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

[The Fanboyists]

^^^^^ Anemos Major, could you, perhaps, link to that post in the OP? It might cut down on the number of Raiders coming in with the same points that we've addressed repeatedly.

[Estovakiva]

^^^^^ Anemos Major, could you, perhaps, link to that post in the OP? It might cut down on the number of Raiders coming in with the same points that we've addressed repeatedly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yes please..

[Anemos Major]

Done and done.

[Crystal Spires]

Beautiful response Anemos and it bears repeating.

Oh, and in addition to this there has been deliberate pandering to Raiders by creating warzones etc, which they choose not to participate in doing which means that they have been uniquely given places they can raid with impunity before, what they want now is to impugn on other people's separate uninvolved game, which I just don't approve of.

[The Fanboyists]

Beautiful response Anemos and it bears repeating.

Oh, and in addition to this there has been deliberate pandering to Raiders by creating warzones etc, which they choose not to participate in doing which means that they have been uniquely given places they can raid with impunity before, what they want now is to impugn on other people's separate uninvolved game, which I just don't approve of.

Although from what I understand, the Wazones weren't terribly well-executed, contributing to their lack of use, your point stands: it's not like NS Staff has never catered to R/D. Whereas it's been a pretty solid while since anything was done specifically for the benefit of RP'ers.

[Maltropia]

Beautiful response Anemos and it bears repeating.

Oh, and in addition to this there has been deliberate pandering to Raiders by creating warzones etc, which they choose not to participate in doing which means that they have been uniquely given places they can raid with impunity before, what they want now is to impugn on other people's separate uninvolved game, which I just don't approve of.

Although from what I understand, the Wazones weren't terribly well-executed, contributing to their lack of use, your point stands: it's not like NS Staff has never catered to R/D. Whereas it's been a pretty solid while since anything was done specifically for the benefit of RP'ers.

I'm looking at the green tag on my nation page and disagreeing with you there, but I know what the point you're making is.

If I could marry your last post, Anemos, I quite probably would.

[SquareDisc City]

Whereas it's been a pretty solid while since anything was done specifically for the benefit of RP'ers.

Point of order, the P2TM forum was created not so long ago.

[The Fanboyists]

@Maltropia & SquareDisc City

Fair enough. Sorry. But the point was the important part: it's hardly like we're trying to repress or stamp out R/D, and the staff is in no danger of trying to do so, either.

[Grenartia]

What happened at Greater Dienstad tends to happen all regions taking stance of Game Play 'Pacifism', without enforcing that stance with Game Play Means Available.

I may sound very hard, cold and cynical, but actually I'm currently Role Playing Hard Boiled Raider. That is legitime and available possibility to approach to this game. In Political Game Contradictions Are Inevitable. In certain level also RPers vs. GPers struggle is part of that that Political Simulation, where possibility to wage war exists, in fact making this game 'Political.'

Trouble is, which has been stated many many times, that the measures that are currently available as protection against raiding aren't really practicable for a number of RP regions.

*Founders can go inactive or CTE, refounding the region is more of an annoyance that doesn't really solve the core problem of an inactive Founder.

*Passwords have been proven time and again to actually offer any great deal of protection since raiders have ways round them.

*Non-exec WAD, not something that works with an inactive Founder. Though if Regional Officers actually get introduced and depending how they actually work then having a non-exec WAD would be viable.

But as I said in my post if raiders simply posted a single message in the RMB or added a single line in the WFE like "you've been raided!" then things wouldn't be so bad. Yes we would still be annoyed about it, but it isn't so bad as having the region vandalized.

That said GD has been around for at least 7-8 years and our Founder can be quickly summoned when needed, the TBR raid of a couple of days ago is like the only time we've been raided. TBR say it was 'random chance' but wouldn't it have hurt to have a look at the region first since having a Founder is supposedly a 'natural opt-out'?

Quite. Raiders always say "If you don't want to be raided, do X, Y, and/or Z", even though they're all not practical, and most don't even offer any protection, because regions that do X and Y still get raided.

Yeah. That is Default for everyone signing up into NS. And because that is Default, there are nothing unfair in it. When You Sign up to NationStates, you sign up Game Playing Enviroment. What comes after that, it's your choice to make.

Your region(s) is/are simply target(s) as long as you don't figure that out how to make it/them safe.

With all Respect.

...You and Ambroscus Koth need to go read the rest of this thread.

