NationStates

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:44 pm**

Mad Jack wrote:
Rephesus wrote:That doesn't justify the actions of today's raiders.

Which would be why I didn't try to, right?

As it is, raiders don't need justification to raid.

I never said they did. I'm stating that the worse actions of past raiders doesn't justify any notion stating that today's raiders are by any means benign.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:45 pm**

Mad Jack wrote:
Rephesus wrote:That doesn't justify the actions of today's raiders.

Which would be why I didn't try to, right?

As it is, raiders don't need justification to raid.

(Mad Jack's right, by the way - though again, this debate is, and if not should, be about what raiding entails as opposed to whether raiding is allowed or not, the former being valid ground for debate and the latter being a bit of a moot point)

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:49 pm**

Evil Wolf wrote:That's Tag raiding. Not every raider region tags, in fact, the majority do not. So tag raiding might survive, but every other raider group in the game would die off.

Defending would probably die off entirely, since most Defender groups don't even bother trying to stop tag raids anymore.

How long has that been the case? Last I saw, defenders were putting quite a lot of back and players into detagging.

And as for raider regions, tagging is one of the key problems (especially with how far they've gone), but raider conduct and objectives tends to be incompatible for the most part with the expectations RPers have for their regions and the uses they have for them. For the most part, a founder will probably take a day and a bit to get back to a region and clear up the mess left by raiders; if a raider group's objective is to occupy or otherwise disrupt the region for any longer, their ability to do so is effectively at the expense of that active region's ability to play the game that they're here to play.

Which is why I've been stressing the notion of compromise for so long; in the same way that an RPer is expected not to flame or troll on the forums and follows a particular RPing code of conduct, the relationship between RPers and raiders has to be governed by the same sort of mutual agreements and compromise as opposed to the former stepping around whatever it is the latter wants to do. 'Because it means that some raiders won't be able to do whatever they want to do' isn't an ample defence when RPers come back to unusable regions and have to sit through that sort of thing for days, and nor is 'that's the way things have always been' - raiding is a perfectly legitimate form of gameplay, but the fact remains that as raiders have a use for regions so do RPers, and there's no reason why the ability of RPers to use their regional hubs should be hindered any more than necessary to make room for the wildest wishes and desires of another cadre of players who, in theory, stand on an equal footing in the eyes of the site.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:56 pm**

Anemos Major wrote:
Evil Wolf wrote:That's Tag raiding. Not every raider region tags, in fact, the majority do not. So tag raiding might survive, but every other raider group in the game would die off.

Defending would probably die off entirely, since most Defender groups don't even bother trying to stop tag raids anymore.

How long has that been the case? Last I saw, defenders were putting quite a lot of back and players into detagging.

Heh. It's been some time since defenders bothered about detagging. It's why TBR have started hitting foundered regions.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 1:57 pm**

Mad Jack wrote:Heh. It's been some time since defenders bothered about detagging. It's why TBR have started hitting foundered regions.

Ah, that's why.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 2:02 pm**

Yup. They started running out of ill-protected founderless targets to tag, so they went after ill-protected founder targets instead.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 4:00 pm**

Evil Wolf wrote:Good times, those were, good times. I should note that messing up the WFE was not against the Invasion rules. That's always been legal.

Respect. *salutes*

It's nice hear old Stories back from Golden ages of Raiding, Evil Wolf. However, What you told means that current 'TBR-Tagging Protocol' is Less destructive then what is was when griefing rules were valid.

Current TBR-Tagging Procedure after successful Seizure of Delegacy:

- Clear Ban list or Unban at least fellow raider puppets (if Any)
- Banject or Eject as much you can, starting possible Fendas and other Nations visible on the Regional Happening
- Add standard Format tag to WFE
- Change Regional Flag (TBR Flag)
- Add tag 'Recruiter Friendly" and remove all other tags (it is possible optionally add also tags 'Puppet Storage' and 'Invader')
- Delete regional welcoming message
- Withdraw/abort all embassies (if region is 'Retag' then abort withdrawal with The Black Riders)
- Supress RMB posts (few pages is enough, leaving possible past Raider Comments visible)
- Request Embassy with The Black Riders
- Move Raider puppet (Pointman) back to Current Puppet Storage Region

After introduction of influence system, Tag-raiders can very rarely actually banject any "natives" from the Target regions as they have too high influences for that. Possibility to Make 'WA-Kill' is even more scarce in occurence. Any kind Password locking is absolute out of possibilities.

So, it's actually hard to understand where is actually problem now. TBR (and other raider organisations) has done similarly several years, but when Fendas ceased to Defend situation changed to what it is currently and, Of course, that is purely Fendas' fault not TBR'.

