Discussion about R/D Game and RP Opting Out

[Esternial]

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):

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

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.

I never said it was fair, but due to R/D being so important I doubt we can make such demands.

[Bears Armed]

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

Please do elaborate.

See the second section of this post for one explanation why.

I never said it was fair, but due to R/D being so important I doubt we can make such demands.

"important" to the raiders, and to those defenders who play R/D for the fun of it and just happen to have chosen that side, but to who else? And are they really as large an element of the game's membership as they like to claim?

[Esternial]

Please do elaborate.

See the second section of this post for one explanation why.

I never said it was fair, but due to R/D being so important I doubt we can make such demands.

"important" to the raiders, and to those defenders who play R/D for the fun of it and just happen to have chosen that side, but to who else? And are they really as large an element of the game's membership as they like to claim?

Well, I got the impression that it took precedent to all else for Max Barry as well, and by extent the Moderation team, but maybe it'd be best if a Mod clarified.

[Bachtendekuppen]

Please do elaborate.

See the second section of this post for one explanation why.

I'm sure you glanced over it by accident, but I did already address that point.

[Dragoria]

See the second section of this post for one explanation why.


"important" to the raiders, and to those defenders who play R/D for the fun of it and just happen to have chosen that side, but to who else? And are they really as large an element of the game's membership as they like to claim?

Well, I got the impression that it took precedent to all else for Max Barry as well, and by extent the Moderation team, but maybe it'd be best if a Mod clarified.

At least one Mod says they've been arguing against raiding for a while now, but Owner/Admins seem perfectly happy letting one section of the site's population get to drag everyone else into their shenanigans, whether the everyone else wants to or not.

[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.

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?

I'm not a raider.

It's also not a matter of majority. Majority support of changes has never really been a thing in gameplay with regards to changes. Getting the important people onside is more important, and it's something that's coming along.

[Bears Armed]

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?

I'm not a raider.

Oops! My deepest aplogies.

[Esternial]

Well, I got the impression that it took precedent to all else for Max Barry as well, and by extent the Moderation team, but maybe it'd be best if a Mod clarified.

At least one Mod says they've been arguing against raiding for a while now, but Owner/Admins seem perfectly happy letting one section of the site's population get to drag everyone else into their shenanigans, whether the everyone else wants to or not.

We need to sue Max Barry and seize all his assets. It's the only way.

[Nierr]

I'm not a raider.

Oops! My deepest aplogies.

No problem. It keeps happening.

[The Jonathanian States]

At least one Mod says they've been arguing against raiding for a while now, but Owner/Admins seem perfectly happy letting one section of the site's population get to drag everyone else into their shenanigans, whether the everyone else wants to or not.

We need to sue Max Barry and seize all his assets. It's the only way.

Yes. Seize the Bourgeoise Max's assests and create the RolePlaying People's Republic (RPPR or RPR)

[The Pacifican Islands]

Congratulations guys and girls! A great three years it has been, complete with a group of haters who have come to despise the excellence you have consistently demonstrated in update operations. I look forward to watching y'all and working with you for many more years to come.

Proof. That. Mall. Hates. RPs.

[Hurdegaryp]

At least one Mod says they've been arguing against raiding for a while now, but Owner/Admins seem perfectly happy letting one section of the site's population get to drag everyone else into their shenanigans, whether the everyone else wants to or not.

We need to sue Max Barry and seize all his assets. It's the only way.

If drastic measures are needed, so be it.

[Keyboard Warriors]

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.

We don't need change or a new opt-out, what we have currently works fine save for examples where raiders have knowingly gone after roleplay regions for kicks, usually for an occupation. Examples: Haven, Dienstad and Sapphire. If raiders stopped doing this, there would be no problems. Literally, no problems.

Hence why I haven't been proposing new technical changes but a mutual agreement because it could very well produce the same effect and there would be no further restrictions for R/Ders to worry about. To me it seems like a good idea, yet every time I've said it I've been responded to as if I have three heads and can't read.

