[Withdrawn]Suggestion: Opt-Out for Non-Gameplay Regions

[Anagonia]

Greetings,

(Too Long Didn't Read at Bottom.)

I'd like to start this suggestion by making perfectly clear my ignorance on the gameplay mechanics of this website. I have never nor do I ever intend to become interested in that unique part of this game, but at the same time I cannot nor do I ignore that others spend some or all of their time devoted to that. With this in mind, this suggestion is in no way aimed at shaming nor offending those individuals or communities who have devoted countless hours to benefiting this unique part of Nationstates.

I am furthermore sure that, at some point, this same suggestion has been made on the technical or moderation side of this website. I in no way am attempting to gravedig this topic if applicable. I have been unable to find the perfect set of keywords to use in search to find the appropriate topics and I again blame my own ignorance. I am sorry in advance.

Moving on...

My suggestion can be more respectfully presented by my opinion that Nationstates is a unqiue whole with fractured unites, best represented by a pie chart for comparison. With this in mind, I seek to imply that there are communities on this game, specifically role playing, who spend countless hours themselves pouring their hearts and minds into that unique part of Nationstates. With the information I have been presented in recent days, it has come to my attention that these efforts can easily be taken away - considerable efforts if I am to press personally.

I'd like to suggest that for regions dedicated to such parts of the game, that there be in place a method in which alerts raiders that this region has opted out of the gameplay raiding mechanic. I am not suggesting a full-blown code-rewrite to prevent raiding, merely a selection that alerts raiders that this target has not invested its time to fully benefit the raiding/defending aspect of the game. I believe that with a more mutual cooperation between communities in Nationstates, we can all safely contribute our passions - be they raiding/defending or in my case role playing - without fear that the community interests we seek to stray from do not come knocking on our door uninvited, with the consequence of years or even a decades worth of work gone simply by a misunderstanding.

I believe firmly that with a method in place alerting the community that empowers and further contributes to the vast and grand art of raiding and defending, that they can continue to do so without fear of harming other parts of the Nationstates community as a whole with a sense of mutual cooperation and respect. I believe further that raiding and defending has a very direct purpose in Nationstates, that the gameplay side is equal to or greater than the roleplaying side, and that it has a vast history under its belt. If we can all therefore work together to ensure that the passions we as a community have contributed to are not at risk of opposing the other, my suggestion concludes that it will create a more enjoyable experience for the whole.

In conclusion, I suggest an opt-out display be in place as a choice for founders or whomever controls a region that is dedicated entirely to role play or a non-gameplay side of Nationstates. The wording or statement to this I believe should be left up to the powers that be. My suiggestion is intended to foster mutual cooperation between the diverse and unique communities of Nationstates and provide a safeguard for regions not wanting to contribute to the gameplay side of the game, which I am led to believe fosters the wonderful and diverse raiding and defending participants as well as other unique individuals and communities.

I would like to sincerely apologize if the suggestion as presented is nor appropriate for this forum. I in no way am seeking to incite nor to contribute to any misunderstandings. I am attempting to present a passionate topic of mine without infringing on the fun and gameplay of other community participants, while also offering a suggestion that would allow mutual cooperation between unique and separate commmunities. I again press I am rather ignorant of a lot of things on this website and as such have attempted to come across as sincere as possible.

Thank you for your time,
Anagonia

TL;DR: The creation of a selector to display on the main page of regions to request an opt-out of raiding/defending. To not infringe on the gameplay mechanic of raiding/defending with this method, but merely provide a wording that displays the intent to not participate. To promote and provide security for communities not wanting to participate in raiding/defending without infringing on the gameplay mechanic itself.

[Flanderlion]

NS does have an opt out mechanism, a Founder with non-executive delegacy.

[Anagonia]

NS does have an opt out mechanism, a Founder with non-executive delegacy.

Thank you for the quick reply.

I would like to state again my ignorance on the mechanics. However, it appears that recent events have brought into the light the possibility that others who are as ignorant as myself - perhaps less if I am honest - would not be aware of this as I was not. I believe then my suggestion could still hold merit.

