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

[Tano]

Your opt-out is coming, in the form of regional officers, which is under discussion here

Didn't we reach that conclusion about 20 pages ago?

Yep. So now, people are just throwing empty words out at each other, in hopes of...I honestly don't know what.

[The Fanboyists]

I dunno what triggered the last few pages, but the last time I posted, the only thing most RP'ers were posting for was in response to fresh batches of raiders coming on and saying "lol ur butthurt, you'll destroy raiding, etc etc", and a bunch of us repeating the same earlier arguments on why they were wrong and we were fine with improved protections, and then I don't even know, some folks came on and some RP'ers made the rest of us look bad by extension and Evil Wolf relapsed in their arguments.

My only thing, since I don't see an existing proposal in that set of them, is why there's not any provision being made to transfer Foundership that doesn't directly involve the WA, since that by definition makes us get involved in a part of gameplay we don't want to be part of just to ensure our autonomy. As mentioned previously (multiple times), there should be both a direct transfer from Founder to Successor option, and a way to elect one by people already in the region at the time of CTE in case there's nobody designated. Seeing as having a transferable Foundership pretty much eliminates a lot of the problems with CTE'ing Founders and the like.

[ALMF]

What's wrong with that?

It would destroy the R/D game.

...witch is fundamentally incompatible with the esance of NS.

[ALMF]

Quite frankly, I equate raiding to stealing because it is taking something that isn't yours by force for your own enjoyment. The raiders did not build that region, the raiders did not invest the time and effort into creating those forums, the raiders did not create the WFE or the regional flag, but now they have complete control over them and change them to shove it in the face of those from whom they've stolen the very region they called home. I, for one, do not call that fun, nor do I call that a game of any sort.

I like to call it Nationstates.net.

And the absolute worst idea ever invented by NationStates players would be utterly destroyed? Then, by all means, I am FOR this proposal.

You do realize that RP was invented by players too, if you want to get really snippy, and isn't hard coded into the game either. Raiding has just as much right to exist as RP does. Don't like it? Find another game, because we're not going to destroy the R/D sub-game in order avoid the minor and very occasional inconvenience it causes in yours.

Evan if the existence of the "R/D sub-game" in effect eliminates RP?

[Esternial]

I like to call it Nationstates.net.



You do realize that RP was invented by players too, if you want to get really snippy, and isn't hard coded into the game either. Raiding has just as much right to exist as RP does. Don't like it? Find another game, because we're not going to destroy the R/D sub-game in order avoid the minor and very occasional inconvenience it causes in yours.

Evan if the existence of the "R/D sub-game" in effect eliminates RP?

How does it?

Disrupt? Yes. Eliminate is a whole different word.

[ALMF]

My feelings on R/D should be extremely clear at this point, and I agree that some of us do disagree on the issue. Unfortunately, it's not going away no matter how much we argue for its abolishing. I agree that there should be some opt-out option that exempts a region from invasion whether or not the WA Delegate has executive controls. These new potential options seem like they may help fix the problem, but there is a fear in me about people with ulterior motives attempting to hijack regions with the new controls. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they bring. Regardless, it will not change my mind on R/D.

Or we can pass a (US) federal constitutional amendment to make it retroactively illegal and a crime agenst humanity.

[Chrinthanium]

Your opt-out is coming, in the form of regional officers, which is under discussion here

Not an opt-out. Just more ways to potentially invade a region. By definition, an opt-out feature is a one-stop-shop for removing the specified function completely. (I.E. when you sign up for a service online and, with one click, can opt out of receiving e-mail newsletters and you never get one). Further discussion on this specific topic as linked to by Mad Jack will be reserved for the appropriate thread.

My feelings on R/D should be extremely clear at this point, and I agree that some of us do disagree on the issue. Unfortunately, it's not going away no matter how much we argue for its abolishing. I agree that there should be some opt-out option that exempts a region from invasion whether or not the WA Delegate has executive controls. These new potential options seem like they may help fix the problem, but there is a fear in me about people with ulterior motives attempting to hijack regions with the new controls. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they bring. Regardless, it will not change my mind on R/D.