[Nierr]

Congratulations guys and girls! A great three years it has been, complete with a group of haters who have come to despise the excellence you have consistently demonstrated in update operations. I look forward to watching y'all and working with you for many more years to come.

Proof. That. Mall. Hates. RPs.

Except its much more likely that Mall is talking about a group of gameplayers that pretty constantly harp on at TBR and pounce on anything TBR does that they can use to criticise them.

Not everything Mall says is about RP, and at this point you are clutching at straws to demonise him.

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.

We don't need change or a new opt-out, what we have currently works fine save for examples where raiders have knowingly gone after roleplay regions for kicks, usually for an occupation. Examples: Haven, Dienstad and Sapphire. If raiders stopped doing this, there would be no problems. Literally, no problems.

Dienstad was not an occupation. Haven has never been occupied

And Sapphire wouldn't have been possible without an RPer giving out the password to a known raider.

[Hurdegaryp]

Proof. That. Mall. Hates. RPs.

Except its much more likely that Mall is talking about a group of gameplayers that pretty constantly harp on at TBR and pounce on anything TBR does that they can use to criticise them.

Not everything Mall says is about RP, and at this point you are clutching at straws to demonise him.

And we all know that TBR are precious little angels, only trying to make NationStates a better place, right?

[Keyboard Warriors]

And Sapphire wouldn't have been possible without an RPer giving out the password to a known raider.

This isn't the point though, is it? I hate to compare a game to an actual crime but if I gave you a key to my house and you helped yourself to my TV...

[G-Tech Corporation]

Proof. That. Mall. Hates. RPs.

Except its much more likely that Mall is talking about a group of gameplayers that pretty constantly harp on at TBR and pounce on anything TBR does that they can use to criticise them.

Not everything Mall says is about RP, and at this point you are clutching at straws to demonise him.

This is quite true. Every other weekend someone proposes raiding TBR, or forms a group to try and stop them. It's cute, really.

[Hurdegaryp]

And Sapphire wouldn't have been possible without an RPer giving out the password to a known raider.

This isn't the point though, is it? I hate to compare a game to an actual crime but if I gave you a key to my house and you helped yourself to my TV...

Still a blatant crime.

[Nierr]

And Sapphire wouldn't have been possible without an RPer giving out the password to a known raider.

This isn't the point though, is it? I hate to compare a game to an actual crime but if I gave you a key to my house and you helped yourself to my TV...

*shrug*

If someone is giving your password out and saying 'have at it' to a known raider, what do you expect?

Except its much more likely that Mall is talking about a group of gameplayers that pretty constantly harp on at TBR and pounce on anything TBR does that they can use to criticise them.

Not everything Mall says is about RP, and at this point you are clutching at straws to demonise him.

And we all know that TBR are precious little angels, only trying to make NationStates a better place, right?

Yes, that is clearly what I said.

No, personally I can't stand many members of TBR and have argued against them many times, using some of the arguments used over the last few days. But I do recognise that some of the criticism thrown their way by members of gameplay, which have nothing to do with the fact they raid, or attacks on RP regions or anything like that but the nature of their raiding, isn't particularly valid in many instances.

[Keyboard Warriors]

This isn't the point though, is it? I hate to compare a game to an actual crime but if I gave you a key to my house and you helped yourself to my TV...

*shrug*

If someone is giving your password out and saying 'have at it' to a known raider, what do you expect?

Common sense? Self-restraint? Victim blaming isn't really cool in any context might I add.

[Nierr]

*shrug*

If someone is giving your password out and saying 'have at it' to a known raider, what do you expect?

Common sense? Self-restraint? Victim blaming isn't really cool in any context might I add.

You're approaching this as if raiding a passworded region is somehow against the rules.

Also, I wasn't victim blaming, I just noting that Sapphire wouldn't have been raided if an RPer within Sapphire hadn't given out the password to a known raider.

[Keyboard Warriors]

Common sense? Self-restraint? Victim blaming isn't really cool in any context might I add.