I thank you again for correcting me on my lack of information.

[Wymondham]

If a region has an executive delegacy, how is the game meant to tell the difference between players legitimately moving regions to elect a new WAD (allowed under your proposal) and Raiders targeting a region that is opted out. How would this opt out be enforced.
Similar ideas have been proposed for the entirety of the game's existence, or near enough anyways, and they have all been rejected by the admins over the same issue, that presented above. I'd be interested to hear your workable solution to this when so many others have failed

[Anagonia]

If a region has an executive delegacy, how is the game meant to tell the difference between players legitimately moving regions to elect a new WAD (allowed under your proposal) and Raiders targeting a region that is opted out. How would this opt out be enforced.
Similar ideas have been proposed for the entirety of the game's existence, or near enough anyways, and they have all been rejected by the admins over the same issue, that presented above. I'd be interested to hear your workable solution to this when so many others have failed

Thank you for your reply.

This suggestion is designed to be as non-intrusive as possible to the game mechanics. It is apparent that with well over a decade having this same issue present and no solution - with your statement adding to the many verbal remarks concerning this issue I've read - it is clear to be that the admins themselves want this mechanic in place. My suggestion takes out the issue of interfering with the raiding mechanic and instead utilizes a good faith mechanism. There is no enforcement except that which the mods wish to enforce.

I know this seems unrealistic. Your remark implies that this system should somehow be able to enforce the ban on a member who breaks this good faith mechanism. It shouldn't. As I stated previously, with the long history of Nationstates backing my opinion, the admins and those in charge have never taken a major step to provide a means to alter our counter the abilities of the raiding/defending mechanism - that I know of, which again I restate my ignorance. This implies - if true - that the powers that be want this mechanism in place. I bolster this claim by providing the evidence that had this been the case, password protected regions would already be exempt from raiding/defending. Since they are not, there is an implicit desire for this game mechanic to exist, and necessity of it (or perhaps complexity depending on coding) for the game to function as intended.

My suggestion therefore does nothing to impede the desire of people who wish to break this act of good faith. It exists as an added sense of security, under the impression that raiders/defenders themselves can and are honorable in their own right. If that were not the case, I argue, the admins themselves would have done something to counter their abilities well before my suggestion. Since that has not been done I am running under their faith in this part of our wonderful community. I believe sincerely that should this mechanism be in place, it will bolster that claim as we observe the raiders/defenders honoring the good-faith mechanism.

I state what I have said with good intentions. It's clear the owners/powers that be/admins know something I don't and those others like me. They apparently and sincerely believe in the good faith of the raider/defender community, and I honestly do too. I believe if a mechanism is in place letting them know that someone would not enjoy being party to that part of the game, they wouldn't do it. They would genuinely only target regions that are actively participating in the gameplay side of Nationstates. The raiding/defending community is large, mature, and well versed as well as tight nit. I think it would be a bolster to their fun to know that whomever their engaged with is on the same level as them.

That, in length, is my answer. This mechanism does nothing to punish or prevent or in any way infringe on the game mechanic itself. It shouldn't, not yet, not until evidence is ever presented that it should be necessary - which I doubt would happen anyway. If an admin who sees this thinks there should be something, then fine, let them dictate what would work best for the game. I believe firmly that this non-intrusive method to the raiding/defending gameplay mechanic is the best way to go for now, to not ruin the fun for anyone but instead add a since of security and trust.

I hope this allows my opinion of the matter to come across as respectfully and sincerely as possible. Thank you again for your reply.

[Anagonia]

An Addendum:

I believe the only punishment for abuse of the mechanism, for example from gameplay regions trying to use it to hide from raiders, should be a comparable punishment from Moderation if reported on successfully. That would discourage anyone who actively participates in the gameplay side of things from abusing the good-faith mechanism. The mechanism should only be utilized by regions not participating in gameplay or raiding/defending, such as role playing communities or card collecting communities.

That's my only addition to that. I do not believe this should so complicated as to track or prohibit someone from joining a region. I believe the act alone of it existing would be prohibition enough based on the conduct and respectability of the raiding/defending community - if the mechanism itself is used correctly, I add.

