Suggestion: Hardcode Liberations to founderless regions only

[Kaboomlandia]

I can't speak for anyone else, but from what I've been reading, some people are starting to get sick of these liberation proposals against regions that don't have passwords, have active founders, or both.

Offensive liberations have been done before, to open up regions for invasion. However, they were done against regions that were founderless and passworded, meaning that they would actually do something. This current wave of resolutions, such as Nazi Europa, Femdom Empire, Kaiserreich, and other proposals currently being drafted, all target regions for liberation that have an active founder, meaning that no raider organization worth their salt would even consider trying to run an operation, and most of them don't even have a password to remove. Therefore, any liberation of the region would do jack squat.

Therefore, would it be possible to implement a hardcoded barrier where Liberations can only be proposed against regions that are founderless?

[USS Monitor]

I think it should be up to the SC to settle this through voting. If the community as a whole agreed that these liberations were a bad thing, none of them would have passed.

[Flanderlion]

Completely disagree. If anything, liberations should apply to all regions regardless of the founder and make the delegate executive. Like, the average Joe and his mates won't have their region affected, but it will reduce end games in R/D, revitalise the SC, and improve gameplay.

These liberations are just condemnations in another form, just people have got sick of condemnations doing nothing. So instead of passing pointless condemnations, people are using liberations so that when the founders CTE the region is ripe for the picking. Not to mention liberations are intended to condemn the government of a region, rather than players of a region, and is intended to provide a warning to new nations joining said region. No studies so far to my knowledge have been conducted to see how new players view liberation badges.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Not to mention liberations are condemning the government of a region, rather than players of a region, and provides a warning to new nations joining said region.

I just don't believe this is true. A new player, without the knowledge of what a Liberation does, is going to look at the badge with nice white sparkly clouds and think a 'good' thing rather than a condemnation badge which appears like a bad thing. There isn't any norms-setting for new players simply because they are not inducted into the legal fiction that is this liberation-as-a-condemnation.

[Flanderlion]

Not to mention liberations are condemning the government of a region, rather than players of a region, and provides a warning to new nations joining said region.

I just don't believe this is true. A new player, without the knowledge of what a Liberation does, is going to look at the badge with nice white sparkly clouds and think a 'good' thing rather than a condemnation badge which appears like a bad thing. There isn't any norms-setting for new players simply because they are not inducted into the legal fiction that is this liberation-as-a-condemnation.

I don't have a ready new player on hand to ask 'what does this mean?' anymore, unlike other times, because once you introduce someone they're no longer new. I would expect though that it would depend on whether they click on it or not. If not, then it is likely just another pretty thing on the page that would be ignored. But no matter how it is received, it is an attempt to warn new players, and although a TG script would be more effective, not all of us have scripts going 24/7.

But fair point, I could be wrong on how it is received. I will edit my earlier post

[Cormactopia Prime]

I think it should be up to the SC to settle this through voting. If the community as a whole agreed that these liberations were a bad thing, none of them would have passed.

This is my view. If enough people get sick of this use of Liberation resolutions, such resolutions will start failing, and then won't be submitted as often.

[Arkhall]

Completely disagree. If anything, liberations should apply to all regions regardless of the founder and make the delegate executive.

Emphasis mine.

That sounds absolutely awful. If someone played their cards right, people could use this as a means to just blatantly raid large regions. Evidence is incredibly easy to manufacture, and there's no easy way to tell if someone is explicitly part of a raider org. And, with the recent wave of 'kill the nazis with liberations' meme going around, it would be even easier to make evidence against a region. Liberations should never be able to undo anything that a founder has done.

[Lenlyvit]

Hallo hallo, I'm back in Technical and just noticed this thread. While I know I'm the one that started the trend with Liberate KREICH, I actually agree with the OP that it seems to be going overboard. I think changing a game mechanic may be too much of a hassle, and one that the techies may not want to do or one they won't get too anytime soon. With that in mind, I (before seeing this thread) made a suggestion in the SC rules discussion thread about adding a new rule to the SC. A new rule is a lot easier to enact, and doesn't take the amount of time that changing a game mechanic will. Let me know your thoughts in the SC thread . Thanks!

[Frisbeeteria]

I actually agree with the OP that it seems to be going overboard.

I think so too, but I don't think it's either a Technical or Moderation issue.

We get trends like this. They're annoying, but they either pass or mature. Players will adapt. You can be discouraging in the SC forum, or you can run a counter-approval TG campaign. Or you can just wait for the "OMG, not this sh*t again" reactions from WA delegates, and they'll stop getting posted eventually.

[Lenlyvit]

I actually agree with the OP that it seems to be going overboard.

I think so too, but I don't think it's either a Technical or Moderation issue.

We get trends like this. They're annoying, but they either pass or mature. Players will adapt. You can be discouraging in the SC forum, or you can run a counter-approval TG campaign. Or you can just wait for the "OMG, not this sh*t again" reactions from WA delegates, and they'll stop getting posted eventually.

