NATION

PASSWORD

What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20737
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:28 am

Naivetry wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:
[violet] wrote:As you said earlier, if you want complete control over your region, then create one and make yourself Founder. If, however, you want to exist in a region run by other people, you have to accept it might be, well, run by other people.

Don't you see any difference between being willing to live in a constitutional democracy, where those other people will come to power via agreed rules & respect your rights, and being willing to live in a situation where mobs of strangers can come along, seize power, and evict you at their will?!?

How does living in a Founded region prevent you from creating a constitutional democracy?

Granted that all democracy is granted by the Founder, likewise all continuation of democracy is granted by the Delegate. The success of any democracy depends upon the willingness of citizens to respect the rules. It can't be coded. You can only dictate who is allowed to become a citizen in your democracy, by restricting admittance via the WA Delegate, the Founder, or a password.

I wasn't talking about regions with Founders: In the post on which I was commenting [Violet] seemed to be suggesting that the only alternative to being in a Founded region should consist of being subject to mob-rule, and I wanted to know whether she really didn't see a possibility of anybody in a Founderless region wanting something better & more stable than that...

Erastide wrote:Yes, if you can't agree on 1 person to be founder of the new region or can't all agree to refound, then you get to have smaller regions or go join a different one. If you bond together as a region and take action then you can have regional action and protection. If your region isn't able to get its act together and form a new region, then frankly, tough shit. You don't really agree enough to be together in one region.
"tough shit"? Now that is helpful... NOT.
So if a few members of a region that loses its Founder are too inert (or at odds with the majority) to cooperate in a re-founding, and the majority for one reason or another can't chose a Delegate who has enough Influence to eject that minority's members very quickly, the majority have to choose between founding a region under a different name -- and so losing any "heritage" value that might have become associated with the old one -- or remaining open to raiders?
Can you really not see how unpleasant people who've successfully managed to form a regional community would find either of those options? Or how likely the members of such a community would be to respond to a successful invasion of their "home" by giving up on NS altogether?
Last edited by Bears Armed on Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:42 am

I have a simple suggestion: reintroduce griefing rules. That's all. Alternatively, I would suggest the moderators intervene to "liberate" the regions invaded by Macedon. Just this once, please.

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:41 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Erastide wrote:Yes, if you can't agree on 1 person to be founder of the new region or can't all agree to refound, then you get to have smaller regions or go join a different one. If you bond together as a region and take action then you can have regional action and protection. If your region isn't able to get its act together and form a new region, then frankly, tough shit. You don't really agree enough to be together in one region.
"tough shit"? Now that is helpful... NOT.

Yeah... tired of answering the same arguments from him that don't seem to actually address the points. So I made mine quite final. :P
Bears Armed wrote:So if a few members of a region that loses its Founder are too inert (or at odds with the majority) to cooperate in a re-founding, and the majority for one reason or another can't chose a Delegate who has enough Influence to eject that minority's members very quickly, the majority have to choose between founding a region under a different name -- and so losing any "heritage" value that might have become associated with the old one -- or remaining open to raiders?
Can you really not see how unpleasant people who've successfully managed to form a regional community would find either of those options? Or how likely the members of such a community would be to respond to a successful invasion of their "home" by giving up on NS altogether?

No, I can easily see how it's unpleasant. But I also think that they should be able to elect themselves a delegate who can eventually kick out the few inert people so they can refound. Or put up a password until such time as the inert people come back online or die off themselves. I would like to see the successor idea that was brought up in a different topic, but aside from that regions have enough protections in terms of having a founder or the possibility of having a founder.

User avatar
Martyrdoom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Martyrdoom » Thu Jun 25, 2009 11:53 am

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I have a simple suggestion: reintroduce griefing rules. That's all. Alternatively, I would suggest the moderators intervene to "liberate" the regions invaded by Macedon. Just this once, please.


I thought the Security Council under the 'Liberation' procedure/proposal would fit somewhere in between 'suggestions' by players and the moderators?!!!!!! I don't think it would be 'just this once' either. Unless you know something I don't and 'invasion griefing' is going to be illegal again just after the 'liberation' of the regions acquired by Macedon.
Smelled a Spring on the Salford wind

User avatar
Northern Chittowa
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Mar 03, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Northern Chittowa » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:30 pm

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:I have a simple suggestion: reintroduce griefing rules. That's all. Alternatively, I would suggest the moderators intervene to "liberate" the regions invaded by Macedon. Just this once, please.


The whole idea of influence was to stop the mods from having to sort out what is griefing and what isn't because it was such a huge workload, as such i can't see why they would bring it back. Indeed its here to stay, however the mods are willing to play with it now which is a good thing! :)

As for your second point they can't, and indeed shouldn't, as it would set a dangerous precedent.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:29 pm

Northern Chittowa wrote:The whole idea of influence was to stop the mods from having to sort out what is griefing and what isn't because it was such a huge workload,


I got the impression was that the Mods got to seriously hating always getting stuck in the middle. No matter which way they ruled, it was guaranteed a bunch of people were going to be seriously dissatisfied with the ruling. It's not like they're getting paid Big Bucks to put up with that kind of abuse.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Northern Chittowa
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Mar 03, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Northern Chittowa » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:33 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:
Northern Chittowa wrote:The whole idea of influence was to stop the mods from having to sort out what is griefing and what isn't because it was such a huge workload,


I got the impression was that the Mods got to seriously hating always getting stuck in the middle. No matter which way they ruled, it was guaranteed a bunch of people were going to be seriously dissatisfied with the ruling. It's not like they're getting paid Big Bucks to put up with that kind of abuse.


Indeed, that was another side effect of having to sort it all out, i can fully understand why they implemented it if im honest.

User avatar
Sirocco
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 500
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Sirocco » Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 am

I think the two words 'Never Again' with a thunderclap can just about sum up our (the mods) feelings about having to rule on griefings again. The rules were difficult to understand, they were difficult to follow, and they were extremely difficult to investigate. Trying to differentiate between a legal griefing and an illegal griefing was an arduous task that could, and would, take HOURS for us to sort out. And when we made our ruling, people got pissed off, no matter what. We cannot go back to that system, we just can't. Perfectly rule-abiding players got their nations deleted because invasions and griefing were such internecine terms back then, as any invasion, even if it was known to be legal, was challenged just 'cause.

Invasions weren't about which side could outwit the other, it was about which side a beleaguered mod would eventually side with based on the evidence (some of it spammed out of existence for this particular reason by cunning players) s/he had. That's not fun for anyone. It's a broken game mechanic that we fixed with influence. Now we're looking at the current system to see what we can change, but we must NEVER go back to what we had before. I can't emphasise this enough. I hope I've made things a bit clearer for those who either weren't around or don't remember.

So let's please leave that idea and look at other alternatives.
Last edited by Sirocco on Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5450
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Ballotonia » Sat Jun 27, 2009 6:28 am

Sirocco wrote:It's a broken game mechanic that we fixed with influence.


No, Influence didn't fix it. Actions which used to be illegal were simply legalized, with Influence making it just more time-consuming to do those things. Understanding that is important, for it explains why people keep pointing at Influence and some ask to undo what was done to the game back then.

Your statement is quite clear in one thing though: Influence won't be undone, whatever happens from hereon has to be done in terms of automatic game mechanics.

It's a shame it took years for us to get to this point, and that the shortcomings of Influence weren't acknowledged way back when they were first pointed out.

Ballotonia
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

Previous

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Trivalve

Advertisement

Remove ads