NATION

PASSWORD

Raiders vs Roleplayers

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Uiri
Diplomat
 
Posts: 875
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Ex-Nation

Raiders vs Roleplayers

Postby Uiri » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:39 pm

Raiding/Defending is an aspect of the game I have not had to deal with until now in the nearly 3 years I've been playing nationstates. The fact that a raider can force me to deal with this aspect of the game is unacceptable to me.

Only allow those who were kicked out by invaders (I'm sure it is obvious who has been kicked out by an invader) to liberate a region. And only the region they got kicked out of.

If 'liberation' is just lip service and the real intent is 'password removal service' then the fact of the matter is that passwords have become something which the World Assembly gets to decide if they shall work or not.

Of course, you could just designate the regions on this map as RP regions and exclude them from that part of the game. I'm sure that there would be a big hubbub if the Raiders were forced to write long, detailed well-thought out roleplay posts. Why should we have to deal with their side of the game when they can go on without dealing with ours?
SH*T HAPPENS
<Franberry> a WA condemnation is more useless than an irl UN sanction

User avatar
Zwangzug
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 5142
Founded: Oct 19, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Zwangzug » Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:47 pm

Only designating regions on a certain map, no matter how notable or important they might be, as RP regions is a bad idea. There are plenty of RPers that aren't specifically involved in II power politics, and even some regions. Sports RP is what I'm most familiar with--the first few important regions that come to mind from a sports RP perspective all have active founders, so that's not an immediate concern, but that definition of "RP regions" is too narrow.

On the other hand, only allowing users ejected from a region by a delegate to propose Liberations to that region strikes me as a good idea. I don't think we can codify who's an invader delegate and who isn't, but on a case-by-case system there should be time for people to explain the specific situations.
Factbook
IRC humor, (self-referential)
My issues
...using the lens of athletics to illustrate national culture, provide humor, interweave international affairs, and even incorporate mathematical theory...
WARNING: by construing meaning from this sequence of symbols, you have given implicit consent to the theory that words have noncircular semantic value and can be used to encode information about an external universe. Proceed with caution.

User avatar
Kandarin
Diplomat
 
Posts: 869
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kandarin » Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:02 pm

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of RP environments in NS, each as unique and dissimilar from one another as NS is from II is from Sports. Taking a certain cluster of regions and designating them "the NS RP-verse" would exclude the overwhelming majority of NS RPers.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.

User avatar
[violet]
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16046
Founded: Antiquity

Postby [violet] » Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:05 pm

Uiri wrote:Why should we have to deal with their side of the game when they can go on without dealing with ours?


This, plus you are already dealing with their side of the game. That is, you are creating a nation, moving it into a region, and endorsing somebody, which is no different from what invaders do.


Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trotterdam

Advertisement

Remove ads