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

[Doshtopia]

<snip>
The 'what ifs' are not relevant here, there's an infinite amount of possibilities of abusing a function that frankly hasn't even been put in beta. The point of this thread is simple, there's no reason for R/D players to vandalize RP regions, how they would implement this is not the same as the argument that they should or shouldn't. I'm not a moderator, but I'm not going to go off topic.

When our raid commanders choose regions, they go down a list of regions, and choose ones we are able to take. The raid that took GD was not targeted at GD. We took 30 some regions, GD just happened to be one of them.

[Rephesus]

When our raid commanders choose regions, they go down a list of regions, and choose ones we are able to take. The raid that took GD was not targeted at GD. We took 30 some regions, GD just happened to be one of them.

Yes, and it had no distinction whatsoever from the other regions, am I correct?

[Mad Jack]

No there really is room for What Ifs here, because this proposal would have far reaching effects.

It is not just about taking RP regions out of gameplay, it's also about making sure you don't destroy the R/D game whilst doing it. You need protections against the latter built into any proposal.

There's a difference between hypotheticals regarding implementation, and hypotheticals regarding function. If you're concerned about destroying the R/D game, then I recommend you suggest an alternative that can equally benefit RP Regions.

I'm not the one suggesting an 'opt-out'. I am perfectly happy leaving the status quo as it is, and until someone comes up with a way to make an opt-out fair, or as fair as can be, to everyone, I'm not going to support it.

[The Grim Reaper]

When our raid commanders choose regions, they go down a list of regions, and choose ones we are able to take. The raid that took GD was not targeted at GD. We took 30 some regions, GD just happened to be one of them.

Look at the posts here and try and figure out whether anyone cares or not.

You don't get to use the random choice argument. It's completely irrelevant to the fact that most RPers don't see value in how you play the game, no matter how much you argue otherwise. When your argument of validity is based on randomness, you really need to get a new point.

[Anemos Major]

When our raid commanders choose regions, they go down a list of regions, and choose ones we are able to take. The raid that took GD was not targeted at GD. We took 30 some regions, GD just happened to be one of them.

But that doesn't justify anything. I'm not accusing raiders of malicious intent in the first place, I'm just pointing out that, regardless of the targeting rationale, GD was hit, GD was disrupted and now they're considering, seriously considering, walling themselves up with a password to prevent this from happening again - which runs entirely contrary to their modus operandi and their basic ethos since their foundation. Regions play different roles for RPers - they're hubs of activity, of cohesion, of teaching and learning between the new and old and a whole host of different things. The fact that raiders target regions randomly doesn't change the fact that those raids affect the targeted regions.

[Doshtopia]

When our raid commanders choose regions, they go down a list of regions, and choose ones we are able to take. The raid that took GD was not targeted at GD. We took 30 some regions, GD just happened to be one of them.

Yes, and it had no distinction whatsoever from the other regions, am I correct?

Correct.

When our raid commanders choose regions, they go down a list of regions, and choose ones we are able to take. The raid that took GD was not targeted at GD. We took 30 some regions, GD just happened to be one of them.

Look at the posts here and try and figure out whether anyone cares or not.

You don't get to use the random choice argument. It's completely irrelevant to the fact that most RPers don't see value in how you play the game, no matter how much you argue otherwise. When your argument of validity is based on randomness, you really need to get a new point.

I understand that roleplayers don't like R/D, I enjoy roleplaying myself, and I sympathize completely.
However the only solution to keeping raiders completely out of Roleplay regions is to completely separate them from gameplay regions, be that by hiding them at update time, or putting them in another listing you have to apply to.

[The Grim Reaper]

Look at the posts here and try and figure out whether anyone cares or not.

You don't get to use the random choice argument. It's completely irrelevant to the fact that most RPers don't see value in how you play the game, no matter how much you argue otherwise. When your argument of validity is based on randomness, you really need to get a new point.

I understand that roleplayers don't like R/D, I enjoy roleplaying myself, and I sympathize completely.
However the only solution to keeping raiders completely out of Roleplay regions is to completely separate them from gameplay regions, be that by hiding them at update time, or putting them in another listing you have to apply to.

That is a not all-together obvious extension of your original post - however it was one that you included in your post after an edit, and as a result that clarified your point, and DID IMO contribute to the thread, but you edited it back out?

[Doshtopia]

That is a not all-together obvious extension of your original post - however it was one that you included in your post after an edit, and as a result that clarified your point, and DID IMO contribute to the thread, but you edited it back out?

I edited it in, but they had already replied.

[Anemos Major]

I understand that roleplayers don't like R/D, I enjoy roleplaying myself, and I sympathize completely.
However the only solution to keeping raiders completely out of Roleplay regions is to completely separate them from gameplay regions, be that by hiding them at update time, or putting them in another listing you have to apply to.

It's really just a matter of seeing the 'keep out' sign and respecting that.

The following just popped up on the GD regional page now that somebody managed to reach the founder, which is fairly illustrative of the fundamental issue with raiding and RPing regions -

[N.B. I have no idea what was on here before the raid. Once the WA delegate thing is all sorted out, you guys can deal with this.]

