Please add a button to cancel the closure of all embassies

[New Socialist Saxony]

Kappa Region was just recently invaded by the Black Hawks. Thankfully we were able to fix everything they ruined however it was most certainly a hassle having to go click the cancel closure button for the 86 embassies we have. It's already frustrating enough having to deal with the invasion of a region. Can you please make it a little easier for the raided regions to stop the closure of embassies by adding a button to cancel all embassy closures, instead of requiring each embassy to be separately canceled? Or you can add an option to select the embassies like the ability we have to select the telegrams. Just an idea to make it easier on regions with lots of embassies that get raided by invaders.

[Raionitu]

Kappa Region was just recently invaded by the Black Hawks. Thankfully we were able to fix everything they ruined however it was most certainly a hassle having to go click the cancel closure button for the 86 embassies we have. It's already frustrating enough having to deal with the invasion of a region. Can you please make it a little easier for the raided regions to stop the closure of embassies by adding a button to cancel all embassy closures, instead of requiring each embassy to be separately canceled? Or you can add an option to select the embassies like the ability we have to select the telegrams. Just an idea to make it easier on regions with lots of embassies that get raided by invaders.

If that is added, then a close all embassies option should also be added. We had to manually click close embassy 86 times, you had to click cancel 86 times. You only have to click once, we only have to click once. Honestly, a button for close/cancel all would be useful for things like this, or maybe an accept all requests for embassy regions that are trying to get as many embassies as possible.

[Trotterdam]

We had to manually click close embassy 86 times,

"Had to"?

You didn't have to raid anyone.

[Frisbeeteria]

We had to manually click close embassy 86 times

If we proceed with the analogy that "Tag raiding = graffiti", I see no reason why graffiti artists shouldn't be limited to manual spray cans, and those that clean up afterwards are allowed to use pressure washers. The one-sided request seems entirely reasonable to me.

[Jakker]

We had to manually click close embassy 86 times

If we proceed with the analogy that "Tag raiding = graffiti", I see no reason why graffiti artists shouldn't be limited to manual spray cans, and those that clean up afterwards are allowed to use pressure washers. The one-sided request seems entirely reasonable to me.

What if a region was raided, held for multiple days, and then left before the embassies close? Not tag raiding. But I guess you would still regard that as graffiti as well eh?

Why not have a button that restores all previously suppressed messages on RMB? Why not have a button that restores a region's tags? Why not create a rule in which a nation has to be a RO for x amount of time before they can close embassies? I would imagine that you or other mods would not want those buttons, but you are suggesting something very similar.

My point is as you said, Fris, your thought is one-sided and seems more so with the underlying desire to just immediately stop any effects of a raid. This opinion seems to counter a lot of previous thoughts on such buttons. Also, wouldn't this go against the one click policy? As far as I know, there is not a single button on NS that allows you to do multiple things at once unless I am mistaken?

[USS Monitor]

If we proceed with the analogy that "Tag raiding = graffiti", I see no reason why graffiti artists shouldn't be limited to manual spray cans, and those that clean up afterwards are allowed to use pressure washers. The one-sided request seems entirely reasonable to me.

What if a region was raided, held for multiple days, and then left before the embassies close? Not tag raiding. But I guess you would still regard that as graffiti as well eh?

Why not have a button that restores all previously suppressed messages on RMB? Why not have a button that restores a region's tags? Why not create a rule in which a nation has to be a RO for x amount of time before they can close embassies? I would imagine that you or other mods would not want those buttons, but you are suggesting something very similar.

My point is as you said, Fris, your thought is one-sided and seems more so with the underlying desire to just immediately stop any effects of a raid. This opinion seems to counter a lot of previous thoughts on such buttons. Also, wouldn't this go against the one click policy? As far as I know, there is not a single button on NS that allows you to do multiple things at once unless I am mistaken?

I don't see a problem with a button to unsuppress the whole RMB. (Except mod-suppressed posts, obviously.)

