Discussion about R/D Game and RP Opting Out

[Vitaphone Racing]

Aye, that's the problem. In another thread, I suggested moderator oversight, similar to how things work forumside. Someone attempts to liberate an RP region, someone requests a moderator look at it, if it's clearly an RP region the lib gets removed.

But then you run into another problem.

What if an F7er region or NSGer region or non-NSforumusing region wants to opt out? Do we let them?

Seeing as neither want to play the raiding game, the answer is obviously yes.

[Nierr]

There's been suggestions to 'gut game mechanics' from a few corners. The opt-out tag is a decent idea that needs looking out. How, however, do you stop defenders going around putting the tag on every region?

We don't need a tag because we have passwords. What we need is for the password to act as a complete opt-out from the raiding game because, as seen from the Sapphire raid, it's not. If the password somehow becomes known to raiders and they take the region, it's worthless.

A password becomes less secure the more people know it. I wouldn't institute a password on any region without it being one that isn't displayed to the residents.

[Wisconsin9]

Aye, that's the problem. In another thread, I suggested moderator oversight, similar to how things work forumside. Someone attempts to liberate an RP region, someone requests a moderator look at it, if it's clearly an RP region the lib gets removed.

But then you run into another problem.

What if an F7er region or NSGer region or non-NSforumusing region wants to opt out? Do we let them?

Yes.

[Nierr]

But then you run into another problem.

What if an F7er region or NSGer region or non-NSforumusing region wants to opt out? Do we let them?

Seeing as neither want to play the raiding game, the answer is obviously yes.

And what if a defender goes around to random regions and puts the tag on them?

[Vitaphone Racing]

We don't need a tag because we have passwords. What we need is for the password to act as a complete opt-out from the raiding game because, as seen from the Sapphire raid, it's not. If the password somehow becomes known to raiders and they take the region, it's worthless.

A password becomes less secure the more people know it. I wouldn't institute a password on any region without it being one that isn't displayed to the residents.

Hence having a password should be the opt-out regardless of how secure the password is.

[New Mushroom Kingdom]

Seeing as neither want to play the raiding game, the answer is obviously yes.

And what if a defender goes around to random regions and puts the tag on them?

Wouldn't that involve couping the region? At point they may as well be like raiders.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Seeing as neither want to play the raiding game, the answer is obviously yes.

And what if a defender goes around to random regions and puts the tag on them?

I never suggested using a tag so how do you want me to respond?

[Wisconsin9]

Aye, that's the problem. In another thread, I suggested moderator oversight, similar to how things work forumside. Someone attempts to liberate an RP region, someone requests a moderator look at it, if it's clearly an RP region the lib gets removed.

That sorta was the system before Influence came about. From what I recall, the moderators were constantly being pulled in to determine if there was or wasn't griefing going on (e.g. the ejection of natives), but that was such an ungodly mess because you had fun questions like "What is a native?" that could be answered in various ways. I can see why they wouldn't want to touch that. I wouldn't want them to touch that. It'd be a clusterfuck to be blunt. How do we define RP? What is the minimum required to RP? What about Generalites? What about the WA people?

Good points, although I wasn't talking about this for raiding in general, just the use of liberations to open up a region that has no interest in the R/D game.

[Pollona]

Seeing as neither want to play the raiding game, the answer is obviously yes.

And what if a defender goes around to random regions and puts the tag on them?

Presumably, if we are going with the tag idea, the tag would have stronger protections than that to prevent cheating?

Obviously allowing anyone who wants to opt out removes the counter-argument that Roleplayers want an opt out for their regions only. I honestly find that to be the preferred solution.

[Nierr]

And what if a defender goes around to random regions and puts the tag on them?

Wouldn't that involve couping the region? At point they may as well be like raiders.

Not necessarily. A lot of regions that get raided just get tagged by raiders. Defenders come along and detag them. During that process, they could just apply for or put the tag on.

[Great Nepal]

The opt-out tag is a decent idea that needs looking out. How, however, do you stop defenders going around putting the tag on every region?

