Discussion about R/D Game and RP Opting Out

[The Orson Empire]

Have you guys even taken a look at the R/D summit:

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258968

Look at all those ideas that are going to be implemented. This will definitely change the R/D game.

Yes.

Doesn't mean we can't look for any supplemental measures to further protect people from experiencing too much of an inconvenience due to a game they do not want to be associated with.

The problem with this is that R/D has become entangled so much with our regions.

But, will the administrators even be willing to do any of these changes? From what I can see, they seem to side with R/D.

[The Orson Empire]

Have you guys even taken a look at the R/D summit:

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=258968

Look at all those ideas that are going to be implemented. This will definitely change the R/D game.

Look at the dates on all the other threads. The actual summit was held in December 2012. It took an entire year for the mods to even decide what changes would be on the docket.

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not holding my breath in jittery anticipation.

True.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Yes.

Doesn't mean we can't look for any supplemental measures to further protect people from experiencing too much of an inconvenience due to a game they do not want to be associated with.

The problem with this is that R/D has become entangled so much with our regions.

But, will the administrators even be willing to do any of these changes? From what I can see, they seem to side with R/D.

Didn't you loudly declare about five separate times last night how you were leaving this thread?

[Esternial]

Yes.

Doesn't mean we can't look for any supplemental measures to further protect people from experiencing too much of an inconvenience due to a game they do not want to be associated with.

The problem with this is that R/D has become entangled so much with our regions.

But, will the administrators even be willing to do any of these changes? From what I can see, they seem to side with R/D.

It's politics, I suppose. Whomever manages to pull it off gets a plane ticket to Belgium from me and can start working on their next project.

[The Orson Empire]

The problem with this is that R/D has become entangled so much with our regions.

But, will the administrators even be willing to do any of these changes? From what I can see, they seem to side with R/D.

Didn't you loudly declare about five separate times last night how you were leaving this thread?

Yes, I did. I did so because of frustration.

However, now, I have come back and re-assessed all of my viewpoints on this matter.

[Animarnia]

The problem with this is that R/D has become entangled so much with our regions.

But, will the administrators even be willing to do any of these changes? From what I can see, they seem to side with R/D.

It's politics, I suppose. Whomever manages to pull it off gets a plane ticket to Belgium from me and can start working on their next project.

Fuck Belglum, they are doing just fine on there own, throw them at the US Congress, now that is a real cluster-fuck

[Post War America]

Alright, simple suggestion that doesn't even involve any changing of gameside code. Much like one on the RP side of things can't declare another player's losses, or a Generalite engage in personal attacks, or an F7ner needlessly bump, or how General Assembly folk can't post shitty proposals without a problem (and all of this is community policed with minimal mod enforcement), hows about Raiders & Defenders agree as a community agree not to engage in their proxy wars over regions that have stated that they do not wish to play the game. The regions that don't want to play don't have to and Raiders and Defenders can go at it. There is no code shift and it separates the respectable GP Military folk from those who ultimately just wanna wreck other people's sandcastles.

Hell, if its just too much of a hassle for anybody else I would be more than happy to compose this list.

[Rephesus]

Actually, I give to you one of the very first RP mentors:Milograd, also a member of The Black Hawks.

He is no longer a mentor, and justly so. His green jacket was forfeit the moment he started to delve into R/D.

Unlike other public figures on NS...

Anyway, I'm opposed to giving raiders a list, they'll just comb through it to find targets.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Actually, I give to you one of the very first RP mentors:Milograd, also a member of The Black Hawks.

He is no longer a mentor, and justly so. His green jacket was forfeit the moment he started to delve into R/D.

Actually, in case this hasn't been mentioned yet, that is in no way the case. I've been part of R/D over the years, on both sides of the fence. Milograd's current lack of a jacket is not because of his participation in Gameplay.

[Bears Armed]

But you're absolutely right, SSC, a non-executive delegate stops raiding 100% of the time and is more or less the way RPers can "opt-out" of raiding. No game changes needed.

Except for the fact that most raiding damage is done to founderless regions, and as the game's coding works any delegate in a founderless region is automatically 'executive'...
Did you really not know that?!?

[Parhe]

It seems the easiest way out would be add a part to the site's policy or whatever that raiding and defending is a part of the game. Saves staff more work than anything else.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It seems the easiest way out would be add a part to the site's policy or whatever that raiding and defending is a part of the game. Saves staff more work than anything else.

This is probably the best solution. We need to make it clear that roleplayers and generalites are not welcome and DEAT them if they complain about the arrangements.

Yes, this was sarcasm.

[Parhe]

It seems the easiest way out would be add a part to the site's policy or whatever that raiding and defending is a part of the game. Saves staff more work than anything else.

This is probably the best solution. We need to make it clear that roleplayers and generalites are not welcome and DEAT them if they complain about the arrangements.

I said easiest, not the best. Though that is your own opinion.

[The Blaatschapen]

Actually, I give to you one of the very first RP mentors:Milograd, also a member of The Black Hawks.