You're approaching this as if raiding a passworded region is somehow against the rules.

No, I'm approaching this as if it's a generally dickish thing to do most particularly when those involved want absolutely nothing to do with the R/D game and use the region for their own purposes. It is no secret that many regions use passwords as an opt-out, that should be a huge giveaway right there. In fact not only that, regions are encouraged to use passwords as an opt-out. Do you or do you not agree that roleplayers should be let go about their business without having to worry about being raided, much less having their entire region trashed because it gave somebody an erection, even if one community member suddenly decides to be a cunt and ruin it for everyone else?

It was stated on the first page of the thread that other communities do not want to be dragged into the game and yet the message somehow still has not sunk in. I cannot understand why asking to be left alone, or at the very least not be deliberately targeted, is asking for too much.

Also, I wasn't victim blaming, I just noting that Sapphire wouldn't have been raided if an RPer within Sapphire hadn't given out the password to a known raider.

I also noted that Sapphire wouldn't have been raided had the raiders not chose to raid it.

[Grenartia]

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.

We don't need change or a new opt-out, what we have currently works fine save for examples where raiders have knowingly gone after roleplay regions for kicks, usually for an occupation. Examples: Haven, Dienstad and Sapphire. If raiders stopped doing this, there would be no problems. Literally, no problems.

Hence why I haven't been proposing new technical changes but a mutual agreement because it could very well produce the same effect and there would be no further restrictions for R/Ders to worry about. To me it seems like a good idea, yet every time I've said it I've been responded to as if I have three heads and can't read.

I can't see a mutual agreement actually working. First, short of some massive act of altruism which raiders don't seem willing to perform, RP would have to give up something massive. The last time this discussion came up, what I saw being asked was for RPers to take part in raids. Which means that RP regions would have to get involved in R/D anyhow. Second, even if the first point were gone, the agreement would be unenforceable in the first place. What happens if massive raider organization A raids RP region B (regardless of whether A was involved in the agreement, and, make no mistake, any agreement with raiders would have to involve protection from non-signatories)? Raider organization C can't do anything to A, because all (or at least nearly all) raider regions are impossible to invade. The agreement falls apart, and becomes worth less than the bandwidth/memory/whathaveyou it takes up.

Besides, a technical solution (preferably the Association/IGO idea that has been floated around since the last time this discussion came up, with the provision that they be impossible/actionable to raid) effectively ends this entire argument once and for all, saving headaches for raiders, defenders, RPers, moderators, and admins.

[The Sapientia]

Congratulations guys and girls! A great three years it has been, complete with a group of haters who have come to despise the excellence you have consistently demonstrated in update operations. I look forward to watching y'all and working with you for many more years to come.

Proof. That. Mall. Hates. RPs.

It's not like there are many anti-TBR regions & defenders in Gameplay...

[Sedgistan]

Since the "Liberate Haven" proposal has failed to reach quorum, and the author is not intending to re-submit, we have decided to close this thread, which has contained the immediate reaction to the situation.

This is not to say that discussion should stop - rather, that the most productive discussions are ones focused on specific suggestions. Therefore, further discussion on technical changes should move to the Technical forum, with separate threads for each suggested change. Rules-related suggestions can be made in the Moderation forum, in Discussion threads as normal.

As has been mentioned previously in this thread a similar situation to this has arisen before, and a comprehensive reply to the various questions raised was posted by Violet here - we would encourage everyone who hasn't done so already to read this.

Finally, a summit was held last year on the invasion game, a major aspect of which was consideration of the impact of invasions on those that would prefer not to participate. A number of changes came out of that summit, all of which are detailed in the forum. One of these has been implemented already, and the others are being worked on currently. While we can't guarantee any timeframe for that, they are progressing - including the introduction of Regional Officers, which is key to many.

While we understand that some people may be hoping for immediate changes, NationStates has always favoured a slow but steady rate of change, preferring to make careful, measured progress rather than introducing rash changes that are regretted later.