Or we can pass a (US) federal constitutional amendment to make it retroactively illegal and a crime agenst humanity.

Le sigh.

[Grenartia]

I like to call it stealing because that what it is.

What? Nationstates is not theft!

We're tired of being trampled by raiders. We have every right to be here as you do and to have our regions left untouched by unwelcome intrusions like an invasion. We're not going to leave just because you think that those of us of an opinion contrary to yours are wrong.

This 'we" you speak of does not include you, Chrinthanium. You reside in The Beach, a region of over 200 nations that has a Founder and it's delegate controls off. When Chrinthanium says "we", he do not speak of himself, for he has already made the smart and sensible decision to opt-out of R/D. He speaks of regions he has never seen and players he has never met or even spoken to on the forums and massive attacks against the RP community that never happened.

Chrinthanium, you already have the right to have your region "untouched by unwelcome intrusions like an invasion", and you have already taken it. I find it endlessly amusing tha the RPers in here who advocate exterminating the R/D game and suggest that it's harming RP do so from regions that can not be raided and are perfectly protected.

Its like you've ignored everything pointed out previously.

Yes. We RPers have this thing called RP unity. Its actually real, unlike your "Raider unity" (see, we can deny your form of unity as well). Also, RP regions only put that shit up for the short term until this problem is resolved.

A "solution" that, as you know full well, only works while the region's Founder still exists... and that is therefore no help at all for the 'founderless' regions who, for obvious reasons, seem to suffer the majority of your attacks.

Founderless roleplaying regions have a method of protection that requires nothing of them. They can seek protection under the Concordat. We already have one such region under our protection and they are enthusiastic with being able to go unpassworded and be completely safe.

Except, your deal with the devil inherently forces RPers to participate in R/D. Having to side with raiders is just as bad as having to raid and as having to side with/become defenders.

Give us associations (or something like them), make it against the rules to raid them, and everything will be fine.

And if the Founder should be away and administration is needed, then there is no one around to do it.

An your solution to this minor technical problem, one that the Regional Officers update shall fix, is to destroy Military Gameplay entirely.

Once again, the entire purpose of this thread is that some RPers felt that there was no way to Opt-Out of being raided. If you're arguing that Founders should never CTE and all regions should never be raided because that's bad and stuff, go make another thread.

Because they RP in a Founderless region, they are putting themselves at risk? Your reasoning is becoming ridiculous. The more you speak on raiding, the more you confirm that raiding is stealing. "They left it there for me to take, so I took it."

RPers can RP in any region they wish. If they choose to RP in a founderless region, they're probably going to get raided. The solution to this is to not RP in a founderless region. That way, you can't get raided and your RP session will not be interrupted. Any region that's founderless has the potential to be raided. Founderless RP regions are not special in this regard.

And foundered regions are any safer? We saw with GD that they aren't.

Region Griefing, also known as Region Destruction, under the old Invasion Rules was illegal. Raiding was not. To say Raiding was ever illegal would be a falsehood.

On another note, Farfadillis, I find it ironic that you would destroy one part of the game for the simple convenience of another and then claim your intention is to save communities. R/D is not, by any stretch of the imagination, destroying RP as we know it. The hype simply does not live up to reality.

Except, it is. We're having to close our regions to newcomers, destroy our ability to govern the region when the founder's offline, etc., just to avoid having our regions raped and our RPs totally killed (which they will be due to the protection measures in a matter of time, if a solution isn't enacted soon).

Your opt-out is coming, in the form of regional officers, which is under discussion here

Except the best solution is here.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Evan if the existence of the "R/D sub-game" in effect eliminates RP?

How? How the hell would a few blokes who like running around and electing themselves delegate of someone else's nation somehow prevent us from having our roleplay threads?

[Grenartia]

Evan if the existence of the "R/D sub-game" in effect eliminates RP?