R/D is not "default for everyone signing up into NS". Go on. Try founding a new nation. I'll wait. Tell me exactly where it says during that process you're signing on for the R/D subgame, where it's described or named. I'll wait. I'll wait for freaking ever, because it's not there. R/D is a subgame just like RP. Really, the only deliberate part of GP is regions, regional movement, issues, and the WA. No mention is ever made that your region can and will be disrupted for the lulz.

The status quo forces RP'ers to either bend over backwards for some spotty protection from Raiders, or it forces us to just bend over the other way.

Also, Ambroscus Koth, your "you have tools" thing has been refuted time and again in much more thorough fashion. Please go back and read some of the preceding thread; it's not hard to find, since we've been forced to rehash those arguments ad nauseum because every five pages or so some Raider comes in and feeds the exact same "you have the tools" thing to us with a gross misunderstanding of 1) the situation as a whole as it relates to RP and 2) what it is exactly that we're so pissed about.

You must be a carpenter, because you've hit the nail on the head.

This is a claim that needs sourcing, proving or backing up with evidence.

Had Lamoni had more than one endo in a region of more than 50 nations, Greater Dienstad wouldn't have been raided at all.
It actually hasn't, like at all.

No one has explained why it is difficult for a region of 50+ nations to have more than one endorsement on their delegate. That's not unreasonable, and had it occurred in GD, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Would the number of endorsements on a WAD really made any difference?

Say we had 50 endorsements, whats stopping a bunch of raiders from bringing in 52 guys and endorsing their own WAD?

Absolutely nothing. If they want to raid the region that badly, they'd figure out a way to do it.

So, just to clarify, the answer to that problem is basically what?

To make existing protections (Non-Exec WAD, Foundership, Password Protection) more durable. Particularly through the addition of Regional Officers and Transferable Foundership, which would allow us to keep Founder protections even in the event of a CTEing Founder, as well as admin our region without having to be involved in the World Assembly, which is primarily an arena for GP folks (and which, as a result, since most RP'ers would be unwilling to devote the same amount of time and energy to involvement therein, we would have a disadvantage in representation as a group). We want to be able to administer our own regions, insulate ourselves as much as is practically possible from the R/D aspect (in particular) of Gameplay, and be free to RP without our regions being disrupted, without being forced to involve ourselves FURTHER into GP, which entirely defeats the point of trying to insulate ourselves from it.

OR, barring that, make a separate aspect of the game that would allow RPers to organize ourselves just like we currently do in regions, except that this aspect would be exempt from R/D. And allow people to be in both the new aspect AND regions, so that anybody who wants to take part in both can do so, even with one account. (emphasis added to increase visibility).

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.

R/D is not the sole aspect of the game, and should be totally optional, just like all other aspects of the game. R/D is a SUBGAME (just like RP). We shouldn't be forced to play their subgame, just as they're not forced to play ours. The only main aspect of the game is answering issues (and even that's totally optional). You, as an Issues Editor, should know that.

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.

Exactly.

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.

Exactly. Why can't more people grasp that?

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?

I can't speak for TF, but my board hasn't been flipped over. But my friends' boards HAVE. And I don't want what happened to them to happen anymore to me or to them again. And I shouldn't have to join the people who come along and reflip boards just to keep that from happening.

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.

I'm against transferrable foundership because it could be used by raiders against us.

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.

Until they decide to do it because its worth it because of all "teh lulz" from "trolling butthurt natives". And don't say it won't happen, because we've been told that we'd be safe if we have founders. Which is blatantly lying, as foundered regions have been successfully raided. Or that we need passwords, which is also blatantly lying, as passworded regions have been successfully raided.

[SFBA wabbitslayah]

Please do not emphasize to add visibility. It actually makes me want to avoid it.

[The North Polish Union]

Would the number of endorsements on a WAD really made any difference?

Say we had 50 endorsements, whats stopping a bunch of raiders from bringing in 52 guys and endorsing their own WAD?

Absolutely nothing. If they want to raid the region that badly, they'd figure out a way to do it.

This is the only part of your huge post that I'm going to refute right now, since I don't have the time to address it all.

This is complete BS. It is impossible for raiders to get 51+ people to hit a region at a single update. Add in all the timing complexities and defenders (if they ever wake up out of hibernation) and it moves to beyond being even plausible. If your going to gripe about "teh ebul R/D game" at least learn how it works and what is and is not possible. Please.

[Grenartia]

Please do not emphasize to add visibility. It actually makes me want to avoid it.

I only did it because I've mentioned it 3 times before, and people keep going by as if I hadn't said it, thus indicating to me that they hadn't.

