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

[Milograd]

I know very little about P2TM, but I can empathize.

[Grenartia]

Quite.

They say R/D came about because some people found a way to exploit the regions to work out a game mechanic. Us RP'ers have done the same thing. We've found a way to exploit the region feature so that we can readily keep ourselves up to date on things happening, train newcomers in how to RP, inform people of RPs they might want to join, etc. So why should we have to sacrifice all that just so a raider can get their jollies off?

Exactly so. In particular, its the RP training and mentoring efforts that set these regions apart from other, more typical regions.

Indeed. And as you showed above, Max himself has said that the RP aspect of NS is just as essential as the R/D aspect. So should there not be equal respect for RPers and R/D with regards to how this place works? Regions are for us, what the Gameplay forum is for R/D. Nobody (at least that I know of) except misguided newcomers and trolls try and RP in Gameplay. So why should we have to put up with R/D'ers R/D'ing in our regions?

[Louis-Napoleon]

Why doesn't founder + non-executive WA solve your problem?

[Cerillium]

Why doesn't founder + non-executive WA solve your problem?

The founder and delegate are the gateway for info. If you look at the links I provided, you'll see that some P2TM threads are information-intensive. A GM (OP) need only ask the founder or delegate (whoever is online) to update info that the whole group can access at a glance or to send out a "regional TG" to all players. Multiply these requests by five or six RP and you have two very busy people. It's very difficult for just one person to manage.

I'm not saying that every region operates as our does. Many don't. However, for regions dedicated to mentoring new RPers or for those dedicated to serving as a info hub for many games, having just a founder doing all the work becomes a daunting chore.

[Louis-Napoleon]

Why doesn't founder + non-executive WA solve your problem?

The founder and delegate are the gateway for info. If you look at the links I provided, you'll see that some P2TM threads are information-intensive. A GM (OP) need only ask the founder or delegate (whoever is online) to update info that the whole group can access at a glance or to send out a "regional TG" to all players. Multiply these requests by five or six RP and you have two very busy people. It's very difficult for just one person to manage.

I'm not saying that every region operates as our does. Many don't. However, for regions dedicated to mentoring new RPers or for those dedicated to serving as a info hub for many games, having just a founder doing all the work becomes a daunting chore.

The only region link has a password and a non-executive delegate. It's untouchable. It's also not exactly super active, before today the last posts were 5 days ago. I don't seem like a crushing burden for the founder to periodically put up the threads.

Won't this solve all your problems: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258994

[Cerillium]

Indeed. And as you showed above, Max himself has said that the RP aspect of NS is just as essential as the R/D aspect. So should there not be equal respect for RPers and R/D with regards to how this place works? Regions are for us, what the Gameplay forum is for R/D. Nobody (at least that I know of) except misguided newcomers and trolls try and RP in Gameplay. So why should we have to put up with R/D'ers R/D'ing in our regions?

I agree.

It would be unfair to totally shut down R/D. I personally enjoy the raiding aspect. The only difference would be that some targets would be crossed off the list. Consider those regions to bear the Red Cross symbol - they serve a vital function and a non-combative role.

@Lewis. Our founder restructured everything last night. It's now "unapproachable". Some P2TM regions are now paranoid and not allowing members in. This is a disservice to NS members who wish to join a forum-specific region or a game-based region.

I don't think I put the incorrect link but you can access it via my own nation by clicking on my link.

Edit: the link is correct. It shows our founder changing everything 10 hours ago and the last post was my own, 8 hours ago.

[Unibot III]

You have to think of invaders would do with this proposal - passwords were created to keep regions safe from invaders and we've needed WA Liberations to keep invaders from using passwords to their advantage.

Invaders would most certainly use an "opt out" feature to their advantage to make it more difficult or impossible to liberate regions.

Invaders do what they do, specifically because they want to attack regions who don't want to be invaded. They take no pleasure from attacking "warzones" - regions meant to be invaded. For years we've been trying to add feature after feature to soften the face of invading... griefing rules, passwords and founders and WA Liberation proposals .. etc. but ultimately, these are quick fixes to a systemic problem: nonconsensuality is the primary feature of the prototypical invasion.

That's exactly why many players think invading is wrong and exactly why the Military Gameplay world has survived for as long as it has (for such a lame interface) ... because the game itself plays on human intuitions of what is right and wrong, perpetuating a battle between those who think its fun to prey on others and those who think it is wrong.

I have absolutely no doubt that if Military Gameplay was completely consensual on the part of all parties that it would die within a few months -- because invaders wouldn't care and defenders wouldn't care. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's what would happen.

[Louis-Napoleon]

Indeed. And as you showed above, Max himself has said that the RP aspect of NS is just as essential as the R/D aspect. So should there not be equal respect for RPers and R/D with regards to how this place works? Regions are for us, what the Gameplay forum is for R/D. Nobody (at least that I know of) except misguided newcomers and trolls try and RP in Gameplay. So why should we have to put up with R/D'ers R/D'ing in our regions?