The same way that RPers deal with godmodders: creating etiquette and enforcing it as a community. Initially while its being worked out between the community, mods might have to step in and ensure that things are as intentioned and defenders running around spray painting every region with tag does not occur however then it should really be self policed because it is just as much in defender's interest to not paint every region with that tag and ensure the game is interesting for raiders as it is in raider's interest to do vice versa.

[Nierr]

And what if a defender goes around to random regions and puts the tag on them?

Presumably, if we are going with the tag idea, the tag would have stronger protections than that to prevent cheating?

Hopefully. But given moderations... reluctance to get involved with moderating r/d in that way again, it might encouter some resistance there.

It's a start though. And more promising than anything to come out of the last half-dozen rounds of this topic.

[Pollona]

Hopefully. But given moderations... reluctance to get involved with moderating r/d in that way again, it might encouter some resistance there.

It's a start though. And more promising than anything to come out of the last half-dozen rounds of this topic.

How about having a permanent tag set by the founder at the set up of the region?

Well hopefully there is more input from non-r/d players if any sort of modification is proposed. The more people we have thinking qualitative solutions on this subject the more likely we will strike a compromise that leaves non-r/d players content and protects some form of 'fun' for raiders.

It is a nice start, I do sincerely hope the moderators are looking.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hopefully. But given moderations... reluctance to get involved with moderating r/d in that way again, it might encouter some resistance there.

It's a start though. And more promising than anything to come out of the last half-dozen rounds of this topic.

How about having a permanent tag set by the founder at the set up of the region?

Well hopefully there is more input from non-r/d players if any sort of modification is proposed. The more people we have thinking qualitative solutions on this subject the more likely we will strike a compromise that leaves non-r/d players content and protects some form of 'fun' for raiders.

It is a nice start, I do sincerely hope the moderators are looking.

Indeed. I personally don't want to see R/D die; it has a community, it should be left alone. However, by the same token, I think everyone wants the same respect to their ways of playing the game in turn.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Presumably, if we are going with the tag idea, the tag would have stronger protections than that to prevent cheating?

Hopefully. But given moderations... reluctance to get involved with moderating r/d in that way again, it might encouter some resistance there.

It's a start though. And more promising than anything to come out of the last half-dozen rounds of this topic.

Indeed, however, it should only be made by report methinks. Or, if necessary, have an explicit code of regional creation that addresses this, so that a formal non-r/d region can be made properly from the get go.

Formalized structure helps and codifications to regional creation help here. So far there's no established code that determines what a non-r/d region should contain in their factbook entry, so that'd be an improvement as well.

EDIT: By "code" I do not mean forum code, but more like "code" as in a set of rules for non-r/d regions to follow or a set template to follow when creating these regions.

[Stevid]

Hopefully. But given moderations... reluctance to get involved with moderating r/d in that way again, it might encouter some resistance there.

It's a start though. And more promising than anything to come out of the last half-dozen rounds of this topic.

Indeed, however, it should only be made by report methinks. Or, if necessary, have an explicit code of regional creation that addresses this, so that a formal non-r/d region can be made properly from the get go.

Formalized structure helps and codifications to regional creation help here. So far there's no established code that determines what a non-r/d region should contain in their factbook entry, so that'd be an improvement as well.

The problem there is the problem facing Haven, and previously with GD.

We would have to re-found the region. But the sentiment of the original and the fact there is an established community there is the reason they won't re-found. A good idea, yes, but for the big RP regions this is not a solution unfortunately.

[Pollona]

The problem there is the problem facing Haven, and previously with GD.

We would have to re-found the region. But the sentiment of the original and the fact there is an established community there is the reason they won't re-found. A good idea, yes, but for the big RP regions this is not a solution unfortunately.

If it's feasible, perhaps there could be a "transition period" where delegates or founders petition to have the tag retroactively added onto their region?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Indeed, however, it should only be made by report methinks. Or, if necessary, have an explicit code of regional creation that addresses this, so that a formal non-r/d region can be made properly from the get go.

Formalized structure helps and codifications to regional creation help here. So far there's no established code that determines what a non-r/d region should contain in their factbook entry, so that'd be an improvement as well.

The problem there is the problem facing Haven, and previously with GD.