Requiring a nation to be RO for a certain amount of time before they can use their powers would interfere with a variety of regional business. The fact that it would also trip up raiders is definitely not sufficient reason to implement such a feature.

But regardless of what is decided about any specific feature, the larger point here is that every tool to help people clean up their region does not have to be balanced by another tool that helps raiders.

[Jakker]

What if a region was raided, held for multiple days, and then left before the embassies close? Not tag raiding. But I guess you would still regard that as graffiti as well eh?

Why not have a button that restores all previously suppressed messages on RMB? Why not have a button that restores a region's tags? Why not create a rule in which a nation has to be a RO for x amount of time before they can close embassies? I would imagine that you or other mods would not want those buttons, but you are suggesting something very similar.

My point is as you said, Fris, your thought is one-sided and seems more so with the underlying desire to just immediately stop any effects of a raid. This opinion seems to counter a lot of previous thoughts on such buttons. Also, wouldn't this go against the one click policy? As far as I know, there is not a single button on NS that allows you to do multiple things at once unless I am mistaken?

I don't see a problem with a button to unsuppress the whole RMB. (Except mod-suppressed posts, obviously.)

Requiring a nation to be RO for a certain amount of time before they can use their powers would interfere with a variety of regional business. The fact that it would also trip up raiders is definitely not sufficient reason to implement such a feature.

But regardless of what is decided about any specific feature, the larger point here is that every tool to help people clean up their region does not have to be balanced by another tool that helps raiders.

I am not advocating for a button to balance this potential feature. I am arguing against any feature like this entirely. This would set a dangerous precedent whether one button would stop multiple actions at once. The fact that is very clearly one-sided against potential impacts of raiding just further highlights its problematic nature.

[Trotterdam]

As far as I know, there is not a single button on NS that allows you to do multiple things at once unless I am mistaken?

Mass telegrams?

The "dismiss all" button, back when we had it? (It was removed, but just because it was observed to cause people to dismiss issues more often, not specifically because being able to do multiple things at once is a problem if you wanted to do those things anyway.)

EDIT: Also, isn't there a "clear regional ban list" button for removing multiple banned nations at once? I don't have border control access myself, but I thought I'd seen something like that used at some point. There is no corresponding "ban every nation in the region" button.

[Jakker]

As far as I know, there is not a single button on NS that allows you to do multiple things at once unless I am mistaken?

Mass telegrams?

The "dismiss all" button, back when we had it? (It was removed, but just because it was observed to cause people to dismiss issues more often, not specifically because being able to do multiple things at once is a problem if you wanted to do those things anyway.)

EDIT: Also, isn't there a "clear regional ban list" button for removing multiple banned nations at once? I don't have border control access myself, but I thought I'd seen something like that used at some point. There is no corresponding "ban every nation in the region" button.

1. Doing a mass telegram takes more than one button unless you are referring to a regional telegram. But even that takes 26 hours of being a RO first. Mass telegrams is also a feature that can be used for a lot of different things (that benefit and hinder raiders).

2. As you said, "dismiss all" for issues was removed partly because people were dismissing more often (often accidently). This is an example that one button to just sweep through a bunch of actions isn't a great thing. Also something that didn't help or hurt raiding.

3. Clearing the ban list button is a thing and is the only feature that is sort of similar to this situation. However, there is a limit to nations being banned which plays a factor to a degree (there is not a limit to how many embassies can or cannot exist as far as I know). Additionally, this feature can be used in favor and against raiding.

Even of those buttons that exist, there is some balance to them. This doesn't seem to have that at all.

[New Socialist Saxony]

All I am asking is for it to be made easier. We can compare similarities and state the advantages and disadvantages for each side but honestly I don't care. I like simple and ease, and I'm most positive a lot of others do to.

Make it so you can select the embassies you want to cancel the closure of or start the closure of. Like the option we have to select the telegrams except with embassies that's all I'm asking, it will be fair for both the ones trying to close the embassies and for those who wish to cancel. Having the ability to select multiple embassy's and choose what to do with them would be a very nice ability.