- at the end of the day, regions are a hub of activity for active RPing nations, and every time a raid like this happens it's not all done with when the raiders leave. The page has been virtually inaccessible for a day, and the wealth of information - maps, forum and IRC links, background, active RPs, formatting - everything is gone, and its members have to start from scratch. It's a pretty awful sight, to be honest.

[The Grim Reaper]

PROBLEMS RPERs HAVE WITH RAIDING:

1) REGARDING RMB POSTING: The distinction between what natives consider RMB trolling and what mods/raiders consider RMB trolling.

For example, spamming the bolded "DISSENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED". http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=4827886
Also, threatening region destruction. For raiders, who do not intend to actually destroy the region (because game rules), this is not considered trolling. For mods, it's generally not considered trolling (?). For natives who do not choose to involve themselves in Gameplay, they are unable to make the distinction between the idle threat and a declaration of intent.

2) REGARDING RMB SUPPRESSION: The mass-suppression by raiders of RMB posts chosen arbitrarily. This is because the suppression, while as easy for raiders as for the legitimate WAD/founder, takes up a relatively less important section of the raiders' time - they choose to undertake the suppression as part of how they play. The native community does not.

3) WFE CHANGING: For RP regions, WFEs are an important way to recruit, draw attention to SPECIFIC THREADS on the off-site forums or on NS itself, etc, given that the designated methods of recruitment that actually show efficacy (the Gameplay forums, embassies with the feeders, RMB posts) generally are biased towards Gameplayers (come on, the recruitment forums is literally the same as the forums for Raiders and Defenders to brag) who either have that homefield advantage or the time to spam telegrams (which are increasingly less effective across the board - I'm not sure what their preferred recruitment method is any more?)

As a result, changing the WFE is significantly more important than it is for an established gameplay organization, which organize almost exclusively on IRC and on off-site forums.

4) TAGGING FOUNDER'D REGIONS: Really?

[Cormac A Stark]

Here's why this is the worst proposal I've seen lately:

1. It's a return to the griefing rules. You might argue that it isn't, but it will require moderators to make subjective decisions about who is a raider and who is a native. It's not an exact return to the griefing rules, but it's asking moderators to make exactly the same kind of subjective calls they had to make under the griefing rules and to spend large chunks of their time arbitrating R/D.

2. Regions that "opt out," as far as I can tell, would be exempt from being raided but could still raid other regions. For as much talk as I've seen about innocent RPers, the RP horde that supported Milograd's coup and griefing of The South Pacific didn't much look like it wanted to opt out to me.

3. All regions will opt out. And for this proposal to be fair, all regions must be able to opt out -- we can't just extend an opt-out to some regions and not others. If all regions opt out, R/D is destroyed. The admins have already repeatedly said they aren't going to let that happen.

4. There is already an opt-out. It's called having a Founder and not having an executive Delegacy. Your region could still be raided, sure, but raiders can't actually do anything in that scenario except take your Delegacy and maybe vote on some WA proposals. Most aren't going to waste their time, at least not over the long term.

5. This has been proposed a million times. The above reasons are always argued and it's never implemented.

[Leutria]

The page has been virtually inaccessible for a day, and the wealth of information - maps, forum and IRC links, background, active RPs, formatting - everything is gone, and its members have to start from scratch. It's a pretty awful sight, to be honest.

Start from scratch? Hardly. Just ask your friendly neighborhood defenders, they have a copy of every region's WFE on record for the sake of detagging. I am not even a defender and bet I could find it for you with a bit of effort, I belive they are included in the daily data dump and there is at least one public place the old ones of those are archived.

[The Grim Reaper]

The page has been virtually inaccessible for a day, and the wealth of information - maps, forum and IRC links, background, active RPs, formatting - everything is gone, and its members have to start from scratch. It's a pretty awful sight, to be honest.

Start from scratch? Hardly. Just ask your friendly neighborhood defenders, they have a copy of every region's WFE on record for the sake of detagging. I am not even a defender and bet I could find it for you with a bit of effort, I belive they are included in the daily data dump and there is at least one public place the old ones of those are archived.

I TG'd their founder the old WFE but I didn't manage to catch his short spurt of fixing things.

[Ballotonia]

[...] Also, threatening region destruction. For raiders, who do not intend to actually destroy the region (because game rules), this is not considered trolling. [...]

FYI, destroying a region became legal years ago when the invasion rules were totally overhauled as Influence was instituted.

Ballotonia

[Sedgistan]

This is essentially the same issue being raised as was done previously in this thread when a "Liberation" proposal was targeted at Haven (an RP region) to remove their password - namely that roleplay regions should be able to opt-out from the invasion game.

It's worth having a read over that thread, as essentially the arguments against remain the same. In particular, I'll highlight these two admin posts:

Look, folks, I know you're all very upset about this, but there's nothing I can do about it. If we make some provision to allow regions to opt out of the raiding game, then every single region in the game will do it. Your options are to ignore the fact that raiders have the theoretical capability to do this, even though they will never ever succeed, or you can convince Max to ban raiding. Since you guys seem to think it's perfectly reasonable to alienate a portion of our users in response to a complete non-threat, I might suggest an alternative: we could ban RP regions. But seriously, guys, get some perspective. The idea of liberations being perverted to allow raiding is funny. It's like something straight out of Jennifer Government. And I'm sorry you don't want to deal with gameplay, but the fact is that you're basing your RP in a game with lots of other communities. You will occasionally have to interact with the inferior races.