We would have to re-found the region. But the sentiment of the original and the fact there is an established community there is the reason they won't re-found. A good idea, yes, but for the big RP regions this is not a solution unfortunately.

Would it be more effective to use a template for the region's factbook? I mean, RP regions can put more effort into applying such a template to their factbook entry than raiders would have time to actually do it on a faceless region.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem there is the problem facing Haven, and previously with GD.

We would have to re-found the region. But the sentiment of the original and the fact there is an established community there is the reason they won't re-found. A good idea, yes, but for the big RP regions this is not a solution unfortunately.

If it's feasible, perhaps there could be a "transition period" where delegates or founders petition to have the tag retroactively added onto their region?

Would it be too much to imply that you're suggesting the regional tag be admin-regulated?

[Glen-Rhodes]

The opt-out tag is a decent idea that needs looking out. How, however, do you stop defenders going around putting the tag on every region?

The same way that RPers deal with godmodders: creating etiquette and enforcing it as a community. Initially while its being worked out between the community, mods might have to step in and ensure that things are as intentioned and defenders running around spray painting every region with tag does not occur however then it should really be self policed because it is just as much in defender's interest to not paint every region with that tag and ensure the game is interesting for raiders as it is in raider's interest to do vice versa.

You can't trust the R/D community to self-police. This entire discussion is occurring because players like Mall enjoy upending social conventions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The same way that RPers deal with godmodders: creating etiquette and enforcing it as a community. Initially while its being worked out between the community, mods might have to step in and ensure that things are as intentioned and defenders running around spray painting every region with tag does not occur however then it should really be self policed because it is just as much in defender's interest to not paint every region with that tag and ensure the game is interesting for raiders as it is in raider's interest to do vice versa.

You can't trust the R/D community to self-police. This entire discussion is occurring because players like Mall enjoy upending social conventions.

I think that, for the purposes of this discussion, it contributes nothing to smear them out.

[Stevid]

Would it be more effective to use a template for the region's factbook? I mean, RP regions can put more effort into applying such a template to their factbook entry than raiders would have time to actually do it on a faceless region.

Perhaps, but the Law of the Land is written by the Admins. They'd have to scrutinise it more. Something like that already exists tbh, like advertising WA proposals to regional delegates. If it states that they don't want to be pestered in the WFB entry but they get adds anyway then the advertiser gets a warning.

It seems reasonable that if a true element of GP can be moderated like that, then an RP region wishing to remain outside of the R/D gameplay could utilise the same method - if the Admin/Mod staff concur.

[Pollona]

If it's feasible, perhaps there could be a "transition period" where delegates or founders petition to have the tag retroactively added onto their region?

Would it be too much to imply that you're suggesting the regional tag be admin-regulated?

Unfortunately yes, for newer regions it wouldn't be a problem because at the set up the founder could make the selection then. I'd assume that having the regional tag be "admin-regulated" for already existing regions wouldn't be popular?

I guess that, or better just a setting by the acting-delegate, founder, or referendum or *something* to retroactively apply the permanent tag.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You can't trust the R/D community to self-police. This entire discussion is occurring because players like Mall enjoy upending social conventions.

I think that, for the purposes of this discussion, it contributes nothing to smear them out.

If the big proposed solution to this is having the R/D community police itself to prevent the RP community from being embroiled in R/D, then it's important to point out that the R/D community is really bad at policing itself. The only way R/D can self-police is if there are actually consequences for violating conventions. There are no consequences, especially when the person violating the conventions is in a position of power, be they moderators, regional leaders, or just popular players with a platform.

Take the GCR coup convention. Everybody agrees that couping a GCR is wrong. That hasn't stopped people from couping GCRs, because the players who do it face no consequences. They're cheered on by their friends, given 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances by others, and some even use rhetoric to convince everybody else that they didn't really coup.

You're not going to get the R/D community to create and uphold a social convention on which labels to apply to a region.

[Vaculatestar4]

I'll go ahead and answer all questions as to why raider and lots of the defender regions use the "founder opt-out". Because it makes sense and is the ultimate line of defense from an attack by outside forces. We aren't going to purposefully leave ourselves open to attack when we KNOW there are people out there who would love nothing more than to raid us right back.