[Eluvatar]

I'm not impressed by the arguments advanced against the requested feature.

Surely, Jakker, the point is victory, not making the defeated suffer.

[Tekeristan]

I support it, whatever to help regions recover.

[Jakker]

I'm not impressed by the arguments advanced against the requested feature.

Surely, Jakker, the point is victory, not making the defeated suffer.

There are a lot of reasons why raiding happens, Elu. I don't believe any of my points have discussed "making the defeated suffer" though, so I am not sure where you are getting that from. This is about setting a bad precedent and being one-sided against raiding. Two points that you or USS Monitor have failed to even discuss. Rather, all of the mod responses have very clearly and evidently been noting the one-sidedness of this potential feature.

I think New Socialist Saxony's second post is reasonable. Making the handling of embassies easier like similar to telegrams where you click multiple and then press a button that affects all those selected.

[Eluvatar]

"One-sided" isn't necessarily an argument against a feature. That misses the point.

Balance certainly needs to be pursued regarding the mechanics that affect who can control a region, whether delegacy elections or ejections. Here, however, that's not at stake. What's at stake is the user experience of players with access to regional controls who disagree with multiple pending embassy cancellations. Suggestions for how exactly to go about improving that experience are welcome. Arguments that that experience should not be improved, to be fair to raiders, puzzle me.

[Caelapes]

"One-sided" isn't necessarily an argument against a feature. That misses the point.

Balance certainly needs to be pursued regarding the mechanics that affect who can control a region, whether delegacy elections or ejections. Here, however, that's not at stake. What's at stake is the user experience of players with access to regional controls who disagree with multiple pending embassy cancellations. Suggestions for how exactly to go about improving that experience are welcome. Arguments that that experience should not be improved, to be fair to raiders, puzzle me.

I'd agree with a multiple checkbox select for closure, canceling closure, approval, and rejection of embassies. There are times that legitimate, non-raider governments will need to do the above actions to multiple embassies at once.

Choose the embassies you want to act on, and then hit one "Close/Cancel Closure/Approve/Reject All Selected" button. Or, if you're feeling nostalgic, click the individual buttons next to each.

[Jakker]

Arguments that that experience should not be improved, to be fair to raiders, puzzle me.

With that logic, why not just made raiding illegal? Oh, right...

I concur with Caelapes.

[USS Monitor]

"One-sided" isn't necessarily an argument against a feature. That misses the point.

Balance certainly needs to be pursued regarding the mechanics that affect who can control a region, whether delegacy elections or ejections. Here, however, that's not at stake. What's at stake is the user experience of players with access to regional controls who disagree with multiple pending embassy cancellations. Suggestions for how exactly to go about improving that experience are welcome. Arguments that that experience should not be improved, to be fair to raiders, puzzle me.

I'd agree with a multiple checkbox select for closure, canceling closure, approval, and rejection of embassies. There are times that legitimate, non-raider governments will need to do the above actions to multiple embassies at once.

Choose the embassies you want to act on, and then hit one "Close/Cancel Closure/Approve/Reject All Selected" button. Or, if you're feeling nostalgic, click the individual buttons next to each.

That sounds OK.

It's not that any feature that could possibly be used by raiders is automatically bad. It's just that raiding is not the actual purpose of regions, and doing something to make other people's lives easier does not mean we have to balance it out by doing something to make raiding easier. It gets really tiresome to see the argument, "If you give them X then you have to give us Y!" used over and over.

If you can come up with something like this, where it would be useful to raiders, but you're also considering the best interests of people outside R/D, that's much more helpful.

Arguments that that experience should not be improved, to be fair to raiders, puzzle me.

With that logic, why not just made raiding illegal? Oh, right...

I concur with Caelapes.

Pretty sure it's not on the agenda to make raiding illegal.

[Klaus Devestatorie]

We had to manually click close embassy 86 times

If we proceed with the analogy that "Tag raiding = graffiti", I see no reason why graffiti artists shouldn't be limited to manual spray cans, and those that clean up afterwards are allowed to use pressure washers. The one-sided request seems entirely reasonable to me.