I agree.

It would be unfair to totally shut down R/D. I personally enjoy the raiding aspect. The only difference would be that some targets would be crossed off the list. Consider those regions to bear the Red Cross symbol - they serve a vital function and a non-combative role.

@Lewis. Our founder restructured everything last night. It's now "unapproachable". Some P2TM regions are now paranoid and not allowing members in. This is a disservice to NS members who wish to join a forum-specific region or a game-based region.

I don't think I put the incorrect link but you can access it via my own nation by clicking on my link.

Edit: the link is correct. It shows our founder changing everything 10 hours ago and the last post was my own, 8 hours ago.

Fair enough. But if you don't want to do a non-exec + founder combo or a password then I think the regional officers will solve your issue.

[Grenartia]

Why doesn't founder + non-executive WA solve your problem?

The founder and delegate are the gateway for info. If you look at the links I provided, you'll see that some P2TM threads are information-intensive. A GM (OP) need only ask the founder or delegate (whoever is online) to update info that the whole group can access at a glance or to send out a "regional TG" to all players. Multiply these requests by five or six RP and you have two very busy people. It's very difficult for just one person to manage.

I'm not saying that every region operates as our does. Many don't. However, for regions dedicated to mentoring new RPers or for those dedicated to serving as a info hub for many games, having just a founder doing all the work becomes a daunting chore.

Indeed. And some regions have founders that've gone inactive, meaning the delegate does all the work, so non-executive WA doesn't do shit to help that.

The founder and delegate are the gateway for info. If you look at the links I provided, you'll see that some P2TM threads are information-intensive. A GM (OP) need only ask the founder or delegate (whoever is online) to update info that the whole group can access at a glance or to send out a "regional TG" to all players. Multiply these requests by five or six RP and you have two very busy people. It's very difficult for just one person to manage.

I'm not saying that every region operates as our does. Many don't. However, for regions dedicated to mentoring new RPers or for those dedicated to serving as a info hub for many games, having just a founder doing all the work becomes a daunting chore.

1. The only region link has a password and a non-executive delegate. It's untouchable. It's also not exactly super active, before today the last posts were 5 days ago. 2. I don't seem like a crushing burden for the founder to periodically put up the threads.

1. What are you talking about?

2. In my region, Ankh Mauta, there's often literally dozens of RMB posts a day. And Nightkill and Nat are both active and help keep the place running smoothly. And they have to be, because P2TM moves quickly.

Indeed. And as you showed above, Max himself has said that the RP aspect of NS is just as essential as the R/D aspect. So should there not be equal respect for RPers and R/D with regards to how this place works? Regions are for us, what the Gameplay forum is for R/D. Nobody (at least that I know of) except misguided newcomers and trolls try and RP in Gameplay. So why should we have to put up with R/D'ers R/D'ing in our regions?

I agree.

It would be unfair to totally shut down R/D. I personally enjoy the raiding aspect. The only difference would be that some targets would be crossed off the list. 1. Consider those regions to bear the Red Cross symbol - they serve a vital function and a non-combative role.

2. @Lewis. Our founder restructured everything last night. It's now "unapproachable". Some P2TM regions are now paranoid and not allowing members in. This is a disservice to NS members who wish to join a forum-specific region or a game-based region.

I don't think I put the incorrect link but you can access it via my own nation by clicking on my link.

1. I'd compare it more to Switzerland during WWII.

2. Which, given recent events, is totally understandable, and shouldn't be happening, because, as you correctly pointed out, actively hinders the RP community.

You have to think of invaders would do with this proposal - passwords were created to keep regions safe from invaders and we've needed WA Liberations to keep invaders from using passwords to their advantage.

Invaders would most certainly use an "opt out" feature to their advantage to make it more difficult or impossible to liberate regions.

Invaders do what they do, specifically because they want to attack regions who don't to be invaded. They take no pleasure from attacking "warzones" - regions meant to be invaded. For years we've been trying to add feature after feature to soften the face of invading... griefing rules, passwords and founders and WA Liberation proposals .. etc. but ultimately, these are quick fixes to a systemic problem: nonconsensuality is the primary feature of the prototypical invasion.

That's exactly why many players think invading is wrong and exactly why the Military Gameplay world has survived for as long as it has (for such a lame interface) ... because the game itself plays on human intuitions of what is right and wrong, perpetuating a battle between those who think its fun to prey on others and those who think it is wrong.

I have absolutely no doubt that if Military Gameplay was completely consensual on the part of all parties that it would die within a few months -- because invaders wouldn't care and defenders wouldn't care. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's what would happen.

Again, make it mod-enforced neutrality to prevent it being exploited by R/D.

[Cerillium]

You have to think of invaders would do with this proposal - passwords were created to keep regions safe from invaders and we've needed WA Liberations to keep invaders from using passwords to their advantage.

