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

[Rephesus]

While I get that you're trying to propose solutions, in a way, the solutions you're proposing are illustrating the fact that there's a large number of R/D'ers who don't understand the problem: you're offering us solutions that require further involvement in Gameplay, when what we're objecting to is being forced to participate in or else be disrupted by Gameplay despite the fact that, as a group, we don't want to be involved in it.

Every solution is going to require further involvement in gameplay seeing as how you are playing the game. Asking to be excused from gameplay is nonsensical.

However, asking to be safeguarded from Regional Vandalism "Raiding" is quite sensical.

[The Fanboyists]

While I get that you're trying to propose solutions, in a way, the solutions you're proposing are illustrating the fact that there's a large number of R/D'ers who don't understand the problem: you're offering us solutions that require further involvement in Gameplay, when what we're objecting to is being forced to participate in or else be disrupted by Gameplay despite the fact that, as a group, we don't want to be involved in it.

Every solution is going to require further involvement in gameplay seeing as how you are playing the game. Asking to be excused from gameplay is nonsensical.

I don't see how the previously-outlined solutions (Regional Officers, Transferable Foundership, both appointed from within the region) require further involvement with Gameplay at-large. By definition, since they'd basically be extensions of existing tools we have, they wouldn't require any further involvement in the Gameplay (specifically R/D) community than those current ones do. And with those current ones, when executed correctly, they can lead to virtual isolation from that aspect of Gameplay. The only problem with those is that they also isolate from everyone else when properly executed.

[SFBA wabbitslayah]

Because raiders don't have 52 guys. Usually they can't get more than 3-5.

As Wolf (A raider) stated earlier, Raiders can be organized and amass large groups, such as the ones they used to take Lazarus and a couple of the Pacifics. As states multiple times, primarily by the Black Riders, they will now be targeting RP Regions, and thus it's likely they will organize the necessary number of nations.

That's unlikely to happen, to have a large pile raid on what non-RPers will see as just a small backwater RP community. Maybe some of the larger and/or historical ones. Reason Lazarus and the other GCRs see that number is because first off it's impractical to take one with a very small number of people (You got 20 guys? Please I have over 200 endos) and secondly, because the fact they're GCRs. This not a slight against UCRs or anything, but GCRs are the biggest hub of gameplay and as of late have become increasingly more important in higher politics and R/D (Latter to an extent).

[The Licentian Isles]

I've not read through the thread, so my apologies before I start this if I make points that have been refuted already.

I'm the Delegate of Esportiva, a region that spends most of its time in the Diplomacy forums; as the name may suggest, mostly NS Sports. We had a situation recently where our founder, for RP reasons, wanted to change his main account, and allow the founder account to die. But he couldn't do that, because if he allowed it to CTE, we immediately become a target for raiders.

This is a massive pain in the arse, because none of us want anything to do with Gameplay (no offence guys). If we wanted to be involved, we'd get involved with the UDL, or the Black Riders, or whatever this week's flavour of Gameplay region/organisation is.

None of the current solutions I have seen tossed around (in a brief look through the first few and most recent few pages) will solve the issue for us. A re-found won't work, because we are a region of 75 nations; it's not that easy to co-ordinate that kind of thing, and I think quite a few people in here will know that. Taking executive powers from the Delegate wouldn't make a difference either; one, because, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't make a difference when the founder CTEs, and two, I'm more active than the founder; if I don't have executive powers, and the founder disappears for any period of time up to 60 days (think that's how long vacation mode lasts), we could lose the ability to moderate our RMB, kick out trouble makers and even edit our WFE (which may seem trivial to you, but it matters to us).

An opt-out of the R/D game would be a great thing for a region like us. It would mean that our founder can let his old nation rest in peace, that I can continue to look after the region as I do currently, and we can stay out of a mechanic that, mostly, we find to be an annoyance (again, no offence). While I accept that it may not be the best solution, surely there is something down this avenue of enquiry that is.

Thanks for listening to my mostly uninformed, very biased, and slightly lengthy rant.

[Luna Amore]

Every solution is going to require further involvement in gameplay seeing as how you are playing the game. Asking to be excused from gameplay is nonsensical.

However, asking to be safeguarded from Regional Vandalism "Raiding" is quite sensical.

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

if I don't have executive powers, and the founder disappears for any period of time up to 60 days (think that's how long vacation mode lasts), we could lose the ability to moderate our RMB, kick out trouble makers and even edit our WFE (which may seem trivial to you, but it matters to us).

Delegates automatically become executive when the founder CTEs or leaves the region.

[Rephesus]

However, asking to be safeguarded from Regional Vandalism "Raiding" is quite sensical.

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

It's not a game RPers want to participate in, and they shouldn't be forced to. We aren't asking them to end Raiding, we're asking them to accommodate our community to allow us to be exempt from the barbarism that is raiding.