How? How the hell would a few blokes who like running around and electing themselves delegate of someone else's nation somehow prevent us from having our roleplay threads?

Because we use those regions to organize ourselves, and need the WAD to govern the region when the founder's away. When we get raided, there's a delay in the flow of information, which, even if a few hours long, can still kill an RP.

[ALMF]

How? How the hell would a few blokes who like running around and electing themselves delegate of someone else's nation somehow prevent us from having our roleplay threads?

Because we use those regions to organize ourselves, and need the WAD to govern the region when the founder's away. When we get raided, there's a delay in the flow of information, which, even if a few hours long, can still kill an RP.

Exactly and more after the separation of members in a successfully raided reagon mostly leave and don't come back.

[Bears Armed]

On another note, Farfadillis, I find it ironic that you would destroy one part of the game for the simple convenience of another and then claim your intention is to save communities.

As has been pointed out on numerous previous occasions, restricting your choice of targets shouldn't be enough to "destroy" R/D because if what you enjoy so much is the strategic struggle then there would still be nothing to keep you from fighting over the existing Warzones -- which were officially created for that very same purpose, after all -- or from setting up additional new regions yourselves as targets for fighting over.

Unless, as some raiders have suggested in response to such suggestions in the past, the real fun for them is upsetting non-R/D players?
If that is the case then "legalized bullying" definitely does sound like an accurate description.

So, which is it? Why can't you manage with just fighting over regions that were actually created to be targets for this?

[The Fanboyists]

Your opt-out is coming, in the form of regional officers, which is under discussion here

Not an opt-out. Just more ways to potentially invade a region. By definition, an opt-out feature is a one-stop-shop for removing the specified function completely. (I.E. when you sign up for a service online and, with one click, can opt out of receiving e-mail newsletters and you never get one). Further discussion on this specific topic as linked to by Mad Jack will be reserved for the appropriate thread.

Here, I'm going to have to disagree with you, Chrinthanium. Although regional officers in of themselves, like every other game-play feature, can be potentially exploited, the fact is, every game-play feature that exists can be. That said, if you were to, say, combine that with a transferable Foundership (with provision to replace them internally in the event of CTE without designating a successor), and you could make regions pretty safe on the current model, probably removing the need to even password protect; the regional officers can replace the WAD as more-present regional moderators, while the Foundership can be transferred to keep those protections in-play, and allowing you to keep a non-exec WAD, keeping the region safe from pretty much anything beyond mild harassment on the RMB (which, frankly, the only way to take away that threat is to remove the RMB).

[Charax]

just to avoid having our regions raped and our RPs totally killed

Simmer down there buddy. Crying to the mods because you can't be bothered to endorse a regional delegate doesn't require the use of violent sexual imagery, last I checked.

[Evil Wolf]

On another note, Farfadillis, I find it ironic that you would destroy one part of the game for the simple convenience of another and then claim your intention is to save communities.

As has been pointed out on numerous previous occasions, restricting your choice of targets shouldn't be enough to "destroy" R/D because if what you enjoy so much is the strategic struggle then there would still be nothing to keep you from fighting over the existing Warzones -- which were officially created for that purpose -- or from setting up new target regions yourselves for fighting over.

Firstly, Farfadillis isn't advocating for a restriction of targets, he's pushing for the actual elimination of the R/D game. He's one of the few RPers in the thread actually asking for that and that comment was directed at him personally.

Secondly, I'd rather invade my eye with a fork than invade a Warzone. Even Defenders don't count Warzones as actual regions.

[Charax]

Secondly, I'd rather invade my eye with a fork than invade a Warzone. Even Defenders don't count Warzones as actual regions.

There was a phase where we were iffy about Airspace, but then we realised Codger Kicking was too fun to avoid doing.

[Grenartia]

just to avoid having our regions raped and our RPs totally killed

Simmer down there buddy. Crying to the mods because you can't be bothered to endorse a regional delegate doesn't require the use of violent sexual imagery, last I checked.