Wow, I go away for a day and miss all the action. Sorry Haven!

I think I'll do a FAQ rather than respond to individual posts because there are so many of them.

This thread has raised a lot of extremely complex, perennial issues, so if you want to discuss any of the points below that do NOT relate directly to Haven--e.g. whether we should ban invasions, how reFoundings could work, etc--please, please start a new thread for that. Because those debates get unwieldy enough even when they're on-topic. I'm addressing them here to summarize the admin position, but don't want to blow the thread even more off-course.

Argument: RP players should not have to deal with Gameplay.

We do aim to ensure that players who want to completely isolate themselves from the I/D game can do so. That is part of the NS philosophy. The chief tool we give players in this regard is Founders: a region with an active Founder is essentially immune to invasion. We also provide regional passwords and the ability for Delegates & Founders to eject and ban residents.

Complete isolation is not possible, though, since all regions have their feet in Gameplay (even if their heads are elsewhere). Regions are defined and governed by Gameplay rules. All this is very low-level and not at all central to why RP regions exist, of course, but you enter Gameplay the second you create a nation.

Thus, while we support the right of communities to isolate themselves, we cannot always allow them to do so in the exact manner they want, because their link with Gameplay is inextricable.

Argument: RP players should not have to deal with the WA.

I felt this was worth breaking out because it's even more defensible than the above: there's really no reason why an RP region with no WA members should have to care about WA proposals. Also, Gameplay and the WA are two very different communities, which you forget at your peril! We support this notion via Founders.

Argument: WA Liberation proposals force RP regions to deal with Gameplay and the WA.

If true, this is non-ideal, as per the above. I think it's a little true.

First, it's true only for RP regions who have not exercised the main opt-out tool we provide: Foundership. A Liberation resolution cannot override a Founder.

Second, an RP region is not affected at all by a Liberation proposal unless it passes as a resolution. At that point, other nations would be able to enter. (Although not do very much.) The proposal itself, though, even if it reaches the floor, does not change anything about Haven.

Of course, the idea of a Liberation proposal aimed at your region is alarming. (Particularly when it seems well-supported at the proposal stage.) But I think it's important to note that Haven has not been forced to deal with Gameplay yet. That would happen only if the resolution passed.

At this point, Haven does not need to do terribly much. A prominent resident should probably speak against it in the WA forum, but I suspect that's all that's required to shoot it down. In fact, I think that if Haven had completely ignored this proposal, Defenders and the WA community would have taken care of it.

Thus, while the proposal is of interest to Haven, it has not actually touched it.

Argument: This is an abuse of the Liberation feature

I agree in the sense that the liberation is trying to be sneaky, painting Haven as something it is not.

Argument: This is an unforeseen bug and should be fixed by admin.

The possibility of invaders doing precisely this was discussed in depth (in this forum) before the introduction of Liberations. It is certainly not a surprise!

Argument: Liberations should not be allowed against RP regions.

In principle, I agree. The question is how you enforce this. It is currently enforced by members of the WA: that is, the WA has the responsibility of blocking malicious attempts at Liberation. Personally I suspect they'll do a pretty good job of it, although we shall see.

The idea that moderators or admin should enforce this is easier said than done! It is essentially the same idea as that moderators should decide which invasions are legal. We tried that and it didn't work out so well (see below).

Argument: The price of potentially forcing RP regions to deal with Gameplay is not worth the benefit of the Liberation feature.

I agree that a passed Liberation of Haven would be an undesirable outcome. If there were a solution that delivered the benefits of the Liberation feature without the risk to RP regions, I'd endorse it. (If you want to suggest one, please start a new thread.)The current Liberation feature solved a major Gameplay problem: that of passwords being used offensively by invaders as a game-over move. And regions most at risk were those like Haven: large, isolationist communities using a password with no Founder. That is, prior to Liberations, Haven ran the risk of being seized by raiders who sniffed out the password and losing the region forever.

I do agree that Haven has been forced to pay a price for the Liberation feature--namely, that it is now worried about what might happen should the proposal pass, and feels compelled to campaign against it, getting involved in an area of NS it wants nothing to do with.

However, I believe it's a fairly small price (at least at this stage), and it's a great improvement on the price it might have paid had we not introduced Liberations.

Argument: Invasions should be banned.

We support the invasion game. Please note that an "invasion" means using the exact same endorsement and administration tools as everybody else. It's not like there is an "Invade!" button we could simply remove. Invaders act like ordinary players only more organized.

There are many things we could do to make invasions harder, many of which we have already done. But there are no simple answers. Two examples. One: passwords were introduced to help regions keep out invaders, and became used by successful invaders to keep out defenders. Two: moderators used to decide what was and wasn't allowed, judging who was "native;" the result was one side was always extremely dissatisfied with the moderator's judgement, and continual uncertainty as to what exactly was allowed.

Also, invasions do make NationStates a more interesting game. There is some evidence that the more conflict we allow, the more people play NationStates. I believe that outlawing invasions completely--if that were possible--would significantly reduce our numbers, which in turn would negatively affect every NS community.

Argument: Regions should be able to opt-out of the Invasion game.