Absolutely nothing. If they want to raid the region that badly, they'd figure out a way to do it.

This is the only part of your huge post that I'm going to refute right now, since I don't have the time to address it all.

This is complete BS. It is impossible for raiders to get 51+ people to hit a region at a single update. Add in all the timing complexities and defenders (if they ever wake up out of hibernation) and it moves to beyond being even plausible. If your going to gripe about "teh ebul R/D game" at least learn how it works and what is and is not possible. Please.

And we've gotten the same kind of static about pointing out that the statement that only founderless regions get raided is false. Others have said that the best defence against raiders is being in a region with a founder because the founder will kick out the raiders, and yet, we've seen that GD had a founder, and got raided. So why should we believe that X number of endorsements is the best defence against raiders?

[Evil Wolf]

And we've gotten the same kind of static about pointing out that the statement that only founderless regions get raided is false. Others have said that the best defence against raiders is being in a region with a founder because the founder will kick out the raiders, and yet, we've seen that GD had a founder, and got raided. So why should we believe that X number of endorsements is the best defence against raiders?

No. What I, and many others, have said, repeatedly in this thread, is that the best defense is a Founder with the Delegate Controls off. Raids will not impact you.

If you choose, for whatever reason, to keep the delegate controls on, well then, you become open to raiding. However, having a Founder in general is you next best defense. If you choose to be in a region without a Founder, then your next best defense is to have a Delegate with a high endorsement count. If you choose not to have a delegate with a high endorsement count, then your next best defense is to have a Delegate with any endorsement count. If you choose not to have a Delegate at all, and you're in a founderless region, and you're still complaining about being raided, then I have nothing more to say to you, for there is clearly no pleasing you.

[Grenartia]

And we've gotten the same kind of static about pointing out that the statement that only founderless regions get raided is false. Others have said that the best defence against raiders is being in a region with a founder because the founder will kick out the raiders, and yet, we've seen that GD had a founder, and got raided. So why should we believe that X number of endorsements is the best defence against raiders?

No. What I, and many others, have said, repeatedly in this thread, is that the best defense is a Founder with the Delegate Controls off. Raids will not impact you.

If you choose, for whatever reason, to keep the delegate controls on, well then, you become open to raiding. However, having a Founder in general is you next best defense. If you choose to be in a region without a Founder, then your next best defense is to have a Delegate with a high endorsement count. If you choose not to have a delegate with a high endorsement count, then your next best defense is to have a Delegate with any endorsement count. If you choose not to have a Delegate at all, and you're in a founderless region, and you're still complaining about being raided, then I have nothing more to say to you, for there is clearly no pleasing you.

And if these procedures are all it takes to keep from being raided, then why is R/D still around? Forgive me for not believing these procedures are all it takes to be all but immune to raiding, because if so, no region wouldn't have done these things.

[The Fanboyists]

No. What I, and many others, have said, repeatedly in this thread, is that the best defense is a Founder with the Delegate Controls off. Raids will not impact you.

If you choose, for whatever reason, to keep the delegate controls on, well then, you become open to raiding. However, having a Founder in general is you next best defense. If you choose to be in a region without a Founder, then your next best defense is to have a Delegate with a high endorsement count. If you choose not to have a delegate with a high endorsement count, then your next best defense is to have a Delegate with any endorsement count. If you choose not to have a Delegate at all, and you're in a founderless region, and you're still complaining about being raided, then I have nothing more to say to you, for there is clearly no pleasing you.

And if these procedures are all it takes to keep from being raided, then why is R/D still around? Forgive me for not believing these procedures are all it takes to be all but immune to raiding, because if so, no region wouldn't have done these things.

Well, except that some people are okay with it, or just choose not to use them. The fact is, as much as we want out of R/D, it doesn't necessarily bother everyone to that extent.

[Evil Wolf]

And if these procedures are all it takes to keep from being raided, then why is R/D still around? Forgive me for not believing these procedures are all it takes to be all but immune to raiding, because if so, no region wouldn't have done these things.

Not everyone is willing to do those steps, as RPers have also endlessly pointed out, but just because they are not willing to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. The choice is ultimately up to the player.

[Ruzan]

And if these procedures are all it takes to keep from being raided, then why is R/D still around? Forgive me for not believing these procedures are all it takes to be all but immune to raiding, because if so, no region wouldn't have done these things.

Partly trade-offs. If I were in charge of a region, I could see wanting an exec Delegate to run things while I was busy with RL. And passwords can hurt a region as much as some raids.