Invaders would most certainly use an "opt out" feature to their advantage to make it more difficult or impossible to liberate regions.

Invaders do what they do, specifically because they want to attack regions who don't to be invaded. They take no pleasure from attacking "warzones" - regions meant to be invaded. For years we've been trying to add feature after feature to soften the face of invading... griefing rules, passwords and founders and WA Liberation proposals .. etc. but ultimately, these are quick fixes to a systemic problem: nonconsensuality is the primary feature of the prototypical invasion.

That's exactly why many players think invading is wrong and exactly why the Military Gameplay world has survived for as long as it has (for such a lame interface) ... because the game itself plays on human intuitions of what is right and wrong, perpetuating a battle between those who think its fun to prey on others and those who think it is wrong.

I have absolutely no doubt that if Military Gameplay was completely consensual on the part of all parties that it would die within a few months -- because invaders wouldn't care and defenders wouldn't care. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's what would happen.

That's why I feel an "opt out" feature would be the wrong way to go. Simply designate a region as being a P2TM information hub or a RP noob sanctuary where players are mentored.

Alternatively, NS can suck up the loss of revenue and grant all players the ability to send massive TG waves to other players for free. Some P2TM region founders and delegates have the expensive mailboxes so they can track and save all pertinent information. We might as well grant that to all players as well. All or nothing. Raid protection or revenue loss.

[Cerillium]

The founder and delegate are the gateway for info. If you look at the links I provided, you'll see that some P2TM threads are information-intensive. A GM (OP) need only ask the founder or delegate (whoever is online) to update info that the whole group can access at a glance or to send out a "regional TG" to all players. Multiply these requests by five or six RP and you have two very busy people. It's very difficult for just one person to manage.

I'm not saying that every region operates as our does. Many don't. However, for regions dedicated to mentoring new RPers or for those dedicated to serving as a info hub for many games, having just a founder doing all the work becomes a daunting chore.

Indeed. And some regions have founders that've gone inactive, meaning the delegate does all the work, so non-executive WA doesn't do shit to help that.

1. The only region link has a password and a non-executive delegate. It's untouchable. It's also not exactly super active, before today the last posts were 5 days ago. 2. I don't seem like a crushing burden for the founder to periodically put up the threads.

1. What are you talking about?

2. In my region, Ankh Mauta, there's often literally dozens of RMB posts a day. And Nightkill and Nat are both active and help keep the place running smoothly. And they have to be, because P2TM moves quickly.

I agree.

It would be unfair to totally shut down R/D. I personally enjoy the raiding aspect. The only difference would be that some targets would be crossed off the list. 1. Consider those regions to bear the Red Cross symbol - they serve a vital function and a non-combative role.

2. @Lewis. Our founder restructured everything last night. It's now "unapproachable". Some P2TM regions are now paranoid and not allowing members in. This is a disservice to NS members who wish to join a forum-specific region or a game-based region.

I don't think I put the incorrect link but you can access it via my own nation by clicking on my link.

1. I'd compare it more to Switzerland during WWII.

2. Which, given recent events, is totally understandable, and shouldn't be happening, because, as you correctly pointed out, actively hinders the RP community.

You have to think of invaders would do with this proposal - passwords were created to keep regions safe from invaders and we've needed WA Liberations to keep invaders from using passwords to their advantage.

Invaders would most certainly use an "opt out" feature to their advantage to make it more difficult or impossible to liberate regions.

Invaders do what they do, specifically because they want to attack regions who don't to be invaded. They take no pleasure from attacking "warzones" - regions meant to be invaded. For years we've been trying to add feature after feature to soften the face of invading... griefing rules, passwords and founders and WA Liberation proposals .. etc. but ultimately, these are quick fixes to a systemic problem: nonconsensuality is the primary feature of the prototypical invasion.

That's exactly why many players think invading is wrong and exactly why the Military Gameplay world has survived for as long as it has (for such a lame interface) ... because the game itself plays on human intuitions of what is right and wrong, perpetuating a battle between those who think its fun to prey on others and those who think it is wrong.

I have absolutely no doubt that if Military Gameplay was completely consensual on the part of all parties that it would die within a few months -- because invaders wouldn't care and defenders wouldn't care. Not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's what would happen.

Again, make it mod-enforced neutrality to prevent it being exploited by R/D.

Don't even get me started on the inactive founder issue. It used to be that raiders only went after founderless regions. Now they have a whole new game. You're correct though. The delegate is running the region alone. Do they move everyone and lose that bit of history or can raiders respect the spirit of the region and find better targets.

[Unibot III]

That's an idea, actually. Make these regions, not-regions -- if the point of them isn't to function as regions. I know the admins were discussing organizational pages a while back. That's something that could be pursued.

I think what I'm trying to say is, invaders invade thousands of regions ever year almost none of which consent or want to be invaded. An exception for one community won't change that, but it's also an exception that's hard to justify when you look at it from a global scale.