Mostly agreed, as per the above. The tools we provide to support this are passwords, ejections, and bans, but above all Founders.

The devil is in the details here. A simple "opt-out" button would be used by every region in the game, even invaders, to protect their own regions. I have seen many, many proposals in this area over the years. (If you've got one, please start a new thread.) Most people want a solution that would be great for them but destroy the game for somebody else.

Argument: Large regions can't re-Found easily, so in a practical sense the Foundership tool isn't available to them.

True. However, I'm not sure it can nor should be otherwise. First, any system for appointing or electing a new Founder will be ripe with potential for abuse. Invaders already seize Delegacies; it would be horrible if they could seize Founderships.

Second, I think large, old regions are well-placed to defend against invaders even without Founders: their residents have large pools of Influence, they are well-known by Defenders, and they tend to have active Delegates.

Thirdly, I don't think it's a bad thing to return a region to Gameplay once the Founder dies off: this can signal that the original community is shrinking and could benefit from some new stimulation. Plenty of times this is not the case, though, and I don't think it applies to Haven. But it has renewed interest for others in the past.

[Someone Special]

Very interesting Sedge, thank you.

[Milograd]

I remember the Haven issue.

This proposal is almost certainly futile. RPer attempts to bring this issue to light and to have it solved have never been successful. When Haven expressed their frustration, nothing changed. Haven, though loved and hated, was a significant part of the II RP community and their frustration with their forced involvement in GP was one of the factors that led them to leave. They're obviously not the only ones, but they're a fine example.

I play GP more than RP nowadays and I understand the situation that you're protesting in this thread a lot more than I used to; when I was an RPer, I couldn't comprehend why the game administration allowed for this to continue. It just seemed like they really didn't understand our situation, despite the fact that we tried to explain it. It never occurred to me that the wellbeing of our community was unimportant to the game and, by extension, its staff. As a GPer, it's easy to see that RPers, especially of our kind, are but an expendable spec in a massive game that isn't really intended for RP in the first place (think about it: on what kind of RP site would it be legal to swoop in and troll to disrupt RPings?). An opt-out wouldn't work because every region in the game would want to use it -- on NS, regions are all gameplay components regardless of what people do with them. There are no "RP regions" in the game code. There are only game regions. It sucks, yeah, but that's the way it is.

As you know, I was once a very active member of the regional RP scene and became a highly contributive member of the II community: I stopped RPing on NS because of issues like this. I still mentor OOCly, but I seldom make an actual IC post. This is a fun site with a creative premise but it's clearly not a site for RPers, and for the longest time we really didn't want to accept that. A lot of us tolerated our condition more in the past because we had nowhere else to go and hoped that progress would be made, but it's been three years since people started to give up in mass and nowadays we have more options.

The lack of care in practice for the wellbeing of the RP community galvanized a popular desire to leave this site behind, and once we got a chance to do so that's precisely what happened. For an RPer, it's become as easy to leave NS behind as making a forum or joining one of the ones that former NSers have made -- Tarq, another former a giant, barely maintains an NS presence because they've moved off-site. Haven did the same. #G and GD lost half of their active populations in the aftermath of the creation of the first serious attempt at an RP site founded by former NSers. With that in mind, it's no wonder that players have become less inclined to reluctantly deal with the disruptions, limitations, and irritants that are inherent to the RP community on this site. The vacuum that was left after late 2010 led to the new generation of RPers lacking the once diverse plethora of authorities who could teach them, and that led to the decreased health of the II community as it is today.

I respect what you're trying to do in this thread, Anemos -- I did it once myself -- but RP regions* have fallen far since the idea of abandoning NS in favor of off-site RPing was introduced to the community. Moving off of NS makes a lot more sense than dealing with the same old stuff like this.

* When I say "RP regions", I largely mean MT regions. FT's community has a different dynamic altogether.

[Grenartia]

Hullo - apologies if I break any rules or tread over etiquette in some way or another, I'm new here. I'd have posted in the summit sub-subforum above, but I saw the following and decided this might be a more appropriate place to put this.

The summit is effectively over, with the changes decided on (see the first post of this thread) and now open to anyone for discussion.

I'm coming at this from the point of view of an RPer observing the effects of R/D on my particular side of Nationstates over the course of a number of years; as such, I'll have to apologise in advance for any misconceptions I may have about the nature of the 'other' side of gameplay, so to speak.

The issue at hand revolves around the somewhat 'forced' participation of RP-focal regions in the R/D side of gameplay; during my time here, I've seen fairly large and varied RPing regions from Haven to Greater Dienstad earlier today being subjected to invasions and the inevitable RPer response has always been a very, very negative one. The usual prescription (passwords, more WA endorsements) is a perfectly rational one from a technical standpoint that takes the R/D side of things to be the status quo, but the real issue I have is that things have come this far without much consideration given to whether RPers want to subscribe to that status quo in the first place - and I'm sure the same applies to many non-RPers.