All these miles high long debates can be minimized simply by barring Delegate Access of a Region. This is exactly that Opt-Out.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:58 pm**

Esternial wrote:
Grenartia wrote:And what about my solution of a separate aspect (I guess close to the Associations thing Uni brought up earlier) of the game that gives RP all the functions we like in regions, but immune to R/D, while allowing us to join regions and participate in R/D if we so choose?

Don't see the point for it at the time. 1. You would demand new work as opposed to using the changes that are schedule to happen that also allow us to do the exact same thing?

It's still being debated, so if there are parts that you don't like you can discuss them.

For example, the only issue I can imagine so far is the fact Custodians require involvement in the SC, which means we should discuss the mechanics on Custodians and not ignore everything and work out something entirely different that requires a bundle of coding as opposed to some minor changes which have a chance at being implemented if you bothered discussing it in the relevant thread.

2. Can you realistically imagine something else that will allow us to "opt-out" and won't be vehemently opposed by the raiders? Like it or not, their opinion also carries weight, so you can't just make demands or ask that you punish them for doing something that's legal. It's not "me, me, me, me", we have to think of more than just an ideal situation for ourselves.

1. Its not new work. It needn't be much different from the Associations thing [violet] and the rest of the team have already been working on.

2. Except, my idea solves that. Associations would be separate from regions, and one could be in an association AND a region. Raiders wouldn't lose their precious targets, and we'd be able to organize ourselves without raider interference.

Anemos Major wrote:
Evil Wolf wrote:f you don't want to take those measures, you're fair game, as are all regions in Nationstates that choose not to opt-out, RP or not. So, don't say I have no right to hit targets that don't opt-out, when I have every right granted to me by the Game Creator himself.

The right granted to you by the game creator was over the debate as to whether raiding constituted a legitimate form of gameplay or something more akin to cyber-bullying - not whether raiding in its current form with the current countermeasures available to players was legitimate. As has been laboured already, we're not calling for an end to raiding by a long shot; what Max Barry said, as such, doesn't go anywhere near refuting the need for this debate.

In fact, I don't believe that what we're calling for suggests that you have 'no right' to hit targets that don't opt out (notwithstanding the fact that, as stressed previously, existing opt-out mechanisms are fairly poor as it is). What we're looking for are changes to the conduct of raiders and the resources available to active regions that will ensure that, in the face of the threat posed by raiding, they will still be able to utilise their region as they see fit without making significant concessions simply to ensure that they aren't needlessly affected by a form of gameplay that they're not here to play, and that, in the event of a successful raid, the disruption and offence caused by the raiders will be held down to a minimal level.

To say nothing of the fact that Max has already said R/D and RP are equally legitimate and valid. Logically, this means RP shouldn't be subject to raider interference, because that would mean that RP is less legitimate than R/D. Which directly contradicts Max's statements.

Posted: **Tue Dec 24, 2013 11:02 pm**

Coraxion wrote:After introduction of influence system, Tag-raiders can very rarely actually banject any "natives" from the Target regions as they have too high influences for that. Possibility to Make 'WA-Kill' is even more scarce in occurence. Any kind Password locking is absolute out of possibilities.

So, it's actually hard to understand where is actually problem now. TBR (and other raider organisations) has done similarly several years, but when Fendas ceased to Defend situation changed to what it is currently and, Of course, that is purely Fendas' fault not TBR'.

All these miles high long debates can be minimized simply by barring Delegate Access of a Region. This is exactly that Opt-Out.

I'm afraid I've reached that terrible height that some writers, unfortunate above all, find themselves nearing during the course of a matter of days where some take long years to achieve the same milestone - I just cannot package the same remarks, the same arguments, the same points into different and yet equally eloquent phrases.

If you read through the OP, and some other assorted posts either on the front end or the more recent end of this thread, there you'll find the evidence and the arguments as to why what you're saying is not the issue or not an option, twice, in that order (as per our point of view, at least).

Posted: **Wed Dec 25, 2013 6:13 am**

Thanks Anemos Major.

No. I don't read all those topics through as we will maintain our ability to adapt existing circumstances, what ever they might be. Something what would be very useful to learn also in the RPing circles of The NationStates. Fendas of GamePlay could not do that, but I'm sure RPer's can do that because your approach to The Game is based to Imagination, Totally different and Unlike to The typical Defender Approach to it.

...And this is only Christmas Present I can Give to You My fellow RolePlayers.

- Cora -
The Black Riders

Posted: **Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:25 am**

Coraxion wrote:Thanks Anemos Major.