He is no longer a mentor, and justly so. His green jacket was forfeit the moment he started to delve into R/D.

No it wasn't.


Also, Milograds former mentorship is not the topic of discussion here.

The Blaatschapen - Nationstates Moderator

[Hurdegaryp]

It seems the easiest way out would be add a part to the site's policy or whatever that raiding and defending is a part of the game. Saves staff more work than anything else.

This is probably the best solution. We need to make it clear that roleplayers and generalites are not welcome and DEAT them if they complain about the arrangements.

Yes, this was sarcasm.

The problem with sarcasm is that it tends to bite you in the arse when those in charge decide that it shall be so.

[Dragoria]

I've been thinking. Raiders want to Raid regions. Other folks, including Roleplayers, would like to have a place to park their Nations and set up their stories, chat with friends, what-have-you, without everything getting smashed to bits by Raiders.

What if there was an alternative to Regions? They'd still be a group of accounts in a little "cluster" with one central board, but would be separate from the R/D gameplay bit.
To balance things a little more, Nations in the not-regions couldn't be in the WA. So folks could have their roleplaying accounts in the not-regions, and if they wanted to use the WA they'd still need to have one account parked in a real, raidable Region. That way Regions don't "all die out" leaving Raiders with nothing to raid. You can have your cake and eat it too if there's two cakes.

I'm thinking the not-regions might be called Realms, so that a Realm Message Board would still be a RMB. Realms, being non-WA, wouldn't have delegates. Instead the founder could install, say, up to two "overseers" who do the RMB moderating/policing that a executive delegate would be able to. Overseers wouldn't be elected, they'd be picked initially by the Realm founder, then when one Overseer decided to retire they could transfer their own title to the next person. Founder would be able to remove any Overseers they don't like, then put in a new one.

Thoughts?

[Bachtendekuppen]

While philosophizing about getting RP completely separated from current NationStates game mechanics for 60 pages is certainly not a waste of time, this remains as relevant to "Opting-out" as it was to Founder-succession and RP Mentor Regions (the discussion at the end of 2013):

Another general point I'd like to make--again, relating more to the fundamental idea of separating RP from GP, rather than this founder-succession proposal--is that RP regions are founded in the gameplay world. They create their own space, with a unique culture and rules, in a similar manner to tribes and religions and nations throughout history. But they're rooted in the real world and they never leave it. Whether you're a tribe or a religion or a nation or an NS region, if you create something valuable but don't protect it, the world outside will come to get it. History is littered with tragic examples of remarkable cultures brought low by brute military force. And while you can certainly say this proves there should be fewer military brutes, the fundamental lesson is that security is important. You ignore that at your peril. NationStates isn't a strict simulation, of course, but we do adhere to certain core principles of the real world, and while I don't think every region should have to spend all its time dealing with the fact that bad guys are out there, trying to get in, they should spend some time thinking about it. Because this is the nature of the real world.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=276135&hilit=school+region&start=50

[Bears Armed]

To balance things a little more, Nations in the not-regions couldn't be in the WA. So folks could have their roleplaying accounts in the not-regions, and if they wanted to use the WA they'd still need to have one account parked in a real, raidable Region. That way Regions don't "all die out" leaving Raiders with nothing to raid. You can have your cake and eat it too if there's two cakes.

That would still leave GA-focused regions (for which the presence of WA members is obviously essential) potentially vulnerable, though. Not that my own home region is seriously at risk, with its founder existing specifically for that role with its password shared between several reliable players (as it has been from the start) rather than as the 'main' nation' for one single player who might leave NS unexpectedly, but others might not be so fortunate...

[violet] said: NationStates isn't a strict simulation, of course, but we do adhere to certain core principles of the real world, and while I don't think every region should have to spend all its time dealing with the fact that bad guys are out there, trying to get in, they should spend some time thinking about it. Because this is the nature of the real world.

Not a very strict simulation at all, no. After all, in RL any nation that launched as many attacks as an NS raiding group does would have to pay a serious price in manpower and economic power for all of those wars, and would probably soon soon undergo 'regime change' either at the hands of a victorious coalition formed from amongst its many enemies or at the hands of its own fed-up populace, but NS raiders can go out to try and wreck as many other regions as they want to without really having to wory at all about such factors...

[Esternial]

To balance things a little more, Nations in the not-regions couldn't be in the WA. So folks could have their roleplaying accounts in the not-regions, and if they wanted to use the WA they'd still need to have one account parked in a real, raidable Region. That way Regions don't "all die out" leaving Raiders with nothing to raid. You can have your cake and eat it too if there's two cakes.

That would still leave GA-focused regions (for which the presence of WA members is obviously essential) potentially vulnerable, though. Not that my own home region is seriously at risk, with its founder existing specifically for that role with its password shared between several reliable players (as it has been from the start) rather than as the 'main' nation' for one single player who might leave NS unexpectedly, but others might not be so fortunate...

I don't think we'll be able to find a compromise that involves protection for regions that still want to use the elements that Raiders primarily rely upon for their invasions.

At least not one the Raiders and Mods will agree with.