With many RPing nations and regions, it's actually arguable that adopting the prescribed protective measures against raiding inhibit their ability to exist in the form that RPers want them to; not as technical aspects of a separate form of gameplay, but as an association of accounts around which players can build up in-character interstate relations. With WA endos, plenty of players in major RPing regions aren't part of the WA in the first place, for a variety of reasons; whether it's because they exist on NS on an on-and-off basis and don't see the pressing need to reapply for WA membership every time they come back, or because the RPing region has a large proportion of puppets and 'alt' accounts, there are legitimate reasons for RPers neglecting to or otherwise not joining the WA - it's an optional game mechanic, and yet the disruption caused by R/D gameplay to our regions makes it a virtual necessity. Sometimes, the region is just small by virtue of its nature and the nature of the association of accounts within it, and that shouldn't have to be a cause for fear for those nations within it.

Passwords are the end-all, in effect, and it's absolutely true that they considerably negate the chances of a successful invasion. But it needs to be understood that the decision to adopt a password or not is one that fundamentally alters the nature of an RPing region, and I note this with specific reference to Greater Dienstad; as an open region more or less since its foundation, the fact that the region doesn't have a password has made it a destination where old and new RPers alike can pop in and out and interact without the long, bureaucratic acceptance and password distribution procedures that other regions have adopted. The fact that the region doesn't have a password is part of its unique and important identity (and role) in the RPing community, and as a result of the invasion today I know for a fact that there are many in the region who are considering adopting a password, not because of any issues related to the game they want to play but because of a completely different part of gameplay coming in and disrupting them for, as far as they are concerned, completely irrelevant reasons - a very, very unfortunate occurrence.

In light of all the above, it seems as though the rational course of action would be a more informed debate on the place of roleplayers and roleplaying regions in the whole R/D mechanic; yes, it's a perfectly legitimate part of Nationstates and that's a long established fact, but regions serve completely a completely different function for RPers and the R/D mecahnic fundamentally disrupts that function. To suggest that RPers 'must' be part of the R/D side of gameplay effectively places the concerns of the large and active roleplaying community below that of another part of gameplay, and I don't see why that ought to be the case at all.

What I'm positing below is just a loose proposal; even if it isn't a particularly good idea or a workable plan, that shouldn't detract from the need to have a more educated and informed debate concerning the relationship between RPing and R/D.

As it stands, what I have in mind isn't really all that complex, and doesn't necessarily have to apply entirely to RPers; simply put, an 'opt out' function for regional founders and delegates with the relevant powers would go a long way towards preserving regions that exist in a slightly different realm to that of R/D without infringing upon the right of raiders and defenders to do what they do best. Noting that the R/D mechanic is, in practice, a matter of WA endorsements and regional migration, both functions used for a wide variety of reasons other than that particular corner of gameplay, I fully acknowledge that a 'hard' change to gameplay mechanics (i.e. 'preventing' raiding and defending in strict and technical gameplay terms) would be practically unworkable.

All that would be necessary are three things. First, a founder/particular delegate would have access to a tick box allowing them to 'opt out' or 'opt into' the R/D side of gameplay. There could be a link of some sort to a short explanation of what that entails - I'm sure there's a handy one somewhere. Secondly, 'opting out' wouldn't necessarily change things in hard gameplay terms; rather, a line could be added to the regional front page, much in the same way that the tags system was implemented, noting whether a region has opted in or opted out. Finally (and not necessarily), the enforcement of a region's right to opt out of the R/D side of gameplay could be written into the rules of the game; without making any significant technical changes, the above would allow for the case-by-case prevention of the rare instances (I would hope so, at least) where invasions occur in regions which would rather choose not to be part of R/D gameplay in the first place.

It's a somewhat crude and rudimentary proposal, and for that I apologise, but it seems as though the options are limited and yet vital in a tightrope situation like this where the problem needs a solution and the solutions have the potential to be, from a technical standpoint, equally problematic. Even if the above is unworkable, and that may well be the case, I would ask that those considering this particular post refrain from calling it a day and just putting a lock on this thread; the fact remains that regions fulfil a different and arguably mutually incompatible role for RPers and R/Ders, that the prescribed manners in which RPing regions can 'protect' themselves against invasions can actually infringe upon and limit the functions regions can play for a wide variety of RPers (from mandatory WA membership, to larger numbers, to passwords) and that, after many, many years of watching RPing regions being roped into a game they don't want to play, there needs to be a more sophisticated understanding of what exactly it is that RPers want from their regions and what that ought to mean for their relationship with the R/D side of Nationstates.

I had a similar suggestion (in the spoiler), and made for the exact same reasons you made yours.

Regions can apply for an official gameplay-exemption status, which would mean that mods will take action against raiding attempts, as long as the region does not take part in any aspect of the raiding/defending part of the game (to satisfy the concerns of the R/D community).

I like metaphors, so I'm going to turn this into one. Lets say the entire site (nations, regions, forums, all of it) is your local playground. Lets say that the regions are the sandbox. Gameplay is basically the battle between the kids who piss in the sandbox and throw the wet sand at other kids, and the kids who like to see how well they can keep their section of the sandbox and themselves from getting covered in piss-soaked sand. What has basically been said to us so far, is that the kids who don't want to do either, HAVE to take part in it, and that its perfectly ok for the sand-piss throwing kids to shove it down the throats of those of us who don't want to take part in it.

