This "distinction-function" would likely show administration that the region has no interest in taking part in the Raiding/Defending game. As for consequences, I imagine some sort of ban or suspension, however that is not exactly the focus, it's autonomy from R/D which is the stress in this thread, in my opinion at least.

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54791
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Imperializt Russia » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:23 am

I'm still exceedingly bitter from when Sapphire was raided.
An exercise in pointlessness if I ever saw one.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Luna Amore
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 11256
Founded: Antiquity
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Luna Amore » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:23 am

Rephesus wrote:
Mad Jack wrote:And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?

I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?

It's likely that there will be some sort of function allowing a region to distinguish itself as an RP region that takes no part in the R/D game.

This "distinction-function" would likely show administration that the region has no interest in taking part in the Raiding/Defending game. As for consequences, I imagine some sort of ban or suspension, however that is not exactly the focus, it's autonomy from R/D which is the stress in this thread, in my opinion at least.

But how would the game automatically tell the difference between a normal delegate and a raider?

And what if a raider took the delegacy and enabled the opt-out?
Max: The code changelog says, "Added 'butthole' by mod request"
Lenyo: This dilemma needs an option that Luna would support in RL.

The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things. Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations. Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source. This source is called darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding

User avatar
Mad Jack
Diplomat
 
Posts: 978
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mad Jack » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:23 am

Rephesus wrote:
Mad Jack wrote:And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?

I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?

It's likely that there will be some sort of function allowing a region to distinguish itself as an RP region that takes no part in the R/D game.

This "distinction-function" would likely show administration that the region has no interest in taking part in the Raiding/Defending game. As for consequences, I imagine some sort of ban or suspension, however that is not exactly the focus, it's autonomy from R/D which is the stress in this thread, in my opinion at least.

And what happens when defenders start going around to founderless regions putting this 'distinction-function' on them? What's to stop abuse of the function?
Where is Someone Special?
<@Unibot> I don't care about defender unity.

User avatar
Doshtopia
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Dec 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Doshtopia » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:25 am

Removing the WA Delegate's regional controls will prevent them from doing a whole lot, passwords are only necessary if the region is founderless.
I do like this Idea, however It's likely to be rapidly abused by raiders and defenders alike to make their regions immune to the other team, so you'll be making another issue.
Another solution would be allowing regions to go unlisted, so the only way to find them is with a URL. This is obviously a problem for recruiting new RPers, but you can mitigate that by sending telegrams.
Last edited by Doshtopia on Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Rephesus
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8061
Founded: Aug 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Rephesus » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:27 am

Luna Amore wrote:But how would the game automatically tell the difference between a normal delegate and a raider?

And what if a raider took the delegacy and enabled the opt-out?


Mad Jack wrote:And what happens when defenders start going around to founderless regions putting this 'distinction-function' on them? What's to stop abuse of the function?


The 'what ifs' are not relevant here, there's an infinite amount of possibilities of abusing a function that frankly hasn't even been put in beta. The point of this thread is simple, there's no reason for R/D players to vandalize RP regions, how they would implement this is not the same as the argument that they should or shouldn't. I'm not a moderator, but I'm not going to go off topic.

User avatar
Mad Jack
Diplomat
 
Posts: 978
Founded: Nov 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mad Jack » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:29 am

No there really is room for What Ifs here, because this proposal would have far reaching effects.

It is not just about taking RP regions out of gameplay, it's also about making sure you don't destroy the R/D game whilst doing it. You need protections against the latter built into any proposal.
Where is Someone Special?
<@Unibot> I don't care about defender unity.

User avatar
The Grim Reaper
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10443
Founded: Oct 08, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The Grim Reaper » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:30 am

Luna Amore wrote:
Rephesus wrote:It's likely that there will be some sort of function allowing a region to distinguish itself as an RP region that takes no part in the R/D game.

This "distinction-function" would likely show administration that the region has no interest in taking part in the Raiding/Defending game. As for consequences, I imagine some sort of ban or suspension, however that is not exactly the focus, it's autonomy from R/D which is the stress in this thread, in my opinion at least.

But how would the game automatically tell the difference between a normal delegate and a raider?

And what if a raider took the delegacy and enabled the opt-out?


The opt-out could be founder only, given that TBR has graduated to a new level of pointlessness. GD has an active founder, for one thing. Not a perfect solution, but a step forward.
If I can't play bass, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
Melbourne, Australia

A & Ω

Is "not a blood diamond" a high enough bar for a wedding ring? Artificial gemstones are better-looking, more ethical, and made out of PURE SCIENCE™.

User avatar
Rephesus
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8061
Founded: Aug 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Rephesus » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:30 am

Doshtopia wrote:Removing the WA Delegate's regional controls will prevent them from doing a whole lot, passwords are only necessary if the region is founderless.
I do like this Idea, however It's likely to be rapidly abused by raiders and defenders alike to make their regions immune to the other team, so you'll be making another issue.
Another solution would be allowing regions to go unlisted, so the only way to find them is with a URL. This is obviously a problem for recruiting new RPers, but you can mitigate that by sending telegrams.


Like Anemos stated earlier, a solution where RP regions would need to degrade their own status to metaphorically be 'under the radar' of hostile F/D regions only enforces the notion that RP regions are somehow cannon fodder or subordinate to F/D games.

The solution to this would need to be made in some way so that raiders couldn't abuse it. If you have a better idea, I encourage you to suggest it.

User avatar
Rephesus
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8061
Founded: Aug 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Rephesus » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:32 am

Mad Jack wrote:No there really is room for What Ifs here, because this proposal would have far reaching effects.

It is not just about taking RP regions out of gameplay, it's also about making sure you don't destroy the R/D game whilst doing it. You need protections against the latter built into any proposal.


There's a difference between hypotheticals regarding implementation, and hypotheticals regarding function. If you're concerned about destroying the R/D game, then I recommend you suggest an alternative that can equally benefit RP Regions.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Burdang, Omniabstracta

Advertisement

Remove ads