If you know anything about La Nav by now Fris, you would know he isn't going to stop. He plans on going after all the fascist tagged regions, and apparently non-fascist regions as well.

[Ransium]

I agree that this is a voter issue and not a moderation one.

[Indo-Malaysia]

A liberation is to "strike down delegate imposed barriers". If none such exists, why should the proposal be legal?

[Frisbeeteria]

If you know anything about La Nav by now Fris, you would know he isn't going to stop.

You have the power to stop him without any new rules. Counter-campaign his approvers.

The existing ruleset addresses very specific problems

1. Site staff are excluded
2. Don't do things that belong elsewhere or belong to someone else
3. Format things correctly
4. Treat the WA as the WA

Nowhere in any of the existing rules do we address "annoying". If we did, I'd be Discarding a whole lot more resolutions, because I think most of them are annoying. Since voter opinion overrides my personal preferences, the voters are going to have to decide when "annoying" becomes too much.

[Mallorea and Riva]

A liberation is to "strike down delegate imposed barriers". If none such exists, why should the proposal be legal?

You make it so that Liberations can only be submitted for passworded regions. I'm a raider delegate, I amass influence. I know that you can't submit a Liberation, so I wait. Once I know I have enough influence to empty and password a region, I do so. I now have the time it takes to get a proposal through queue/the vote to refound it, and so I now have a massive advantage over defenders/natives.

As far as regions with Founders, the issue seems to be that players probably think these resolutions ought to be condemnations rather than Liberations. I won't put words in the author's mouth, but I think part of the point of them is the threat that upon expiration of the Founder the Delegate will be unable to defend the region against attack. It's not purely symbolic, it's functional.

I think so too, but I don't think it's either a Technical or Moderation issue.

We get trends like this. They're annoying, but they either pass or mature. Players will adapt. You can be discouraging in the SC forum, or you can run a counter-approval TG campaign. Or you can just wait for the "OMG, not this sh*t again" reactions from WA delegates, and they'll stop getting posted eventually.

If you know anything about La Nav by now Fris, you would know he isn't going to stop. He plans on going after all the fascist tagged regions, and apparently non-fascist regions as well.

If he wants to plod along, one region at a time, trying to get to vote, I'm not seeing the major issue. He isn't spamming the queue, from my count he has a single proposal sitting in there that was recently submitted.

[Drasnia]

Mall and Fris the right of it, IMO.

The rules in the SC serve very specific purposes - mainly mechanical and RP/IC. Preemptive Liberations/Offensive Liberations have to abide by the current rules already and are consequently hampered by the mechanical rules. This discourages overuse and misuse of them.

That said, these forms of Liberations have purposes that can be significant political tools. They can be used as a more concrete form of punishment on undesirable regions compared to commends. They ensure that regions whose founders risk CTEing but might not can still be protected. This list goes on.

It seems counter-productive to me to defang what little power the SC currently has. It makes the game less interesting and the balance between factions less dynamic.

What would be even worse if Liberations were limited mechanically is that edge cases could be hurt. If only passworded regions can be targeted, that means the faction that passworded the region has already won. If only founderless regions can be targeted, it's basically the same forgone conclusion as that means there's a minimum of 4 days (from submission and getting approvals to the conclusion of the vote) that the party who has seized control can wreak havoc. This would only be delayed even more if that controlling faction uses the strategy of clogging up the queue with other legal proposals before the liberation can even be proposed.

Simply put, further mechanical limitations on liberations would be detrimental to the game. This is why things like this are left for the voters to decide - so the stupid ones fail and the needed ones succeed. Heck, delegates control such a large portion of the vote that it's not exactly impossible to block stuff that makes it to vote if there's a consensus that it's a stupid proposal.

[Unibot III]

The possibility of offensive liberations and the notion of a 'double-edged sword' was a design feature of the Security Council. It was always intended.

[The Stalker]

I think it's a voter issue as well. I also don't think the other liberations La Navasse is planning will pass. I think the two that passed are more exceptions, Nazi Europe because they're the biggest Nazi region, and Liberate KAISERREICH cause they're always denying their fascist/Nazi behavior.

Femdom Empire was refounded during the vote encase you didn't know Kaboomlandia.

[Kaboomlandia]

I think it's a voter issue as well. I also don't think the other liberations La Navasse is planning will pass. I think the two that passed are more exceptions, Nazi Europe because they're the biggest Nazi region, and Liberate KAISERREICH cause they're always denying their fascist/Nazi behavior.

Femdom Empire was refounded during the vote encase you didn't know Kaboomlandia.

Ah, didn't realize that last part. I've been out of the loop on that one.

[The Stalker]

I think it's a voter issue as well. I also don't think the other liberations La Navasse is planning will pass. I think the two that passed are more exceptions, Nazi Europe because they're the biggest Nazi region, and Liberate KAISERREICH cause they're always denying their fascist/Nazi behavior.

Femdom Empire was refounded during the vote encase you didn't know Kaboomlandia.

Ah, didn't realize that last part. I've been out of the loop on that one.