Except, we've already explained (multiple people, multiple times, in this thread alone) why simply "endorsing a WAD" doesn't work, and actively hinders us. Also, the underlined is called an analogy, and is an apt one.

[Evil Wolf]

Secondly, I'd rather invade my eye with a fork than invade a Warzone. Even Defenders don't count Warzones as actual regions.

There was a phase where we were iffy about Airspace, but then we realised Codger Kicking was too fun to avoid doing.

Defenders destroy Warzone communities, we should ban or restrict Defending.

Better yet, someone should start an RP session in one of the Warzones and then act really offended when that Warzone gets attacked.

[Farfadillis]

As has been pointed out on numerous previous occasions, restricting your choice of targets shouldn't be enough to "destroy" R/D because if what you enjoy so much is the strategic struggle then there would still be nothing to keep you from fighting over the existing Warzones -- which were officially created for that purpose -- or from setting up new target regions yourselves for fighting over.

Firstly, Farfadillis isn't advocating for a restriction of targets, he's pushing for the actual elimination of the R/D game. He's one of the few RPers in the thread actually asking for that and that comment was directed at him personally.

Secondly, I'd rather invade my eye with a fork than invade a Warzone. Even Defenders don't count Warzones as actual regions.

Not exactly my intentions, but pretty close. I'd not mind Bears Armed's solution, though. You can go invade a Warzone, or whoever agrees they want to be raided. If you do feel like invading people who don't want to be invaded, it is indeed legalized bullying.

[Evil Wolf]

But Farfadillis, think of the RPers who might start a session in one of the Warzones! Sure it's not even remotely a smart move, but they have a right to RP wherever they want and those mean, terrible, nasty invaders have no right to destroy an RP community, even if it is firmly in the middle of a Warzone.

[The Fanboyists]

But Farfadillis, think of the RPers who might start a session in one of the Warzones! Sure it's not even remotely a smart move, but they have a right to RP wherever they want and those mean, terrible, nasty invaders have no right to destroy an RP community, even if it is firmly in the middle of a Warzone.

^ He's actually got a point, of sorts. If we start asking for something that approaches a blanket opt-out for RPing, the thing is RP'ers might start getting used as shields; if a couple of RP'ers happen to be in a non-RPing region, they might still cry foul about R/D. I'm not saying that's necessarily a thing that would happen, but there's a reason we need a solution of protection better than either being forced to involve ourselves in R/D or crying foul to the mods every time something happens. And why improving existing regional protection systems so that RP'ers aren't as inconvenienced by protecting themselves is probably the most-workable solution for both sides.

@ Some of the more-recently-arrived (to this thread) RP'ers:

As much as some of us (apparently) would love to see R/D go (I personally don't care if it continues, as long as I and others continue to be able to stay out of it), it's not really our place to decide whether R/D is or is not a valid subgame of NationStates. Max Barry's statements on the matter (and really, his is the opinion with the most weight) is that RP and R/D are equally valid. I get that R/D can inconvenience us in a way that RP cannot do back to R/D, and those of us who choose not to involve ourselves in it don't generally see the value in it, but that does not mean that it doesn't hold value for others. R/D has as much of a right to exist as RP (or any other subgame, for that matter). That said, it's not at all unreasonable for us to ask for expansions of existing protections that require less inconvenience from us in order to separate ourselves from R/D.

To use the game-room analogy from earlier, even if we want to be able to play risk in our corner in peace, that doesn't give us the right to do what R/D does and go over and flip over their chess boards because they're bothering us. NS is a playground, and we all have to coexist.

TL;DR: Those wanting to push R/D to extinction or severe restriction aren't going to win, and you're making the rest of us look bad. Let's stick to pushing for what we actually have a reasonable chance of getting, instead of biting off more than we can chew and needlessly antagonizing the other side.

[Esternial]

Except, your deal with the devil inherently forces RPers to participate in R/D. Having to side with raiders is just as bad as having to raid and as having to side with/become defenders.