Again, make it mod-enforced neutrality to prevent it being exploited by R/D.

The mods and admins have said they do not want to go back to the days of judging invasions - a la the old griefing rules.

[Esternial]

Milograd, there's a dynamic that people aren't even considering: P2TM-Dedicated Regions. There are a preponderance of mods and mentors who are completely unfamiliar with P2TM and thus I think they are misunderstanding the player angst flowing at the moment. We finally have three official mentors specific to the P2TM forum; it was beyond comprehension to the rest of NS.


For clarification, this is a really basic PT2M region: The Apartment Block.
This basic region exists for the purpose of player communication for various P2TM RP, most notably: this thread. If anyone is unfamiliar with P2TM game play, please look at the first 8 posts of that OOC thread. That's an entire world. Game SITREPS are so much easier to accomplish when our founder and delegate can fire off a single TG to the entire group and those affiliated with it.

Other P2TM RP are no different: Excalibur Squadron and Elfen High are further examples of RP found in P2TM.

P2TM players put a lot of effort into their game, and their game has nothing to do with delegates, regional happenings or wars between nations.

P2TM Regions have founders and delegates who volunteer their time to take on the responsibility for that Forum's region. It includes maintaining OSF, tracking players, passing along RP communications, updating things continuously, and other essential tasks. Their activities occur on a daily basis rather than just when something comes up for vote in the WA. They're kept busy because P2TM players are active people who post morning, noon and night. P2TM Regions supporting multiple RP threads are fairly hopping with activity. All the while, players banter on the RMB or go about their lives without any idea as to the amount of work shared by the founder (owner) and delegate (administrator). The regions aren't roleplaying the act of being a fictional worldly region (with presidents or kings or whatever). They are an administrative tool for player use.

What P2TM-based people are asking is simple: Give us some sort of symbol that lets raiders know that the region is recognized by NS as being specifically tied to P2TM as an information hub and apart from NS "nation" game play.



With regard to "Raiding is here to stay" mentality: Yes, I agree. It's essential. However, Max Barry endorsed the R/D aspect in 2009 long before P2TM was in existence.

<+MaxBarry> One of the amazing things about NS is how different people play it in totally different ways
<+MaxBarry> The invader game of course has always been contentious...
<+MaxBarry> In particular, nobody likes being invaded
<+MaxBarry> We've added a lot of protections for regional residents over the years...
<+MaxBarry> But I think it would be a terrible loss if we abolished it altogether
* @Scolopendra notes that if we've read General Franks' brilliant treatise, the raider "gamemap" is actually the pillar of the game and all else on NS is supposed to support it.
<+MaxBarry> The game can't be all sweetness and kittens
<+MaxBarry> The thing with raiders of course is that they're just using the same endorsement mechanism as everyone else
<+MaxBarry> They're not using a special "Invade!" feature
<+MaxBarry> They're just more efficient at using their votes than most
<+MaxBarry> ditto defenders
<@Reploid_Productions> So basically, invaders/defenders are no more or less central to the game than, say, the General Assembly, the roleplaying forums, or the General forum?
<@Scolopendra> Bah, Reploid shows her obvious fenda bias.
* @Reploid_Productions omg mod bias!
<+MaxBarry> Well, those things are all different, so hard to compare, but I consider all of those things essential, yes
<+MaxBarry> I kind of feel like with raiding there's a tradeoff
<@Scolopendra> Any follow-up, LinuxandtheX?
<+LinuxandtheX> nope
<+LinuxandtheX> thanks
<+MaxBarry> more raiding makes more people upset, but it also clearly makes us more popular -- for whatever reason, a lot more people are interested in playing this game when there's conflict
<+MaxBarry> so a balance is optimal
<+Sirocco> PvP is probably the one component NationStates really lacks compared to many other games.

The P2TM RP forum should be considered just as essential as all other things found on NS. It's different in that P2TM doesn't focus at all on NS game issues (WA, delegates, nations, etc). P2TM allows the user to depart from NS concept in order to partake in various RP. It stands alone and apart from Max Barry's overarching concept. NS created P2TM. It is very much PvP, the one component which elevates NationStates above many other games in that it offers the best of both worlds.

P2TM RP Regions are a fractal of NS itself (a mathematical set that typically displays self-similar patterns, which means they are "the same from near as from far".)

On NS, Max is our founder and Violet our Delegate. You need Violet to have administrative control because Max can't do it all alone. Raiders arrive and cut all lines of communication between Max/Violet and the players. Violet gets the boot as do all your mod team. NS stalls to a crawl while you sort out all the crap. Player satisfaction drops. The raiders start crowing and bragging. People start screaming. Something has to be done. Now your volunteers are working frantically to hold things together.

Max and Violet would have to spend a hell of a lot of time sending TG out to all the booted mods instead of being able to communicate freely. The mod chat channel is compromised. The links to Moderation, to GHR, to Technical and other information places are wiped and now players have to hunt them down in various threads in order to access them. Your mod team has to pay for telegrams to keep specific threads on track because players are now floating around in the Rejected Internet Realm and no longer grouped in a way that allows Max to telegram them all instantly.