[The Fanboyists]

However, asking to be safeguarded from Regional Vandalism "Raiding" is quite sensical.

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

It does make sense when you didn't sign up to play chess, you just walked into a room full of different board games and at some point someone else decided you were all playing chess, whether you wanted to or not.

All we want is to be able to keep playing Risk in the corner without someone coming over, flipping the board, and forcing us to play chess. And we don't get why people object so much to that concept.

Edit #1: Added second paragraph.
Edit #2: Added to second paragraph. Fixed excessive capitalization. Changed "Settlers of Cataan" to Risk for metaphor's sake.

[The Fanboyists]

I've not read through the thread, so my apologies before I start this if I make points that have been refuted already.

I'm the Delegate of Esportiva, a region that spends most of its time in the Diplomacy forums; as the name may suggest, mostly NS Sports. We had a situation recently where our founder, for RP reasons, wanted to change his main account, and allow the founder account to die. But he couldn't do that, because if he allowed it to CTE, we immediately become a target for raiders.

This is a massive pain in the arse, because none of us want anything to do with Gameplay (no offence guys). If we wanted to be involved, we'd get involved with the UDL, or the Black Riders, or whatever this week's flavour of Gameplay region/organisation is.

None of the current solutions I have seen tossed around (in a brief look through the first few and most recent few pages) will solve the issue for us. A re-found won't work, because we are a region of 75 nations; it's not that easy to co-ordinate that kind of thing, and I think quite a few people in here will know that. Taking executive powers from the Delegate wouldn't make a difference either; one, because, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't make a difference when the founder CTEs, and two, I'm more active than the founder; if I don't have executive powers, and the founder disappears for any period of time up to 60 days (think that's how long vacation mode lasts), we could lose the ability to moderate our RMB, kick out trouble makers and even edit our WFE (which may seem trivial to you, but it matters to us).

An opt-out of the R/D game would be a great thing for a region like us. It would mean that our founder can let his old nation rest in peace, that I can continue to look after the region as I do currently, and we can stay out of a mechanic that, mostly, we find to be an annoyance (again, no offence). While I accept that it may not be the best solution, surely there is something down this avenue of enquiry that is.

Thanks for listening to my mostly uninformed, very biased, and slightly lengthy rant.

Two proposed eventual solutions (if we can convince staff to implement them, that is... certain Moderators and most of the Raiders who have come on here are being annoyingly resistant to something that ultimately won't affect them that much) are Regional Officers (essentially non-Founder, non-WAD regional admins/moderators) and making Foundership transferable through mechanisms within the region (either directly from Founder to successor, or an in-region vote).

As for temporary solutions, password protection, while annoying and stifling, might be your best bet. Or ask the owner of the Founder nation if it would be acceptable to transfer ownership of said nation to another region member.

[SFBA wabbitslayah]

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

It does make sense when you didn't sign up to play Chess, you just walked into a room full of different board games and at some point someone else decided you were all playing Chess, whether you wanted to or not.

At gunpoint. Yes, wasn't expected but those dastardly gunmen came in there and were mean. Because the establishment allows it to happen. Well, you could run away, fight back, or ask the establishment to change the rules or something.

Anyways, hopefully the changes in the future help out.

[Mad Jack]

Because raiders don't have 52 guys. Usually they can't get more than 3-5.

As Wolf (A raider) stated earlier, Raiders can be organized and amass large groups, such as the ones they used to take Lazarus and a couple of the Pacifics. As states multiple times, primarily by the Black Riders, they will now be targeting RP Regions, and thus it's likely they will organize the necessary number of nations.

The entire raiding world can't field 20 update WAs, let alone 50.

[Mad Jack]

-snip-

You have 15 endorsements, you are safe from almost every raiding group.

[Delmonte]

As Wolf (A raider) stated earlier, Raiders can be organized and amass large groups, such as the ones they used to take Lazarus and a couple of the Pacifics. As states multiple times, primarily by the Black Riders, they will now be targeting RP Regions, and thus it's likely they will organize the necessary number of nations.

The entire raiding world can't field 20 update WAs, let alone 50.

The leadership on some of their OSF's alone exceeds the amount you're telling us they can garner.

[The Fanboyists]

Just a thing to point out: I keep seeing a lot of Gameplay folks (particularly Raiders and Raider Apologists) comparing Nationstates to a game.

The fact is, NationStates is not a game. NationStates is a room full of different games that you can choose from. One is R/D. One is General. One is RP'ing of various flavors, and there's others that I'm sure I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about.

The point is, when people say RP'ers "don't want to play the game they signed up for", they're missing the point that we didn't sign up for R/D. We signed up to come into the room that is NationStates, and we picked a different game (RP'ing) than some others (R/D'ers) did, and we want to be able to play that game that we chose, except that the others (R/D'ers) keep coming over to tell us which game we're going to play (the one they chose). And then when we try to play the game we picked out, they flip our board over and make us play their game instead.