That's not ok, and actively harms those of us who don't want to have (and don't want to even take the risk of having) a urine/sand mix shoved down our throats and our shirts and all over our nice little corner of the sandbox. Let the kids who want to play with urine-soaked sand do so. But don't force us to play with them.

[Milograd]

However the only solution to keeping raiders completely out of Roleplay regions is to completely separate them from gameplay regions, be that by hiding them at update time, or putting them in another listing you have to apply to.

Yes, and that necessity for exclusion and the implausibility of a solution being implemented demonstrates that RP regions are no different than GP regions in the eyes of the game. The indiscriminate nature of the game's mechanics guarantees the persistence of this plague to the wellbeing of the RP community, since raiding is not going to be removed and the lack of discrimination between regions prevents exceptions from existing. II MT roleplayers can only completely curtail the issue by abandoning NS/NSRP altogether in favor of new nation RP communities that former NS RPers manage. That might sound extreme, but almost all of the players I've asked only wish they did it earlier. It's sad.

[Grenartia]

However the only solution to keeping raiders completely out of Roleplay regions is to completely separate them from gameplay regions, be that by hiding them at update time, or putting them in another listing you have to apply to.

Yes, and that necessity for exclusion and the implausibility of a solution being implemented demonstrates that RP regions are no different than GP regions in the eyes of the game. The indiscriminate nature of the game's mechanics guarantees the persistence of this plague to the wellbeing of the RP community, since raiding is not going to be removed and the lack of discrimination between regions prevents exceptions from existing. II MT roleplayers can only completely curtail the issue by abandoning NS/NSRP altogether in favor of new nation RP communities that former NS RPers manage. That might sound extreme, but almost all of the players I've asked only wish they did it earlier. It's sad.

Again, the obvious solution is a moderator-enforced non-interference region status. RP regions won't participate in R/D, and R/D will be kept from interfering with RP regions.

[Milograd]

Yes, and that necessity for exclusion and the implausibility of a solution being implemented demonstrates that RP regions are no different than GP regions in the eyes of the game. The indiscriminate nature of the game's mechanics guarantees the persistence of this plague to the wellbeing of the RP community, since raiding is not going to be removed and the lack of discrimination between regions prevents exceptions from existing. II MT roleplayers can only completely curtail the issue by abandoning NS/NSRP altogether in favor of new nation RP communities that former NS RPers manage. That might sound extreme, but almost all of the players I've asked only wish they did it earlier. It's sad.

Again, the obvious solution is a moderator-enforced non-interference region status. RP regions won't participate in R/D, and R/D will be kept from interfering with RP regions.

Of course, but they're not going to do that.

It's been shot down before; determining qualifications would be problematic and it requires effort to maintain.

[Cerillium]

Milograd, there's a dynamic that people aren't even considering: P2TM-Dedicated Regions. There are a preponderance of mods and mentors who are completely unfamiliar with P2TM and thus I think they are misunderstanding the player angst flowing at the moment. We finally have three official mentors specific to the P2TM forum; it was beyond comprehension to the rest of NS.


For clarification, this is a really basic PT2M region: The Apartment Block.
This basic region exists for the purpose of player communication for various P2TM RP, most notably: this thread. If anyone is unfamiliar with P2TM game play, please look at the first 8 posts of that OOC thread. That's an entire world. Game SITREPS are so much easier to accomplish when our founder and delegate can fire off a single TG to the entire group and those affiliated with it.

Other P2TM RP are no different: Excalibur Squadron and Elfen High are further examples of RP found in P2TM.

P2TM players put a lot of effort into their game, and their game has nothing to do with delegates, regional happenings or wars between nations.

P2TM Regions have founders and delegates who volunteer their time to take on the responsibility for that Forum's region. It includes maintaining OSF, tracking players, passing along RP communications, updating things continuously, and other essential tasks. Their activities occur on a daily basis rather than just when something comes up for vote in the WA. They're kept busy because P2TM players are active people who post morning, noon and night. P2TM Regions supporting multiple RP threads are fairly hopping with activity. All the while, players banter on the RMB or go about their lives without any idea as to the amount of work shared by the founder (owner) and delegate (administrator). The regions aren't roleplaying the act of being a fictional worldly region (with presidents or kings or whatever). They are an administrative tool for player use.

What P2TM-based people are asking is simple: Give us some sort of symbol that lets raiders know that the region is recognized by NS as being specifically tied to P2TM as an information hub and apart from NS "nation" game play.



With regard to "Raiding is here to stay" mentality: Yes, I agree. It's essential. However, Max Barry endorsed the R/D aspect in 2009 long before P2TM was in existence.