As a raider, I completely agree. Raiding should be focused on taking and controlling regions, because that at least has legitimate gameplay connotations. The focus on vandalism that some raiders have evolved to should be zapped, by making it futile to do it.

[Jakker]

If you can come up with something like this, where it would be useful to raiders, but you're also considering the best interests of people outside R/D, that's much more helpful.

Exactly, USS Monitor. Perhaps my posts were misinterpreted, but nothing I said was trying to focus on the best interest of raiders exclusively. I was simply pointing out that the solution suggested was one-sided. As you suggested, it is important to consider the interests of various constituents. This is extremely important because otherwise it leads to flawed logic.

I am in favor of seeking an improvement to a player's experience, but the impact of all consistents should be considered. If one feature improves one type of player's experience while not hindering someone else's, that should be sought more so than a feature that one improves one constituent, but hurts another.

[Consular]

Jakker, your posts come across as a bit disingenuous to me. I'm not sure how what you've said in this thread can be anything other than, as you say, focusing "on the best interest of raiders exclusively".

For example:

I am in favor of seeking an improvement to a player's experience, but the impact of all consistents should be considered. If one feature improves one type of player's experience while not hindering someone else's, that should be sought more so than a feature that one improves one constituent, but hurts another.

The suggested feature is to allow a single button to cancel all active embassy closures. Precisely which constituent does this hurt and how?

The only people I can see as conceivably opposed to this are invaders. And the "hurt" done would be they like it when players have to take an unnecessary amount of time to tediously individually cancel embassy closures. So the only experience "hurt" is the experience of invaders enjoying annoying other players? Am I following this correctly?

[Jakker]

Jakker, your posts come across as a bit disingenuous to me. I'm not sure how what you've said in this thread can be anything other than, as you say, focusing "on the best interest of raiders exclusively".

For example:

I am in favor of seeking an improvement to a player's experience, but the impact of all consistents should be considered. If one feature improves one type of player's experience while not hindering someone else's, that should be sought more so than a feature that one improves one constituent, but hurts another.

The suggested feature is to allow a single button to cancel all active embassy closures. Precisely which constituent does this hurt and how?

The only people I can see as conceivably opposed to this are invaders. And the "hurt" done would be they like it when players have to take an unnecessary amount of time to tediously individually cancel embassy closures. So the only experience "hurt" is the experience of invaders enjoying annoying other players? Am I following this correctly?

The point to my statement was to say I am not simply arguing against the button because I am trying to advance raiding. In my opinion, the one-sided nature of it just seems to set a dangerous precedent for gameplay in general. I do recognize though that I am speaking with raider's interest in mind and so I can see how the statement comes off poorly. I apologize for that.

Yes, it would impact an aspect of raiding. Regardless of one's feelings of raiding, it is important to consider those potential impacts just like any other part of the game. I understand that closing embassies annoy players. I also understand that raids, coups, etc annoy players also. Where is the line drawn? This is why balanced considerations are important.

[Tekeristan]

People should be allowed to repair their regions of damage in an easy manner. It's their work, after all.
I thought the point of raiding was the taste of victory, not to cause damage to other people's work and to revel in their extended annoyance and/or suffering?

[Vuori Kunin-Grrs]

To have a button which effectively closes all of a region's embassies more efficiently facilitates griefing, and could in turn make raiding more toxic-ish. The goal of raiding, however, should only be the victory of taking a region, not the vandalism of them as well.

A button which allows the instant reversal of embassies that are being in the process of closure allows less grief on the side on the natives while not affecting the victory of the raid in the first place; the closure of embassies by the raiders is not a central part of raiding, but must be admitted as a way to disadvantage, anger, and/or grief the natives, especially if there are a large number of embassies.

[Consular]

Jakker, your posts come across as a bit disingenuous to me. I'm not sure how what you've said in this thread can be anything other than, as you say, focusing "on the best interest of raiders exclusively".