[Mad Jack]

The entire raiding world can't field 20 update WAs, let alone 50.

The leadership on some of their OSF's alone exceeds the amount you're telling us they can garner.

OSF's?

[Delmonte]

The leadership on some of their OSF's alone exceeds the amount you're telling us they can garner.

OSF's?

... Off-Site Forum. Seriously?

[Mad Jack]

Just a thing to point out: I keep seeing a lot of Gameplay folks (particularly Raiders and Raider Apologists) comparing Nationstates to a game.

The fact is, NationStates is not a game. NationStates is a room full of different games that you can choose from. One is R/D. One is General. One is RP'ing of various flavors, and there's others that I'm sure I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about.

The point is, when people say RP'ers "don't want to play the game they signed up for", they're missing the point that we didn't sign up for R/D. We signed up to come into the room that is NationStates, and we picked a different game (RP'ing) than some others (R/D'ers) did, and we want to be able to play that game that we chose, except that the others (R/D'ers) keep coming over to tell us which game we're going to play (the one they chose). And then when we try to play the game we picked out, they flip our board over and make us play their game instead.

You've been on NS for at least 6 years, according to your nation founding date.

How many times has your board been flipped over?

OSF's?

... Off-Site Forum. Seriously?

*shrugs* It's not an initialism that I've seen before.

And that leadership is probably talking about total WAs, not update WAs.

[Delmonte]

Just a thing to point out: I keep seeing a lot of Gameplay folks (particularly Raiders and Raider Apologists) comparing Nationstates to a game.

The fact is, NationStates is not a game. NationStates is a room full of different games that you can choose from. One is R/D. One is General. One is RP'ing of various flavors, and there's others that I'm sure I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about.

The point is, when people say RP'ers "don't want to play the game they signed up for", they're missing the point that we didn't sign up for R/D. We signed up to come into the room that is NationStates, and we picked a different game (RP'ing) than some others (R/D'ers) did, and we want to be able to play that game that we chose, except that the others (R/D'ers) keep coming over to tell us which game we're going to play (the one they chose). And then when we try to play the game we picked out, they flip our board over and make us play their game instead.

You've been on NS for at least 6 years, according to your nation founding date.

How many times has your board been flipped over?

... Off-Site Forum. Seriously?

*shrugs* It's not an initialism that I've seen before.

And that leadership is probably talking about total WAs, not update WAs.

As in, players that can be counted upon to show up for the Major Update?

[Mad Jack]

As in, players that can be counted upon to show up for the Major Update?

Heh. Whatever they're telling you, if it's anymore than 10-15, they're bsing

[The Licentian Isles]

Two proposed eventual solutions (if we can convince staff to implement them, that is... certain Moderators and most of the Raiders who have come on here are being annoyingly resistant to something that ultimately won't affect them that much) are Regional Officers (essentially non-Founder, non-WAD regional admins/moderators) and making Foundership transferable through mechanisms within the region (either directly from Founder to successor, or an in-region vote).

As for temporary solutions, password protection, while annoying and stifling, might be your best bet. Or ask the owner of the Founder nation if it would be acceptable to transfer ownership of said nation to another region member.

I'm not sure how a Regional Officer would work; could you explain that one to me ??

Transferable foundership would certainly be useful. I am in full support of that.

Password protection is something we discussed, but rejected. We've always been an open region, much like the other sports-related regions. A lot of people that get into NS Sports see the friendly nature of our region, and join because of that. A password would negate that.

In the meantime, we have convinced the founder to keep his nation going; it isn't an ideal solution, however.

You have 15 endorsements, you are safe from almost every raiding group.

Almost is the important word there. It's not a risk I'd like to take with a region that is as important to a lot of people as it is.

[The Fanboyists]

Just a thing to point out: I keep seeing a lot of Gameplay folks (particularly Raiders and Raider Apologists) comparing Nationstates to a game.

The fact is, NationStates is not a game. NationStates is a room full of different games that you can choose from. One is R/D. One is General. One is RP'ing of various flavors, and there's others that I'm sure I'm not even remotely knowledgeable about.

The point is, when people say RP'ers "don't want to play the game they signed up for", they're missing the point that we didn't sign up for R/D. We signed up to come into the room that is NationStates, and we picked a different game (RP'ing) than some others (R/D'ers) did, and we want to be able to play that game that we chose, except that the others (R/D'ers) keep coming over to tell us which game we're going to play (the one they chose). And then when we try to play the game we picked out, they flip our board over and make us play their game instead.

You've been on NS for at least 6 years, according to your nation founding date.

How many times has your board been flipped over?