[Baedan]

gonna be honest man i would definitely ignore whether or not a region used the opt-out feature, i think most other people would too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Comfed]

No raider would care about such a mechanism if there were no consequences for ignoring it.

[Anagonia]

gonna be honest man i would definitely ignore whether or not a region used the opt-out feature, i think most other people would too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No raider would care about such a mechanism if there were no consequences for ignoring it.

Thank you for your replies.

This has significantly altered my perspective of the situation. If I may be so bold as to ask, are you implying that even with the knowledge that you knew these regions weren't gameplay related and if this mechanic was in place, you would still raid them? May I ask the purpose behind this if would not be a part of the game at that point? What would the motivations be behind this instead of honoring something that contributes to a sense of community?

I look forward to your responses.

Depending on the responses, and I appreciate your honesty - I do sincerely, I will rewrite my suggestions to bolster this new and forming perspective.

[Flanderlion]

Raiders raid for a reaction. The game created warzones to be raided, but raiders ignored them. RP regions have usually better reactions than other places, so they're usually hit when possible.

[Anagonia]

Raiders raid for a reaction. The game created warzones to be raided, but raiders ignored them. RP regions have usually better reactions than other places, so they're usually hit when possible.

Thanks for your reply.

I'm going to wait for further response, but I believe your statement has implications that somehow feel very uncomfortable to me. I'll be available for further response tomorrow evening, my job is calling. Thank you for your patience and replies.

[Baedan]

Raiders raid for a reaction. The game created warzones to be raided, but raiders ignored them. RP regions have usually better reactions than other places, so they're usually hit when possible.

Thanks for your reply.

I'm going to wait for further response, but I believe your statement has implications that somehow feel very uncomfortable to me. I'll be available for further response tomorrow evening, my job is calling. Thank you for your patience and replies.

Ehh, I wouldn't put too much stock into what Flander is saying. Plenty of raiders raid for reasons besides just getting a rise out of people.

The bigger problem is that the overwhelming majority of regions do not and will not participate in military gameplay and will mark themselves as such. The regions that do participate are for the most part unraidable, because they have non-executive delegacies and active founders.
Only hitting regions that opt into gameplay also immediately forecloses tag raiding, which the majority of raiding is.

[NOrTh pAcIfiC spY]

Thanks for your reply.

I'm going to wait for further response, but I believe your statement has implications that somehow feel very uncomfortable to me. I'll be available for further response tomorrow evening, my job is calling. Thank you for your patience and replies.

Ehh, I wouldn't put too much stock into what Flander is saying. Plenty of raiders raid for reasons besides just getting a rise out of people.

The bigger problem is that the overwhelming majority of regions do not and will not participate in military gameplay and will mark themselves as such. The regions that do participate are for the most part unraidable, because they have non-executive delegacies and active founders.
Only hitting regions that opt into gameplay also immediately forecloses tag raiding, which the majority of raiding is.

When I raided both I, our region, and our regions raider allies raided for fun, and picked targets based on which would get the greatest rise out of defenders/natives. I know raiding is smaller now than it once was, and that the regions involved have less participants/pilers, but I find it hard to believe the core reasons have changed.

[Baedan]

Ehh, I wouldn't put too much stock into what Flander is saying. Plenty of raiders raid for reasons besides just getting a rise out of people.

The bigger problem is that the overwhelming majority of regions do not and will not participate in military gameplay and will mark themselves as such. The regions that do participate are for the most part unraidable, because they have non-executive delegacies and active founders.
Only hitting regions that opt into gameplay also immediately forecloses tag raiding, which the majority of raiding is.

When I raided both I, our region, and our regions raider allies raided for fun, and picked targets based on which would get the greatest rise out of defenders/natives. I know raiding is smaller now than it once was, and that the regions involved have less participants/pilers, but I find it hard to believe the core reasons have changed.

Oh, I think it's certainly one of the many reasons that people pick a target, especially for occupations, but it's not the sole reason.

But yeah, with either set of targeting criteria, an honor code for avoiding regions that opt out of being raided is not super workable.