Give us associations (or something like them), make it against the rules to raid them, and everything will be fine.

Everyone has their own methods, and if Delmonte wants to proceed down this avenue that's his choice. I'm sure some regions will subscribe to his suggestion and that's their choice. We can't claim to speak for the whole of the RP community.

I agree that we should get associations, but I oppose demanding a rule because it'll get us nowhere.

[Grenartia]

Except, your deal with the devil inherently forces RPers to participate in R/D. Having to side with raiders is just as bad as having to raid and as having to side with/become defenders.

Give us associations (or something like them), make it against the rules to raid them, and everything will be fine.

1. Everyone has their own methods, and if Delmonte wants to proceed down this avenue that's his choice. I'm sure some regions will subscribe to his suggestion and that's their choice. We can't claim to speak for the whole of the RP community.

2. I agree that we should get associations, but I oppose demanding a rule because it'll get us nowhere.

1. I was just trying to criticize the implication on Del's part that all RPers should make the deal.

2. I wasn't demanding. I was just saying what I believe would resolve this problem the best.

[Delmonte]

1. Everyone has their own methods, and if Delmonte wants to proceed down this avenue that's his choice. I'm sure some regions will subscribe to his suggestion and that's their choice. We can't claim to speak for the whole of the RP community.

2. I agree that we should get associations, but I oppose demanding a rule because it'll get us nowhere.

1. I was just trying to criticize the implication on Del's part that all RPers should make the deal.

2. I wasn't demanding. I was just saying what I believe would resolve this problem the best.

It's not quite that. I think we should at least take matters into our own hands instead of waiting for Admin to make a special case for us (which they won't and, if we're being honest, maybe even shouldn't do). And I do think it's selfish when people say "Well, I don't want to be involved with it at all, so there!" because there are plenty of regions who RP who do not have the luxury of principle. And make no mistake: It is a luxury. I've heard mention of RPer solidarity. Some solidarity: "It's not my problem so I'd rather just do nothing, save impotent whining, than actually help those who need it."

And if RPers were willing to band together and do something, the Concordat would be unnecessary. But I've seen more apathy among RPers than among the votership in Chicago. And what's most annoying is that it's not just regular apathy, that can be overcome. It's apathy with purpose. "I want nothing to do with R/D so I refuse to dedicate two or three minutes of my time each week to helping Regions that are not as well-defended as mine." It's shameful. Absolutely shameful. And they say it with such pride, too. It always baffles me how someone can make detrimental and selfish inaction seem so damn patriotic. Always baffles me. But, whatever.

[Farfadillis]

But Farfadillis, think of the RPers who might start a session in one of the Warzones! Sure it's not even remotely a smart move, but they have a right to RP wherever they want and those mean, terrible, nasty invaders have no right to destroy an RP community, even if it is firmly in the middle of a Warzone.

The comment struck me as mildly ironic (or in any case, sarcastic), but I guess I can still answer it. Personally, I'd kick RPers our of that region. I mean, Warzones were actually built for raiding, unlike all the other regions.

^ He's actually got a point, of sorts. If we start asking for something that approaches a blanket opt-out for RPing, the thing is RP'ers might start getting used as shields; if a couple of RP'ers happen to be in a non-RPing region, they might still cry foul about R/D. I'm not saying that's necessarily a thing that would happen, but there's a reason we need a solution of protection better than either being forced to involve ourselves in R/D or crying foul to the mods every time something happens. And why improving existing regional protection systems so that RP'ers aren't as inconvenienced by protecting themselves is probably the most-workable solution for both sides.

In the scenario Bears Armed proposed, I'd personally kick all RP'ers out of regions built specifically for R/D. No real way of using RP'ers as shields. Obviously, this would be because the regions that could be protected by RP'ers would already be protected, which is something raiders wouldn't like. But then again, no RP'ers like how raiders disrupt them.

I very much doubt people would use RP'ers as a shield anyway. It seems very impractical.