<+MaxBarry> One of the amazing things about NS is how different people play it in totally different ways
<+MaxBarry> The invader game of course has always been contentious...
<+MaxBarry> In particular, nobody likes being invaded
<+MaxBarry> We've added a lot of protections for regional residents over the years...
<+MaxBarry> But I think it would be a terrible loss if we abolished it altogether
* @Scolopendra notes that if we've read General Franks' brilliant treatise, the raider "gamemap" is actually the pillar of the game and all else on NS is supposed to support it.
<+MaxBarry> The game can't be all sweetness and kittens
<+MaxBarry> The thing with raiders of course is that they're just using the same endorsement mechanism as everyone else
<+MaxBarry> They're not using a special "Invade!" feature
<+MaxBarry> They're just more efficient at using their votes than most
<+MaxBarry> ditto defenders
<@Reploid_Productions> So basically, invaders/defenders are no more or less central to the game than, say, the General Assembly, the roleplaying forums, or the General forum?
<@Scolopendra> Bah, Reploid shows her obvious fenda bias.
* @Reploid_Productions omg mod bias!
<+MaxBarry> Well, those things are all different, so hard to compare, but I consider all of those things essential, yes
<+MaxBarry> I kind of feel like with raiding there's a tradeoff
<@Scolopendra> Any follow-up, LinuxandtheX?
<+LinuxandtheX> nope
<+LinuxandtheX> thanks
<+MaxBarry> more raiding makes more people upset, but it also clearly makes us more popular -- for whatever reason, a lot more people are interested in playing this game when there's conflict
<+MaxBarry> so a balance is optimal
<+Sirocco> PvP is probably the one component NationStates really lacks compared to many other games.

The P2TM RP forum should be considered just as essential as all other things found on NS. It's different in that P2TM doesn't focus at all on NS game issues (WA, delegates, nations, etc). P2TM allows the user to depart from NS concept in order to partake in various RP. It stands alone and apart from Max Barry's overarching concept. NS created P2TM. It is very much PvP, the one component which elevates NationStates above many other games in that it offers the best of both worlds.

P2TM RP Regions are a fractal of NS itself (a mathematical set that typically displays self-similar patterns, which means they are "the same from near as from far".)

On NS, Max is our founder and Violet our Delegate. You need Violet to have administrative control because Max can't do it all alone. Raiders arrive and cut all lines of communication between Max/Violet and the players. Violet gets the boot as do all your mod team. NS stalls to a crawl while you sort out all the crap. Player satisfaction drops. The raiders start crowing and bragging. People start screaming. Something has to be done. Now your volunteers are working frantically to hold things together.

Max and Violet would have to spend a hell of a lot of time sending TG out to all the booted mods instead of being able to communicate freely. The mod chat channel is compromised. The links to Moderation, to GHR, to Technical and other information places are wiped and now players have to hunt them down in various threads in order to access them. Your mod team has to pay for telegrams to keep specific threads on track because players are now floating around in the Rejected Internet Realm and no longer grouped in a way that allows Max to telegram them all instantly.

I'm pretty sure that would frustrate you. It would frustrate Max Barry because he's a busy man who has set things up to run smoothly in his stead. It would frustrate Violet who now needs to come up with avenues of communication outside of NS and then get all the mods and staff on the same page until the occupation ends and players can return.


My last point is this: raiders are not stupid assholes. They're human beings. I can't speak for them, but I think they'd understand and appreciate the difference between "P2TM information hub" and "this region mirrors the real world". We have symbols that condemn raider regions. We could just as easily adapt code and fashion a symbol to designate a P2TM information hub. It would allow to founder AND delegate to continue maintaining that hub without all the password/admin access tap dancing. We aren't eliminating the raiding aspect, we aren't denying anyone the right to play R/D on NS. What we're doing is establishing protocol that alleviates the high amount of frustration that occurs whenever information hubs are raided and wiped for "shits and grins".

[The IASM]

Again, the obvious solution is a moderator-enforced non-interference region status. RP regions won't participate in R/D, and R/D will be kept from interfering with RP regions.

Of course, but they're not going to do that. It's been shot down before; determining qualifications would be problematic and it requires effort to maintain.

The very existence of moderators requires effort for them to participate in and I would be more than a willing volunteer for such a roll and so would many people I do believe.

[Grenartia]

Again, the obvious solution is a moderator-enforced non-interference region status. RP regions won't participate in R/D, and R/D will be kept from interfering with RP regions.

Of course, but they're not going to do that. It's been shot down before; 1. determining qualifications would be problematic and 2. it requires effort to maintain.

1. Not at all.

2. Not that much.

Milograd, there's a dynamic that people aren't even considering: P2TM-Dedicated Regions. There are a preponderance of mods and mentors who are completely unfamiliar with P2TM and thus I think they are misunderstanding the player angst flowing at the moment. We finally have three official mentors specific to the P2TM forum; it was beyond comprehension to the rest of NS.


For clarification, this is a really basic PT2M region: The Apartment Block.
This basic region exists for the purpose of player communication for various P2TM RP, most notably: this thread. If anyone is unfamiliar with P2TM game play, please look at the first 8 posts of that OOC thread. That's an entire world. Game SITREPS are so much easier to accomplish when our founder and delegate can fire off a single TG to the entire group and those affiliated with it.

Other P2TM RP are no different: Excalibur Squadron and Elfen High are further examples of RP found in P2TM.

P2TM players put a lot of effort into their game, and their game has nothing to do with delegates, regional happenings or wars between nations.

P2TM Regions have founders and delegates who volunteer their time to take on the responsibility for that Forum's region. It includes maintaining OSF, tracking players, passing along RP communications, updating things continuously, and other essential tasks. Their activities occur on a daily basis rather than just when something comes up for vote in the WA. They're kept busy because P2TM players are active people who post morning, noon and night. P2TM Regions supporting multiple RP threads are fairly hopping with activity. All the while, players banter on the RMB or go about their lives without any idea as to the amount of work shared by the founder (owner) and delegate (administrator). The regions aren't roleplaying the act of being a fictional worldly region (with presidents or kings or whatever). They are an administrative tool for player use.

