The Fanboyists wrote:Chrinthanium wrote: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).
A transferable foundership is an idea I can get behind because it is the easiest one. Also, it would be nice to have that ability even in a non-R/D context because I could create a founder puppet and remove TheStonedSurfers from The Beach foundership. Then, the founder puppet can stay alive and be controlled by other players in the event that I should ever depart NS for any reason.
To address something that Evil Wolf hit upon earlier is that The Beach is very much raider proof, but that wasn't the reason for the non-executive delegate. The goal was more to protect from a coup than anything else. I remember the TSP Coup, and I didn't want to put my region through all of that. But, as a founder, particularly one with limited free time, I need help. The only other help I can get is from an executive delegate. If the delegate of The Beach is given regional administration powers, by your own words, you believe that gives your carte blanche to invade it and destroy all the work I am putting into the region. Your entire argument is that it's okay to do it because it's there. I'm sorry, but it's hard enough to build a successful region in NS without having to worry that everything you've done will be upset and torn asunder because some inconsiderate people have an itch to invade.
And yes, I am also TheStonedSurfers, founder of The Beach... just so you know.
The Fanboyists wrote:Evil Wolf wrote: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.
Coexisting is fine if the R/D community can understand that not every region wants to be invaded. I have no idea how to solve that problem, though. Even with the potential new controls.
Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:31 am