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.