I'm pretty sure that would frustrate you. It would frustrate Max Barry because he's a busy man who has set things up to run smoothly in his stead. It would frustrate Violet who now needs to come up with avenues of communication outside of NS and then get all the mods and staff on the same page until the occupation ends and players can return.


My last point is this: raiders are not stupid assholes. They're human beings. I can't speak for them, but I think they'd understand and appreciate the difference between "P2TM information hub" and "this region mirrors the real world". We have symbols that condemn raider regions. We could just as easily adapt code and fashion a symbol to designate a P2TM information hub. It would allow to founder AND delegate to continue maintaining that hub without all the password/admin access tap dancing. We aren't eliminating the raiding aspect, we aren't denying anyone the right to play R/D on NS. What we're doing is establishing protocol that alleviates the high amount of frustration that occurs whenever information hubs are raided and wiped for "shits and grins".

I think the underlying issue is that none of the Mods really know P2TM, and in my opinion are vastly underestimating its community. That's just my opinion.

But I can only guess that the response to this will be: "II Region also need to manage RP-related information and they have survived with Raiders around, so you should be able to manage, too."

The thing is that P2TM is different from II. We don't have "regions", we have "communities". These two things are not interchangeable and should be viewed separately.

I urge the Moderation team to review this and perhaps even introduce a new type of of region.

The issue is, of course: what stops regions from using this feature to temporarily opt out of the R/D to protect themselves?

Well, I'm sure it'll take time to figure this out, but with some work (and not opting for "no change is better") we could get somewhere. It's not all about pleasing the Raiders and Defenders. As Max Barry himself said: we need balance.

[Cerillium]

I think the underlying issue is that none of the Mods really know P2TM, and in my opinion are vastly underestimating its community. That's just my opinion.

But I can only guess that the response to this will be: "II Region also need to manage RP-related information and they have survived with Raiders around, so you should be able to manage, too."

The thing is that P2TM is different from II. We don't have "regions", we have "communities". These two things are not interchangeable and should be viewed separately.

I urge the Moderation team to review this and perhaps even introduce a new type of of region.

The issue is, of course: what stops regions from using this feature to temporarily opt out of the R/D to protect themselves?

Well, I'm sure it'll take time to figure this out, but with some work (and not opting for "no change is better") we could get somewhere. It's not all about pleasing the Raiders and Defenders. As Max Barry himself said: we need balance.

Thanks Esty.

I'd like to stress it again: Raiders are not total assholes. It takes a meeting of the minds and an understanding between all groups. It also takes honesty (which is nearly impossible) when it comes to regions not abusing "community" as an excuse to hide from the R/D game.

[Grenartia]

That's an idea, actually. 1. Make these regions, not-regions -- if the point of them isn't to function as regions. I know the admins were discussing organizational pages a while back. That's something that could be pursued.

I think what I'm trying to say is, invaders invade thousands of regions ever year almost none of which consent or want to be invaded. 2. An exception for one community won't change that, but it's also an exception that's hard to justify when you look at it from a global scale.

Again, make it mod-enforced neutrality to prevent it being exploited by R/D.

3. The mods and admins have said they do not want to go back to the days of judging invasions - a la the old griefing rules.

1. Alternatively, we can do the same thing with regards to R/D. Arguably, R/D doesn't use regions to function for what they were originally intended, while RP regions come pretty damn close.

2. And its easy to justify sacrificing one segment of the userbase for another? The point is, RP regions have, just like the original R/D'ers, found a way to exploit regions for our own purposes. BOTH uses are legitimate.

3. Who said anything about judging invasions? Its fairly simple. Mods will take action against raiders trying to raid RP regions, and against regions that list themselves as RP regions just to gain an advantage in R/D. There's nothing about "but we had a legitimate reason because X person said one of our people was a stupid doodoohead" or any regional bullshit like that. There's a very clear line.

Milograd, there's a dynamic that people aren't even considering: P2TM-Dedicated Regions. There are a preponderance of mods and mentors who are completely unfamiliar with P2TM and thus I think they are misunderstanding the player angst flowing at the moment. We finally have three official mentors specific to the P2TM forum; it was beyond comprehension to the rest of NS.


For clarification, this is a really basic PT2M region: The Apartment Block.
This basic region exists for the purpose of player communication for various P2TM RP, most notably: this thread. If anyone is unfamiliar with P2TM game play, please look at the first 8 posts of that OOC thread. That's an entire world. Game SITREPS are so much easier to accomplish when our founder and delegate can fire off a single TG to the entire group and those affiliated with it.

Other P2TM RP are no different: Excalibur Squadron and Elfen High are further examples of RP found in P2TM.

P2TM players put a lot of effort into their game, and their game has nothing to do with delegates, regional happenings or wars between nations.