No. I don't read all those topics through as we will maintain our ability to adapt existing circumstances, what ever they might be. Something what would be very useful to learn also in the RPing circles of The NationStates. Fendas of GamePlay could not do that, but I'm sure RPer's can do that because your approach to The Game is based to Imagination, Totally different and Unlike to The typical Defender Approach to it.

...And this is only Christmas Present I can Give to You My fellow RolePlayers.

- Cora -
The Black Riders

Well, that's. Glad I have no imagination.

Posted: **Wed Dec 25, 2013 7:29 am**

SFBA wabbitslayah wrote:Well, that's. Glad I have no imagination.

Lame. Your answer to my comment unfortunately implies that.

Anyway. Good and Happy Christmas to San Francisco.

Posted: **Wed Dec 25, 2013 10:10 am**

Coraxion wrote:
SFBA wabbitslayah wrote:Well, that's. Glad I have no imagination.

Lame. Your answer to my comment unfortunately implies that.

Anyway. Good and Happy Christmas to San Francisco.

I was joking

<- I should of used one of those, my bad

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:28 pm**

Esternial wrote:So, let's review.

The issue being discussed here is the request to find a way for Roleplaying Regions to opt-out of R/D, meaning that these Regions would be able to permanently safeguard themselves against Raiders AND be able to maintain their regions.

Passwords will not suffice. It has since been pointed out that:
They close off a Region and make it less "open" to RP'ers.
If Raiders want to, they can acquire the password anyway.

Thus we need some sort of measure that isn't currently featured.

The optimal solution would be one that:
a) Does not interfere (significantly) with R/D.
b) Allows RP Regions to opt-out of R/D.

Before we can move on, we need both sides to realise something:
R/D: We really want this change, so acknowledge that you can't brush us off with "get a password" or anything like that.
RP'ers: The R/D community does not want this to interfere with their game, so we need to have respect for that and ensure that our solution to not significantly impact the R/D facet of NS. We aren't here to "punish" Raiders.

You can't get around this. If you don't want to accept it, leave. All you'll likely do is rehash stuff we've heard before.

Okey, now that has been settled, we can move on. Several solutions have been submitted:

~~1) Just prevent your Delegate from accessing Regional Controls!~~

Not an option, I'm afraid. Sometimes the Founder cannot manage the region on its own and thus fares much better with someone to assist him/her in the management of the WFE and other management. This is something we want to preserve.
Crystal Spires wrote:
They close off a Region and make it less "open" to new RP'ers.
Communication with other RPers for Interregional affairs is stifled.
It forces RPers to not have a friendly and open community in order to protect RPs and they must rigorously vet people to ensure they are not being raided.
It is essentially forced upon an unwilling RP Community who does not want to participate in R&D
If Raiders want to, they can acquire the password anyway and ruin what the RP authors create.

~~2) Implementation of a tag and rule to indicate a Region that has opted out.~~

As advantage to this, people have stated that it wouldn't significantly impact the game code. This is true, but would require Moderation to enforce this new rule and would likely result in more issues than there are now, since Mods will be forced to make their own judgements which may not always please everyone. The opposition from the R/D side simply doesn't make this a feasible option, in my opinion.

~~3) Do that same thing Class Regions do.~~

Have a password and block TG's from non-members? Barely even an option.

4) Introduce two Region Categories: Regular and Roleplay.

What this would bring into effect would be fairly simple: Regions can be founded that are excluded from all WA-related activity and feature the following change: The WA Delegate would be replaced by Region Assistant that is instated by the Founder of the region, who can choose to elect this person or organise elections within the region (or even a thread on NS, which would only add to the RP value).

Note that Regions can't change category after being founded. However, we could allow a period during which active RP regions can make the change after the implementation of this system.

UPDATE: It might be a good idea to just have Regions within the Roleplay category reduce the access privileges given to a WA Delegate and pass them on to this Founder-instated Region Administrator. The WA Delegate would only remain to vote in the Assembly (which is relevant for II RP Regions) while the Administrator takes care of managing the WFE and assisting the Founder.

5) Introduce a system similar to "Associations".
[violet] wrote:What a few mods are hinting at here is that we basically already have this coded. The project name is "Associations." Anyone can create a new association, you can associate yourself with as many of them as you like, and each Association has a bunch of features like a RMB-style board, an emblem, etc.

The idea was to provide a flexible framework that could be used for a variety of purposes. Empires could be used to tag puppet nations to their main, Alliances could represent the kinds of trans-regional organizations that already exist, Pacts could signify the nation has signed up to a particular deal, Belief Systems could allow you to display your ideological allegiances, and so on.