[Bears Armed]

I don't think we'll be able to find a compromise that involves protection for regions that still want to use the elements that Raiders primarily rely upon for their invasions.

At least not one the Raiders and Mods will agree with.

Most of the raiders apparently won't agree with any suggestion that might reduce their choice of targets at all, and if they're so unwilling to compromise then I see no reason why we should keep on trying to make whatever changes we suggest acceptable to them. We'd probably be better off just concentrating on persuading the Mods (and Admins) to shift the balance, instead.

[Nierr]

Good luck with that.

As it is, some raiders and gameplayers are actually listening and support some kind of opt-out. Painting all raiders or gameplayers as against change is wrong.

[Esternial]

I don't think we'll be able to find a compromise that involves protection for regions that still want to use the elements that Raiders primarily rely upon for their invasions.

At least not one the Raiders and Mods will agree with.

Most of the raiders apparently won't agree with any suggestion that might reduce their choice of targets at all, and if they're so unwilling to compromise then I see no reason why we should keep on trying to make whatever changes we suggest acceptable to them. We'd probably be better off just concentrating on persuading the Mods (and Admins) to shift the balance, instead.

I'd personally prefer something we can all agree on, though it might require some out-of-the-box thinking. Raider support would definitely help convince the Mods.

Just keep in mind that were both trying to protect our respective games. Raiders are going to have to make concessions, and so should we. We can't demand a full opt out for regions. That doesn't mean we can't, for example, ask for something else that does feature a full opt out. Something similar to Associations (or in my case, IGOs).

At least that's my view on it. I'm sure not all of you agree with my overly diplomatic approach to this.

[Bears Armed]

Good luck with that.

As it is, some raiders and gameplayers are actually listening and support some kind of opt-out. Painting all raiders or gameplayers as against change is wrong.

I did only say "most", not "all".
What chance would you say there is of 'moderate' raiders such as yourself getting a majority of the others to support any change that would reduce the number of potential targets?

[The Dark Star Republic]

While philosophizing about getting RP completely separated from current NationStates game mechanics for 60 pages is certainly not a waste of time, this remains as relevant to "Opting-out" as it was to Founder-succession and RP Mentor Regions (the discussion at the end of 2013):

Another general point I'd like to make--again, relating more to the fundamental idea of separating RP from GP, rather than this founder-succession proposal--is that RP regions are founded in the gameplay world. They create their own space, with a unique culture and rules, in a similar manner to tribes and religions and nations throughout history. But they're rooted in the real world and they never leave it. Whether you're a tribe or a religion or a nation or an NS region, if you create something valuable but don't protect it, the world outside will come to get it. History is littered with tragic examples of remarkable cultures brought low by brute military force. And while you can certainly say this proves there should be fewer military brutes, the fundamental lesson is that security is important. You ignore that at your peril. NationStates isn't a strict simulation, of course, but we do adhere to certain core principles of the real world, and while I don't think every region should have to spend all its time dealing with the fact that bad guys are out there, trying to get in, they should spend some time thinking about it. Because this is the nature of the real world.

The idea that R/D makes NationStates a more accurate "simulation" remains as silly now as it was then.

That would still leave GA-focused regions (for which the presence of WA members is obviously essential) potentially vulnerable, though. Not that my own home region is seriously at risk, with its founder existing specifically for that role with its password shared between several reliable players (as it has been from the start) rather than as the 'main' nation' for one single player who might leave NS unexpectedly, but others might not be so fortunate...

I don't think we'll be able to find a compromise that involves protection for regions that still want to use the elements that Raiders primarily rely upon for their invasions.

That's completely backwards, though. It's not that WA players use R/D elements, it's that R/D play uses WA elements. Ignoring WA players, or blurring the lines between the GA and the SC, or introducing a system that denies participation in the WA to anyone who doesn't want to be involved in R/D or does want to be involved in roleplay - all of those are a corruption, not a solution.

[Bachtendekuppen]

[violet] said: NationStates isn't a strict simulation, of course, but we do adhere to certain core principles of the real world, and while I don't think every region should have to spend all its time dealing with the fact that bad guys are out there, trying to get in, they should spend some time thinking about it. Because this is the nature of the real world.

Not a very strict simulation at all, no. After all, in RL any nation that launched as many attacks as an NS raiding group does would have to pay a serious price in manpower and economic power for all of those wars, and would probably soon soon undergo 'regime change' either at the hands of a victorious coalition formed from amongst its many enemies or at the hands of its own fed-up populace, but NS raiders can go out to try and wreck as many other regions as they want to without really having to worry at all about such factors...

The point is that you play in the sandbox you signed up for when you created a nation and reality, either in RL or in this game, is what it is. RP, "R/D", the WA, .. are all facets of the same game. I'm far from a Raider myself, but don't underestimate the amount of manpower, planning and time that goes in to this kind of gameplay. They also get opposition from other coalitions, be it Defenders or other regions and organizations, so these factors are very much present already.

The idea that R/D makes NationStates a more accurate "simulation" remains as silly now as it was then.

Please do elaborate.