P2TM Regions have founders and delegates who volunteer their time to take on the responsibility for that Forum's region. It includes maintaining OSF, tracking players, passing along RP communications, updating things continuously, and other essential tasks. Their activities occur on a daily basis rather than just when something comes up for vote in the WA. They're kept busy because P2TM players are active people who post morning, noon and night. P2TM Regions supporting multiple RP threads are fairly hopping with activity. All the while, players banter on the RMB or go about their lives without any idea as to the amount of work shared by the founder (owner) and delegate (administrator). The regions aren't roleplaying the act of being a fictional worldly region (with presidents or kings or whatever). They are an administrative tool for player use.

What P2TM-based people are asking is simple: Give us some sort of symbol that lets raiders know that the region is recognized by NS as being specifically tied to P2TM as an information hub and apart from NS "nation" game play.



With regard to "Raiding is here to stay" mentality: Yes, I agree. It's essential. However, Max Barry endorsed the R/D aspect in 2009 long before P2TM was in existence.

<+MaxBarry> One of the amazing things about NS is how different people play it in totally different ways
<+MaxBarry> The invader game of course has always been contentious...
<+MaxBarry> In particular, nobody likes being invaded
<+MaxBarry> We've added a lot of protections for regional residents over the years...
<+MaxBarry> But I think it would be a terrible loss if we abolished it altogether
* @Scolopendra notes that if we've read General Franks' brilliant treatise, the raider "gamemap" is actually the pillar of the game and all else on NS is supposed to support it.
<+MaxBarry> The game can't be all sweetness and kittens
<+MaxBarry> The thing with raiders of course is that they're just using the same endorsement mechanism as everyone else
<+MaxBarry> They're not using a special "Invade!" feature
<+MaxBarry> They're just more efficient at using their votes than most
<+MaxBarry> ditto defenders
<@Reploid_Productions> So basically, invaders/defenders are no more or less central to the game than, say, the General Assembly, the roleplaying forums, or the General forum?
<@Scolopendra> Bah, Reploid shows her obvious fenda bias.
* @Reploid_Productions omg mod bias!
<+MaxBarry> Well, those things are all different, so hard to compare, but I consider all of those things essential, yes
<+MaxBarry> I kind of feel like with raiding there's a tradeoff
<@Scolopendra> Any follow-up, LinuxandtheX?
<+LinuxandtheX> nope
<+LinuxandtheX> thanks
<+MaxBarry> more raiding makes more people upset, but it also clearly makes us more popular -- for whatever reason, a lot more people are interested in playing this game when there's conflict
<+MaxBarry> so a balance is optimal
<+Sirocco> PvP is probably the one component NationStates really lacks compared to many other games.

The P2TM RP forum should be considered just as essential as all other things found on NS. It's different in that P2TM doesn't focus at all on NS game issues (WA, delegates, nations, etc). P2TM allows the user to depart from NS concept in order to partake in various RP. It stands alone and apart from Max Barry's overarching concept. NS created P2TM. It is very much PvP, the one component which elevates NationStates above many other games in that it offers the best of both worlds.

P2TM RP Regions are a fractal of NS itself (a mathematical set that typically displays self-similar patterns, which means they are "the same from near as from far".)

On NS, Max is our founder and Violet our Delegate. You need Violet to have administrative control because Max can't do it all alone. Raiders arrive and cut all lines of communication between Max/Violet and the players. Violet gets the boot as do all your mod team. NS stalls to a crawl while you sort out all the crap. Player satisfaction drops. The raiders start crowing and bragging. People start screaming. Something has to be done. Now your volunteers are working frantically to hold things together.

Max and Violet would have to spend a hell of a lot of time sending TG out to all the booted mods instead of being able to communicate freely. The mod chat channel is compromised. The links to Moderation, to GHR, to Technical and other information places are wiped and now players have to hunt them down in various threads in order to access them. Your mod team has to pay for telegrams to keep specific threads on track because players are now floating around in the Rejected Internet Realm and no longer grouped in a way that allows Max to telegram them all instantly.

I'm pretty sure that would frustrate you. It would frustrate Max Barry because he's a busy man who has set things up to run smoothly in his stead. It would frustrate Violet who now needs to come up with avenues of communication outside of NS and then get all the mods and staff on the same page until the occupation ends and players can return.


My last point is this: raiders are not stupid assholes. They're human beings. I can't speak for them, but I think they'd understand and appreciate the difference between "P2TM information hub" and "this region mirrors the real world". We have symbols that condemn raider regions. We could just as easily adapt code and fashion a symbol to designate a P2TM information hub. It would allow to founder AND delegate to continue maintaining that hub without all the password/admin access tap dancing. We aren't eliminating the raiding aspect, we aren't denying anyone the right to play R/D on NS. What we're doing is establishing protocol that alleviates the high amount of frustration that occurs whenever information hubs are raided and wiped for "shits and grins".