So this was all quite nifty, and many cool features were added, such as allowing Alliances to make their membership lists and boards private (i.e. viewable only by members), to allow for extra intrigue.

However, during testing we noticed that Associations seemed to basically play like super-regions, to the extent that regions almost began to feel like crappy Associations. There were still many things regions could do that Associations couldn't--like have a WA Delegate--but they felt very similar. They look very similar. So the project was halted until we could figure out some greater differentiation between them.

This was a while ago, NS development pace being what it is, and really the problem wasn't so enormous to justify shelving the project indefinitely. But I feel that regions are absolutely critical to your sense of "home" in NationStates, and wanted some time to think about how best to make sure we didn't erode that with Associations.

This would require us to work together with the Admins to find a solution to the "super-regions" issue that [violet] expressed her concern about.

I've contacted Reppy to find out more about this, so I'll get back to you later once I get a better understanding of it.

I'd like to hear constructive criticism.

As well, I'm talking with Afforess to see if we can design a plug-in that'd warn a WA delegate or Owner of a nation that's associated with a Raider group by checking through the nation's history automatically. Any association with a raider group would send a message, and hopefully help curb those raiders who intrude on RP regions after gaining a password.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:58 am**

Pravengria wrote:
As well, I'm talking with Afforess to see if we can design a plug-in that'd warn a WA delegate or Owner of a nation that's associated with a Raider group by checking through the nation's history automatically. Any association with a raider group would send a message, and hopefully help curb those raiders who intrude on RP regions after gaining a password.

As I mentioned in my telegram, this is not an effective strategy and can be easily circumvented by the raiders.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:18 am**

Mad Jack wrote:And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?

I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?

The old gifting rools (such as thous of 10 years ago) wold be a place to start. Reagons could declare themselves participants to R/D and be thereby exempt?

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:52 am**

ALMF wrote:
Mad Jack wrote:And the World Assembly is RP as well, will WA RP regions be exempted?

I asked how it would be enforced, not by who. How will the admins be able to tell what is an RP region and what is not?

The old gifting rools (such as thous of 10 years ago) wold be a place to start. Reagons could declare themselves participants to R/D and be thereby exempt?

And then defenders would go around exempting every region they could.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:53 am**

Mad Jack wrote:
ALMF wrote:The old gifting rools (such as thous of 10 years ago) wold be a place to start. Reagons could declare themselves participants to R/D and be thereby exempt?

And then defenders would go around exempting every region they could.

What's wrong with that?

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:00 am**

Arumdaum wrote:
Mad Jack wrote:And then defenders would go around exempting every region they could.

What's wrong with that?

It would destroy the R/D game.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:28 am**

Mad Jack wrote:
Arumdaum wrote:What's wrong with that?

It would destroy the R/D game.

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

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:34 am**

Chrinthanium wrote:
Mad Jack wrote:It would destroy the R/D game.

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

This is why gameplayers don't take those RPers who aren't trying to destroy an entire subgame seriously.

You are part of the problem.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:15 am**

Quite honestly, nothing is good enough for the R/D group unless it gives them carte blanche to do as they see fit with any region. They want it all and screw the rest of us. Perhaps it is time for the role players to finally band together and stand firm on this topic at this time. Perhaps now we can finally try to find a way to protect the players who wish to be left alone from the R/D side of the game because that's not something to which they wish to be a party.

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 find it hard to take anyone seriously who believes that.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:42 am**

Chrinthanium wrote: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.

Chrinthanium wrote: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.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:00 am**

Evil Wolf wrote:
Chrinthanium wrote: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.

This put me in stitches.

Chrinthanium wrote: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.

This is true. At one point, none of our sub-games existed. You just logged into NationStates and answered issues. Then they made a forum for people to talk about their nations. And RP evolved out of that.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:04 am**

Evil Wolf wrote:
Chrinthanium wrote: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.

Chrinthanium wrote: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.

My God... the lack of logic... it's tremendous.

Personally, I'm a defender and am under no fireseeable danger of having my region destroyed. However, you gotta understand that R/D causes problems to others, while RPing really does not. You can opt out of RPing, you cannot opt out of R/D. It's like saying "God, please leave me alone, I'm just causing harm.". If you find fun in R/D, or actually just raiding, then you might as well just find anotehr hobby. May I suggest RPing, or maybe some kind of physical activity? Maybe chess could do too. Hmm... on second though, those things tend to be far less damaging, you might not like them.

EDIT: Minor? Do you really call destroying all that work 'minor'? As occasional as it may be, screw R/D, nobody else is actually causing others problems.

NationStates

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