The rest aren't that easy. I would prefer a high endo count, but many regions have few or no WAs.

[Grenartia]

And if these procedures are all it takes to keep from being raided, then why is R/D still around? Forgive me for not believing these procedures are all it takes to be all but immune to raiding, because if so, no region wouldn't have done these things.

Well, except that some people are okay with it, or just choose not to use them. The fact is, as much as we want out of R/D, it doesn't necessarily bother everyone to that extent.

The underlined is why I feel the claim that if R/D were opt-in, it would die, is bullshit.

And if these procedures are all it takes to keep from being raided, then why is R/D still around? Forgive me for not believing these procedures are all it takes to be all but immune to raiding, because if so, no region wouldn't have done these things.

Not everyone is willing to do those steps, as RPers have also endlessly pointed out, but just because they are not willing to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. The choice is ultimately up to the player.

And not without good reason. We shouldn't have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us because we want to keep our regions open to newcomers, and to keep our regions running when, as this person points out, the founder is offline:

And if these procedures are all it takes to keep from being raided, then why is R/D still around? Forgive me for not believing these procedures are all it takes to be all but immune to raiding, because if so, no region wouldn't have done these things.

Partly trade-offs. If I were in charge of a region, I could see wanting an exec Delegate to run things while I was busy with RL. And passwords can hurt a region as much as some raids.

The rest aren't that easy. I would prefer a high endo count, but many regions have few or no WAs.

Exactly.

[Evil Wolf]

Not everyone is willing to do those steps, as RPers have also endlessly pointed out, but just because they are not willing to do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. The choice is ultimately up to the player.

And not without good reason. We shouldn't have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us because we want to keep our regions open to newcomers, and to keep our regions running when, as this person points out, the founder is offline:

Grenartia, you're in Ankh Mauta, a region which has it's Delegate Controls off. Who is this "we" you speak of?

I find it ironic that a player who is adamant that RPers "have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us" does so from a region which can not be raided in its current condition.

[The Republic of Lanos]

And not without good reason. We shouldn't have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us because we want to keep our regions open to newcomers, and to keep our regions running when, as this person points out, the founder is offline:

Grenartia, you're in Ankh Mauta, a region which has it's Delegate Controls off. What is this "we" you speak of?

I find it ironic that a player who is adamant that RPers "have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us" does so in a region which can not be raided in its current condition.

What's wrong with having solidarity amongst RPers but ok for raiders?

[Evil Wolf]

What's wrong with having solidarity amongst RPers but ok for raiders?

Nothing, but for him to stand there and says "Oh, RPers can't protect themselves because of reasons!" when he's sitting in a region that clearly shows they can is more than a little hypocritical.

[Ainin]

And not without good reason. We shouldn't have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us because we want to keep our regions open to newcomers, and to keep our regions running when, as this person points out, the founder is offline:

Grenartia, you're in Ankh Mauta, a region which has it's Delegate Controls off. Who is this "we" you speak of?

I find it ironic that a player who is adamant that RPers "have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us" does so from a region which can not be raided in its current condition.

This changes what exactly? The "we" they said is implied to mean "roleplayers" due to its context. And how do you know they don't have a presence in other RP regions?

[Delmonte]

Grenartia, you're in Ankh Mauta, a region which has it's Delegate Controls off. What is this "we" you speak of?

I find it ironic that a player who is adamant that RPers "have to constantly worry about Big Bubba having his way with us" does so in a region which can not be raided in its current condition.

What's wrong with having solidarity amongst RPers but ok for raiders?

I strongly believe in RPer solidarity! I also believe in NS solidarity.

[Evil Wolf]

This changes what exactly? The "we" they said is implied to mean "roleplayers" due to its context. And how do you know they don't have a presence in other RP regions?

I'd like to point out that Ainin resides currently in Esquarium, a region which, since it's founder has elected to enable Delegate Controls, has a Delegate that has 22 endorsements. This would make them very much immune from most raids, since I know of no raider group that would sink 24 players into raiding a founder region at update.

I'm just merely pointing out that many RPers in this thread that complain about Raiding and how destructive it is to the RP Community do so from behind some very well protected regions that either can't be raided, because of game mechanics, or have made themselves such an unappetizing target, no raider in their right mind would even bother.

[The Republic of Lanos]

I think at this point, any R/D raids on a RP region, regardless of founder/delegate situations, would bring serious heat upon the raiders and raiding group responsible. That's probably why no one has heard of a serious raid on a RP region that falls under the typical raider target categories. At least, none that we heard of that have yet to discover this is an issue.