Mine personally? Once, in my first year on here, before I really started RPing a lot. But it was annoying even then, and that was for a dinky little five-nation region that we didn't put much effort into, so I can only imagine how maddening it must be when it's something you've actually had a chance to put work into.

But then, I've spent four-and-a-half of those years on NationStates in a Foundered region (which we refounded when our original Founder CTE'd), password-protected region with a solidly-endorsed delegate, and our stuff is backed-up onto an off-site forum. We've taken those precautions anyway. But we're a more insular region than most of us would like, and there's not a doubt in my mind that at least some of that is because of the fact that password protection has been viewed as a necessity to prevent raiding.

But I'm not under the illusion that all RP regions' situations are analogous to our own. Others, for various reasons, either have fewer WA nations, a CTE'ed Founder, or no password protection (or some combination of all three) because their regions work better with or without different ones. Just because we covered our bases doesn't mean everyone should have to, any more than, as I've previously said, you should have to go armed to the teeth just to walk down a dark alley. Doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare for a knife-fight, but ideally you shouldn't have to expect to be in one, either.


@ The Licentian Isles

I'll admit, I'm not 100% clear on how they would work. It was explained to me as them being non-WAD moderators for the region, and my assumption is that they'd be appointed by the Founder (which would hopefully be transferable), making them immune to the Tyranny-by-Majority mechanics that Raiders use. But don't quote me on that.


EDITED-IN-NOTE: I'm going to go get lunch. If someone addresses something to me and I don't answer right away, I promise, I'm not just ignoring you, I'll get back to you as soon as I return.

[Mad Jack]

Two proposed eventual solutions (if we can convince staff to implement them, that is... certain Moderators and most of the Raiders who have come on here are being annoyingly resistant to something that ultimately won't affect them that much) are Regional Officers (essentially non-Founder, non-WAD regional admins/moderators) and making Foundership transferable through mechanisms within the region (either directly from Founder to successor, or an in-region vote).

As for temporary solutions, password protection, while annoying and stifling, might be your best bet. Or ask the owner of the Founder nation if it would be acceptable to transfer ownership of said nation to another region member.

I'm not sure how a Regional Officer would work; could you explain that one to me ??

More info here, but basically, a founder could appoint regional officers who have access to some regional controls, without the need for them to become delegate.

In the meantime, we have convinced the founder to keep his nation going; it isn't an ideal solution, however.

Perhaps the founder account could be held by a group of senior members of your region? That would allow the current founder to move to his nation whilst keeping your region secure.

You have 15 endorsements, you are safe from almost every raiding group.

Almost is the important word there. It's not a risk I'd like to take with a region that is as important to a lot of people as it is.

I can understand the concern.

[The North Polish Union]

You have 15 endorsements, you are safe from almost every raiding group.

Almost is the important word there. It's not a risk I'd like to take with a region that is as important to a lot of people as it is.

Actually, you're safe from all of them. Unless 3 or 4 of them get together and raid your region cooperatively. But that's a pain in the ass to plan/execute so it doesn't happen much.

[Cerillium]

As in, players that can be counted upon to show up for the Major Update?

Heh. Whatever they're telling you, if it's anymore than 10-15, they're bsing

I've lurked in the UDL IRC (no offense to Uni) during a few of their raids "liberations" and seen at least 12 going at it. Some were using puppets already in place in that region while others were making the jumps.

Are you telling me that raider organization participation has dropped so much that they can't muster more than 10 people for a raid? If that's the case, it's time to retire that gameside component. Otherwise those groups are doing nothing more than picking nearly rotted carcasses or else focusing on very, very small regions. Where's the glory in that?

Heads up to Del. I'm NOT picking on your plan. I'm pointing out the reason why they now need willing siege participants.

[The Licentian Isles]

I'm not sure how a Regional Officer would work; could you explain that one to me ??

More info here, but basically, a founder could appoint regional officers who have access to some regional controls, without the need for them to become delegate.

That's an interesting idea; I think that could work.

In the meantime, we have convinced the founder to keep his nation going; it isn't an ideal solution, however.

Perhaps the founder account could be held by a group of senior members of your region? That would allow the current founder to move to his nation whilst keeping your region secure.

We have considered that, but it's still a case of somebody remembering to log onto it every 28 days. It is an option, but it's not one we've put much thought to, simply because none of the senior members are particularly good at remembering anything.

[Anemos Major]

[Perhaps the founder account could be held by a group of senior members of your region? That would allow the current founder to move to his nation whilst keeping your region secure.

Multiple ownership of the same account, I would guess, wouldn't be looked upon too kindly by the powers that be (IP and account sharing make rule enforcement harder) - if it's recognised that some form of mechanism to allow regions to outlive their founders is necessary, what's the problem with implementing a succession system?

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) -

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.