[Comfed]

gonna be honest man i would definitely ignore whether or not a region used the opt-out feature, i think most other people would too ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No raider would care about such a mechanism if there were no consequences for ignoring it.

Thank you for your replies.

This has significantly altered my perspective of the situation. If I may be so bold as to ask, are you implying that even with the knowledge that you knew these regions weren't gameplay related and if this mechanic was in place, you would still raid them? May I ask the purpose behind this if would not be a part of the game at that point? What would the motivations be behind this instead of honoring something that contributes to a sense of community?

I look forward to your responses.

Depending on the responses, and I appreciate your honesty - I do sincerely, I will rewrite my suggestions to bolster this new and forming perspective.

For one, every non-GP (i.e. most regions) region would add this tag. However, raiders, who raid for a variety of reasons, including fun, community-building, advancing an ideology, etc would have no good reason to eliminate almost all of their available targets.

[Topid]

It is the fundamental problem of NS gameplay. Like others have said, if it weren't for the idea that other people want you not to, and pulling off something that people would have tried to stop you from doing then raiding never would be popular. Clicking the move button is not inherently exciting without the other bit going on in the background. If regions could opt out, everyone would. No one wants to be raided. And if the only targets become regions that will engage in raiding, then no targets will ever come open because GamePlay regions know how to prevent GamePlay from happening in their own backyard. Raiding would become something for people who want to sit around and talk about how something could happen on NationStates.net so we need to be ready for it, but in actuality something only happens once every couple years so not in the average NS user's life. We already have the Feeders for that.

On the other hand, the majority of regions see their region page the same way we see our offsite forums or discord channels. The idea of someone wiping the content or taking control of a board they use to communicate seems wrong. If you and your friends had used a discord app to communicate the same people that shrug off destruction of your RMB would be climbing all over themselves to out blacklist the person that booted you all. But because an RMB is actually a part of NationStates.net the equivalent action becomes acceptable, and losing the ability to chitchat with people you know online is just fine and why are you upset? I can't really explain (other than the respective terms of service) why one behavior is so looked down upon but the other is just good natured fun, other than just to say that's how it is on NS. I can understand how users of a certain RMB would be upset right now, and that will happen over and over again until NS goes offline. Just how it is.

Having said that, they bothered an old man with notifications so screw 'em.

[Galiantus III]

This is why there needs to be some dichotomy between regions and communities, where all regions are raidable, and communities act more like a stylized forum. So everyone would technically be susceptible to gameplay, but communities built by players could not be disrupted.

[Comfed]

I personally do not raid for the sake of infuriating natives, and many others do not as well.

[Anagonia]

I thank you for your patience and appreciate the responses thus far.

I've just returned home from the road and read up on the replies. I believe that my suggestion as it stands, while credible in its own right, does indeed do nothing to solve the overall issue. The responses I've seen have stated, without a doubt, that an honor system would have little effect. The core components of raiding/defending appear to be manufactured into almost the entirety of Nationstates, regardless of ones choosing to be party to it or not. I believe that this is the central issue here, and as has been stated should an option be given to opt-out unequivocally then everyone would which would result in raiding/defending becoming moot. I further believe that as it stands, from my limited perspective and admitted ignorance, the raiding/defending system is being abused to some extent - but to what extent appears to be not justified, for everything that happens within that system seems legal according to site rules.

Considering the issue, my perspective and approach is from someone who invests their time building communities rather than partaking in the destruction of them. Regardless if this destruction happens for fun or for malice, it takes place far too often in my opinion and has gone on for far too long without oversight. My suggestion was born from the opinion that a method to allow compliance and fairness would even the playing field, but I fear from the responses that this suggestion is now useless. I therefore leave this suggestion open to official response from an admin or higher official, however I will be moving back from this suggestion and forming a new one based around the responses and experiences shared in this thread.

I thank everyone for their contributions, especially the raiders and defenders. You are as much a part of Nationstates as anyone else is and it is not my ultimate desire to take that enjoyment from you. I hope that in any future suggestion I can find a way to approach this better and with more constructive thought.