1. I think the underlying issue is that none of the Mods really know P2TM, and in my opinion are vastly underestimating its community. That's just my opinion.

But I can only guess that the response to this will be: "II Region also need to manage RP-related information and they have survived with Raiders around, so you should be able to manage, too."

The thing is that P2TM is different from II. We don't have "regions", we have "communities". These two things are not interchangeable and should be viewed separately.

I urge the Moderation team to review this and perhaps even introduce a new type of of region.

2. The issue is, of course: what stops regions from using this feature to temporarily opt out of the R/D to protect themselves?

Well, I'm sure it'll take time to figure this out, but with some work (and not opting for "no change is better") we could get somewhere. It's not all about pleasing the Raiders and Defenders. As Max Barry himself said: we need balance.

1. Its not just the mods. Its most of the rest of the community as a whole. Even Unibot, as shown above.

2. Again, mod-enforced RP region neutrality/non-interference.

[Esternial]

1. Its not just the mods. Its most of the rest of the community as a whole. Even Unibot, as shown above.

2. Again, mod-enforced RP region neutrality/non-interference.

I doubt the Admin staff will be willing to take that job on top of their other duties.

Note that regions are gameside content. Moderators have no power there.

[Rephesus]

-Snip-

I agree with Gren here. Just make it against the rules to invade an RP region and against the rules to list yourself as an RP region if you aren't. The mods don't need to look through regions, if either side is breaking rules they can be reported just like RMB violations are through the GHR.

For example, Raider region A comes across a rival group who has listed their region as RP but they obviously aren't. A raider from Raider region A reports that region B is pretending to be an RP region and then the mods make them take off the tag and give the founder/delegate who did it a warning or something.

Alternatively, a RP region that's marked is invaded by raiders, those raiders get some sort of warning or ban.

And to protect things further it would make sense if marking your region as RP saves a log of previous embassies and WFE's.

Does anyone see any flaws with this?

[Grenartia]

1. Its not just the mods. Its most of the rest of the community as a whole. Even Unibot, as shown above.

2. Again, mod-enforced RP region neutrality/non-interference.

I doubt the Admin staff will be willing to take that job on top of their other duties.

Note that regions are gameside content. Moderators have no power there.

Then why do we have game mods? I mean, that's the whole point of the word "game" in their titles, is it not? To indicate that they have the ability to moderate gameside? Or am I just confused here?

-Snip-

I agree with Gren here. Just make it against the rules to invade an RP region and against the rules to list yourself as an RP region if you aren't. The mods don't need to look through regions, if either side is breaking rules they can be reported just like RMB violations are through the GHR.

For example, Raider region A comes across a rival group who has listed their region as RP but they obviously aren't. A raider from Raider region A reports that region B is pretending to be an RP region and then the mods make them take off the tag and give the founder/delegate who did it a warning or something.

Alternatively, a RP region that's marked is invaded by raiders, those raiders get some sort of warning or ban.

And to protect things further it would make sense if marking your region as RP saves a log of previous embassies and WFE's.

Does anyone see any flaws with this?

Nope.

[Mexar]

Then why do we have game mods? I mean, that's the whole point of the word "game" in their titles, is it not? To indicate that they have the ability to moderate gameside? Or am I just confused here?

Correct. Forum Mods have no power gameside but Game Mods do.

[Unibot III]

1. Alternatively, we can do the same thing with regards to R/D. Arguably, R/D doesn't use regions to function for what they were originally intended, while RP regions come pretty damn close.

First of all, stop casually referring to invading as the same thing as defending by bunching it together as "R/D". Defenders don't like that regions are being exploited in the way that they are - that's why most of us defend.

Second, while it's true invading was not intended by the admins when WA Delegates were created, its not true that invasions aren't related concepts with regions.

2. And its easy to justify sacrificing one segment of the userbase for another? The point is, RP regions have, just like the original R/D'ers, found a way to exploit regions for our own purposes. BOTH uses are legitimate.

I think the problem is that invading is the only game community that has a non-mutual symbotic relationship with other game communities. Roleplay doesn't need Gameplay. Gameplay doesn't need Militarization. WA doesn't need militarization. WA doesn't need Roleplay. etc. etc. etc.

Only invading relies on there being people outside of its communities... unwilling targets. This does makes it a Zero-Sum Game as an admin when you're trying to decide who to "make happy".

3. Who said anything about judging invasions? Its fairly simple. Mods will take action against raiders trying to raid RP regions, and against regions that list themselves as RP regions just to gain an advantage in R/D. There's nothing about "but we had a legitimate reason because X person said one of our people was a stupid doodoohead" or any regional bullshit like that. There's a very clear line.

The griefing rules promoted invaders to pretend to be natives and get involved with "regional bullshit" just like that. There was not a very clear line.