What P2TM-based people are asking is simple: Give us some sort of symbol that lets raiders know that the region is recognized by NS as being specifically tied to P2TM as an information hub and apart from NS "nation" game play.



With regard to "Raiding is here to stay" mentality: Yes, I agree. It's essential. However, Max Barry endorsed the R/D aspect in 2009 long before P2TM was in existence.

<+MaxBarry> One of the amazing things about NS is how different people play it in totally different ways
<+MaxBarry> The invader game of course has always been contentious...
<+MaxBarry> In particular, nobody likes being invaded
<+MaxBarry> We've added a lot of protections for regional residents over the years...
<+MaxBarry> But I think it would be a terrible loss if we abolished it altogether
* @Scolopendra notes that if we've read General Franks' brilliant treatise, the raider "gamemap" is actually the pillar of the game and all else on NS is supposed to support it.
<+MaxBarry> The game can't be all sweetness and kittens
<+MaxBarry> The thing with raiders of course is that they're just using the same endorsement mechanism as everyone else
<+MaxBarry> They're not using a special "Invade!" feature
<+MaxBarry> They're just more efficient at using their votes than most
<+MaxBarry> ditto defenders
<@Reploid_Productions> So basically, invaders/defenders are no more or less central to the game than, say, the General Assembly, the roleplaying forums, or the General forum?
<@Scolopendra> Bah, Reploid shows her obvious fenda bias.
* @Reploid_Productions omg mod bias!
<+MaxBarry> Well, those things are all different, so hard to compare, but I consider all of those things essential, yes
<+MaxBarry> I kind of feel like with raiding there's a tradeoff
<@Scolopendra> Any follow-up, LinuxandtheX?
<+LinuxandtheX> nope
<+LinuxandtheX> thanks
<+MaxBarry> more raiding makes more people upset, but it also clearly makes us more popular -- for whatever reason, a lot more people are interested in playing this game when there's conflict
<+MaxBarry> so a balance is optimal
<+Sirocco> PvP is probably the one component NationStates really lacks compared to many other games.

The P2TM RP forum should be considered just as essential as all other things found on NS. It's different in that P2TM doesn't focus at all on NS game issues (WA, delegates, nations, etc). P2TM allows the user to depart from NS concept in order to partake in various RP. It stands alone and apart from Max Barry's overarching concept. NS created P2TM. It is very much PvP, the one component which elevates NationStates above many other games in that it offers the best of both worlds.

P2TM RP Regions are a fractal of NS itself (a mathematical set that typically displays self-similar patterns, which means they are "the same from near as from far".)

On NS, Max is our founder and Violet our Delegate. You need Violet to have administrative control because Max can't do it all alone. Raiders arrive and cut all lines of communication between Max/Violet and the players. Violet gets the boot as do all your mod team. NS stalls to a crawl while you sort out all the crap. Player satisfaction drops. The raiders start crowing and bragging. People start screaming. Something has to be done. Now your volunteers are working frantically to hold things together.

Max and Violet would have to spend a hell of a lot of time sending TG out to all the booted mods instead of being able to communicate freely. The mod chat channel is compromised. The links to Moderation, to GHR, to Technical and other information places are wiped and now players have to hunt them down in various threads in order to access them. Your mod team has to pay for telegrams to keep specific threads on track because players are now floating around in the Rejected Internet Realm and no longer grouped in a way that allows Max to telegram them all instantly.

I'm pretty sure that would frustrate you. It would frustrate Max Barry because he's a busy man who has set things up to run smoothly in his stead. It would frustrate Violet who now needs to come up with avenues of communication outside of NS and then get all the mods and staff on the same page until the occupation ends and players can return.


My last point is this: raiders are not stupid assholes. They're human beings. I can't speak for them, but I think they'd understand and appreciate the difference between "P2TM information hub" and "this region mirrors the real world". We have symbols that condemn raider regions. We could just as easily adapt code and fashion a symbol to designate a P2TM information hub. It would allow to founder AND delegate to continue maintaining that hub without all the password/admin access tap dancing. We aren't eliminating the raiding aspect, we aren't denying anyone the right to play R/D on NS. What we're doing is establishing protocol that alleviates the high amount of frustration that occurs whenever information hubs are raided and wiped for "shits and grins".

Quite.

They say R/D came about because some people found a way to exploit the regions to work out a game mechanic. Us RP'ers have done the same thing. We've found a way to exploit the region feature so that we can readily keep ourselves up to date on things happening, train newcomers in how to RP, inform people of RPs they might want to join, etc. So why should we have to sacrifice all that just so a raider can get their jollies off?

[Cerillium]

Quite.

They say R/D came about because some people found a way to exploit the regions to work out a game mechanic. Us RP'ers have done the same thing. We've found a way to exploit the region feature so that we can readily keep ourselves up to date on things happening, train newcomers in how to RP, inform people of RPs they might want to join, etc. So why should we have to sacrifice all that just so a raider can get their jollies off?

Exactly so. In particular, its the RP training and mentoring efforts that set these regions apart from other, more typical regions.