For example:


The suggested feature is to allow a single button to cancel all active embassy closures. Precisely which constituent does this hurt and how?

The only people I can see as conceivably opposed to this are invaders. And the "hurt" done would be they like it when players have to take an unnecessary amount of time to tediously individually cancel embassy closures. So the only experience "hurt" is the experience of invaders enjoying annoying other players? Am I following this correctly?

The point to my statement was to say I am not simply arguing against the button because I am trying to advance raiding. In my opinion, the one-sided nature of it just seems to set a dangerous precedent for gameplay in general. I do recognize though that I am speaking with raider's interest in mind and so I can see how the statement comes off poorly. I apologize for that.

Yes, it would impact an aspect of raiding. Regardless of one's feelings of raiding, it is important to consider those potential impacts just like any other part of the game. I understand that closing embassies annoy players. I also understand that raids, coups, etc annoy players also. Where is the line drawn? This is why balanced considerations are important.

But you are arguing against the button because you're trying to advance raiding. Don't try to frame yourself as some benevolent neutral party when you clearly are not.

Alright. So, precisely how does this have an impact on raiding? Be very specific for us.

I was right, wasn't I? The only impact it has on raiding is it improves the quality of life for people who have been raided, which upsets raiders because they enjoy annoying those people.

You're not looking for some mythical "balance" here so maybe stop using that word.

@Admin:

I think this would be a great feature to be added.

It improves the basic quality of experience of many players who have to deal with this, and I do not think it substantially affects invasions at all -- the ability to take and control a region is entirely unaffected.

As I'm trying to demonstrate to Jakker, it has no negative impact on any other player group -- unless that player group considers making other players do tedious things part of their core experience, and I do not think most invaders think like that. The change in no way affects their ability to play the game at all.

[Jakker]

The point to my statement was to say I am not simply arguing against the button because I am trying to advance raiding. In my opinion, the one-sided nature of it just seems to set a dangerous precedent for gameplay in general. I do recognize though that I am speaking with raider's interest in mind and so I can see how the statement comes off poorly. I apologize for that.

Yes, it would impact an aspect of raiding. Regardless of one's feelings of raiding, it is important to consider those potential impacts just like any other part of the game. I understand that closing embassies annoy players. I also understand that raids, coups, etc annoy players also. Where is the line drawn? This is why balanced considerations are important.

But you are arguing against the button because you're trying to advance raiding. Don't try to frame yourself as some benevolent neutral party when you clearly are not.

Alright. So, precisely how does this have an impact on raiding? Be very specific for us.

I was right, wasn't I? The only impact it has on raiding is it improves the quality of life for people who have been raided, which upsets raiders because they enjoy annoying those people.

You're not looking for some mythical "balance" here so maybe stop using that word.

Maybe you should get off your high horse just a little bit there. I'll try to lay out one last time the points I have been making. Because regardless of what you may think, there is merit to what I am saying.

1. I am using "advancing" as its definition: "to accelerate the growth or progress of advance a cause." I did not come here and try to advocate for anything added or given to raiding further than what already exists.

2. My argument from the beginning has been about the big picture in terms of the impact on raiding. It is not simply this feature, but the mentality behind it. One-sidedness and a bad precedent. First, let's start with bad precedent. Already a mod has stated in favor for a button that suppresses multiple posts at once as well. Getting raided typically requires a region to go through some tedious tasks to restore it to its previous state. So what is being stated worries me. Raiding is far more complex than simply getting delegacy. If players could only get delegate and not impact a region, raiding would virtually cease to exist.

3. I am using "balance" by one of its definition: "taking everything into account; fairly judged or presented." I will continue using the word because in my eyes, for a decision to be balanced requires considering multiple sides. Considering the immediate and big picture impact. That is what I am asking for.

Maybe this whole thread has just be people reacting to each other and that has caused language that appears more one-sided. I'm not sure.

I know my responses has been more about the worrisome wording used by you and others to justify this that could easily be used to just say, hey you know what why don't we just eliminate all of these other raiding components because they annoy others?