[Leutria]

You know, if you close R/D to everyone who doesn't participate in R/D it would die off. After all, what active defender or invader community would even contemplate not having it's region foundered with an non-executive delegate? Therefore, if you close R/D to non-R/D regions raiders would be left without targets and the whole subgame would die.

[Cerillium]

In fairness to raiders - I looked over the latest TBR victory dance (last night's edition). I've seen a few of those regions. Some function as little private clubs. I believe one contained a goodly amount of P2TM participants although it was small. I'm going off memory here so I can't be certain but I honestly can't recall seeing any that stated they were anything except a coffee klatch of like-minded NSers. They didn't advertise as being specific to P2TM, in other words, and their affiliations were only the name recognition of some players.

P2TM-specific regions haven't made much of an attempt to label themselves. Raiders, much like defenders and those outside of P2TM, are unfamiliar with the community, its purpose and the purpose for some regions therein.

Concerns have been raised regarding regions hiding under a protective banner. It's very simple: does the region advertise that it's P2TM purposed? Is it billed as a RP thread-supportive region, a player-supportive region or a mentoring region? You can't really pass yourself off as something you're not. P2TM is a closely-knit community.

[Unibot III]

You know, if you close R/D to everyone who doesn't participate in R/D it would die off. After all, what active defender or invader community would even contemplate not having it's region foundered with an non-executive delegate? Therefore, if you close R/D to non-R/D regions raiders would be left without targets and the whole subgame would die.

Once again, the association of invading with defending as "R/D" is troubling - conflating the two suggests they have the same motivations. You're indeed correct, however, that invaders wouldn't care about invading regions that want to be invaded (we see this with "warzones") and I doubt many defenders would care about stopping invasions against regions that want to be invaded (see "warzones").

That's because non-consensuality is at the heart of invading.

[Grenartia]

1. Alternatively, we can do the same thing with regards to R/D. Arguably, R/D doesn't use regions to function for what they were originally intended, while RP regions come pretty damn close.

1A. First of all, stop casually referring to invading as the same thing as defending by bunching it together as "R/D". Defenders don't like that regions are being exploited in the way that they are - that's why most of us defend.

1B.Second, while it's true invading was not intended by the admins when WA Delegates were created, its not true that invasions aren't related concepts with regions.

2. And its easy to justify sacrificing one segment of the userbase for another? The point is, RP regions have, just like the original R/D'ers, found a way to exploit regions for our own purposes. BOTH uses are legitimate.

2. I think the problem is that invading is the only game community that has a non-mutual symbotic relationship with other game communities. Roleplay doesn't need Gameplay. Gameplay doesn't need Militarization. WA doesn't need militarization. WA doesn't need Roleplay. etc. etc. etc.

Only invading relies on there being people outside of its communities... unwilling targets. This does makes it a Zero-Sum Game as an admin when you're trying to decide who to "make happy".

3. Who said anything about judging invasions? Its fairly simple. Mods will take action against raiders trying to raid RP regions, and against regions that list themselves as RP regions just to gain an advantage in R/D. There's nothing about "but we had a legitimate reason because X person said one of our people was a stupid doodoohead" or any regional bullshit like that. There's a very clear line.

3. The griefing rules promoted invaders to pretend to be natives and get involved with "regional bullshit" just like that. There was not a very clear line.

1A. I use "R/D", because using "Gameplay" in its place would legitimize the thought that R/D is the only "real" way to play on this site. Give me a better term, and I'll use it. But until then, I'm using "R/D".

1B. And its also not true that roleplay isn't a related concept for regions.

2. However, roleplay DOES need regions. Therefore, there should be regions that are R/D restricted.

3. However, its pretty clear once a region has been invaded. And with a region having a roleplay exemption, it becomes a clear case of "this region has been raided in violation of the rules", at which point, appropriate action can be taken.

You know, if you close R/D to everyone who doesn't participate in R/D it would die off. After all, what active defender or invader community would even contemplate not having it's region foundered with an non-executive delegate? Therefore, if you close R/D to non-R/D regions raiders would be left without targets and the whole subgame would die.

And if you allow raiders to be able to destroy any non-R/D region at will, then the RP sections of the site will suffer.

We don't give two shits about involving ourselves in R/D. Therefore, we shouldn't have to worry about being forced into it.

[Andacantra]

There are many things that there should be in this world, in this game. Things that would be nice. But until an actual, viable proposal that doesn't involve mods making judgement calls about what is and isn't a raid, or who is and isn't a genuine natives or completely and totally destroying the R/D game, then that's exactly all it'll stay. Things aren't always black and white - see the vast majority of GCR coups for an example of things which go on all the time (just on a bigger, more public scale) to see how who is "right" and who is "wrong" can rapidly get muddied.

Yes, even as a Gameplayer, I can see why RP regions get peeved when they get raided. However, an alternative to peeving off RPers is to...completely destroy a whole community, essentially? Sorry if that seems...off, to me.

You shouldn't have to be "forced" into it, but you need to come up with a way of facilitating that because I'm damned if I can think of one.