Yea once it was refounded a number of the delegates changed their votes and I expect a repeal will pass fairly easily.

[Flanderlion]

Completely disagree. If anything, liberations should apply to all regions regardless of the founder and make the delegate executive.

Emphasis mine.

That sounds absolutely awful. If someone played their cards right, people could use this as a means to just blatantly raid large regions. Evidence is incredibly easy to manufacture, and there's no easy way to tell if someone is explicitly part of a raider org. And, with the recent wave of 'kill the nazis with liberations' meme going around, it would be even easier to make evidence against a region. Liberations should never be able to undo anything that a founder has done.

I think you need to put more faith in the inter-regional community. A large completely innocent region that hasn't participated in R/D (either voluntarily or forced e.g. being raided) isn't exactly going to get an offensive liberation passed on them. As Stalker said later on in this thread, there have only been two offensive liberation's passed on the two largest Nazi regions. Just because an author is spamming them into the queue, that does not make them pass.

The point of a sandbox game, is that the admin hands us the tools, and we decide how to use them rather than their being a wrong or right way.

[USS Monitor]

Emphasis mine.

That sounds absolutely awful. If someone played their cards right, people could use this as a means to just blatantly raid large regions. Evidence is incredibly easy to manufacture, and there's no easy way to tell if someone is explicitly part of a raider org. And, with the recent wave of 'kill the nazis with liberations' meme going around, it would be even easier to make evidence against a region. Liberations should never be able to undo anything that a founder has done.

I think you need to put more faith in the inter-regional community. A large completely innocent region that hasn't participated in R/D (either voluntarily or forced e.g. being raided) isn't exactly going to get an offensive liberation passed on them. As Stalker said later on in this thread, there have only been two offensive liberation's passed on the two largest Nazi regions. Just because an author is spamming them into the queue, that does not make them pass.

The point of a sandbox game, is that the admin hands us the tools, and we decide how to use them rather than their being a wrong or right way.

We've had this discussion before, and I still think infringing on founder sovereignty is just plain wrong. Raiders are a mischievous bunch, and I'd rather have hardcoded rules to stop them from doing anything that we don't want them doing. Otherwise, some of them will try stuff just to see if they can do it. Expecting raiders not to stir the pot is like putting a bunch of interesting chemicals in a room full of chemists and trusting nobody to mix them.

[Old Hope]

We've had this discussion before, and I still think infringing on founder sovereignty is just plain wrong. Raiders are a mischievous bunch, and I'd rather have hardcoded rules to stop them from doing anything that we don't want them doing. Otherwise, some of them will try stuff just to see if they can do it. Expecting raiders not to stir the pot is like putting a bunch of interesting chemicals in a room full of chemists and trusting nobody to mix them.

There is a solution that both affects founderless and founder regions yet does not stop the founder directly.
Liberations could remove border control from everyone except the founder, and clear the regional banlist and password on passage.
This way Liberations are an effective way to annoy a region even if it has a founder. It would be a much more effective tool on regions without a founder, too.

[Mallorea and Riva]

We've had this discussion before, and I still think infringing on founder sovereignty is just plain wrong. Raiders are a mischievous bunch, and I'd rather have hardcoded rules to stop them from doing anything that we don't want them doing. Otherwise, some of them will try stuff just to see if they can do it. Expecting raiders not to stir the pot is like putting a bunch of interesting chemicals in a room full of chemists and trusting nobody to mix them.

There is a solution that both affects founderless and founder regions yet does not stop the founder directly.
Liberations could remove border control from everyone except the founder, and clear the regional banlist and password on passage.
This way Liberations are an effective way to annoy a region even if it has a founder. It would be a much more effective tool on regions without a founder, too.

The game considers founders to be gods for their regions. Currently Liberations on regions with Founders do no more than attach a badge to them. I don't think clearing the banlist or screwing with border controls of regions with founders accomplishes anything which makes it worth deviating from the current understanding of Founder's being the arbiter of what occurs within their regions.

[Arkhall]

We've had this discussion before, and I still think infringing on founder sovereignty is just plain wrong. Raiders are a mischievous bunch, and I'd rather have hardcoded rules to stop them from doing anything that we don't want them doing. Otherwise, some of them will try stuff just to see if they can do it. Expecting raiders not to stir the pot is like putting a bunch of interesting chemicals in a room full of chemists and trusting nobody to mix them.

There is a solution that both affects founderless and founder regions yet does not stop the founder directly.
Liberations could remove border control from everyone except the founder, and clear the regional banlist and password on passage.
This way Liberations are an effective way to annoy a region even if it has a founder. It would be a much more effective tool on regions without a founder, too.

Why should the SC be allowed to just annoy regions? It serves no purpose.

[Frisbeeteria]

Why should the SC be allowed to just annoy regions?

Because enough WA delegates approved the proposals. You're the voters. It's your Security Council. It's up to you to stop the stupidity.

Raiding is annoying. Bad RP is annoying. Dumb polls are annoying. Lots of things in this game are legal, but annoying. At least this one you have the power to fix.