by Lower Land » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:31 pm
by Buffett and Colbert » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:42 pm
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by The Sedge » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:45 pm
by Alexanderoga » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:50 pm
by Martyrdoom » Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:12 pm
The Sedge wrote:Just echoed what I was about to say there. I should also add that its an incredible stretch of the imagination to start blaming the victims of invasions for being invaded.
by Martyrdoom » Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:13 pm
Alexanderoga wrote:liberation isn't abolishing invasion it is just a counter to it
It is as unjust to remove liberation as it would be to remove invasion
they are complements to one another
One could easily say liberation is a part of the game that you have to put up with
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:32 pm
by Veilyonia » Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:41 pm
by Travancore-Cochin » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:46 am
Martyrdoom wrote:just add a bit of intrigue and manipulation of evidence
by Martyrdoom » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:52 am
Travancore-Cochin wrote:Martyrdoom wrote:just add a bit of intrigue and manipulation of evidence
Like what griefers are currently hard at work doing it in Feudal Japan, and had done previously in Chicago, when that region's liberation was being proposed.
Except that, in your case, the "bit of intrigue and manipulation of evidence" goes into trying to make it look as though no raid had ever taken place, even though it had.
Liberation is the best moderator-hands-off solution to prevention of griefing. And until now, it has been very successful.
by Travancore-Cochin » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:05 am
Martyrdoom wrote:I'm referring to the MO of 'defenders' as well. The best moderator hands-off solution to prevent 'griefing' was having an active founder or a password.
by Martyrdoom » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:25 am
Travancore-Cochin wrote:Martyrdoom wrote:I'm referring to the MO of 'defenders' as well. The best moderator hands-off solution to prevent 'griefing' was having an active founder or a password.
What MO is it? It is very intriguing to me since, I'm a part-time defender and I've never heard of any such "MO", let alone have used it.
Care to explain?
by Todd McCloud » Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:28 am
by The Sedge » Mon Aug 24, 2009 11:56 am
by Todd McCloud » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:05 pm
The Sedge wrote:Yet again... liberation proposals aren't the 'gift to defenders' that some are claiming they are. They're a solution to griefing, and hence a rightly deserved protection to those founderless regions which are targets for griefing. I believe you'll find that the admins are in agreement that griefing was something that needed to be addressed, and that the influence system was incomplete without a protection against griefing. There's no attempt to stop raiding, you can still go and invade regions all you like, its just when someone tries to destroy them (which almost always involves using a password) that you'll find you can now be stopped. You'll probably be laughed out of this thread if you're seriously suggesting making griefing easy again, because the vast majority of the NationStates community is united against it.
by The Sedge » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:15 pm
by Travancore-Cochin » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:36 pm
Martyrdoom wrote:I'm saying an MO which uses intrigue and manipulation of evidence can be used by invaders and 'defenders' alike who can use it to fulfil their imperialist or political ambitions by abusing the flaws in the liberation process. That's why I'm saying having an active founder or installing a password was the best way of defending a region.
Martyrdoom wrote:Previously, this very password was essentially a game-over scenario when used offensively but by the same token it made invasions a none-starter when used defensively: liberation disrupts this strategic balance. We should just go back to the previous status quo.
by Spartan Philidelphia » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:43 pm
by The Sedge » Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:47 pm
Spartan Philidelphia wrote:What if we were to make the effects of Liberation temporary?
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:42 pm
Todd McCloud wrote:We need to alter something to help raiders. Why? Raiders are an integral part of the game, and without raiders, there would be no defenders.
by Martyrdoom » Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:54 pm
Travancore-Cochin wrote:Martyrdoom wrote:I'm saying an MO which uses intrigue and manipulation of evidence can be used by invaders and 'defenders' alike who can use it to fulfil their imperialist or political ambitions by abusing the flaws in the liberation process. That's why I'm saying having an active founder or installing a password was the best way of defending a region.
So, in essence, you're suggesting that the WA members are all just village idiots to believe lies and half-truths. I disagreeMartyrdoom wrote:Previously, this very password was essentially a game-over scenario when used offensively but by the same token it made invasions a none-starter when used defensively: liberation disrupts this strategic balance. We should just go back to the previous status quo.
There was no balance in the first place. What you purport as "balance" really isn't it.
Raiders raid a region at a time of their choosing. Hence, a raider delegate, once he has control, can easily institute a password. The same is not true for a native delegate. To prevent an invasion, he requires some indication that the region is being targeted - which, in many cases, he doesn't get.
by Ananke » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:09 pm
Todd McCloud wrote:I will agree this does prevent griefing. But the fact of the matter is many raiders raid to refound. If one takes away the ability for them to do this, or really hinder it, as those liberation proposals seem to do, we really hurt this part of the game. And if we really hurt *that* part of the game, we also hurt *your* part of the game, since raiders and defenders are highly connected. And while liberations do not prevent a raider from refounding a region, they do hinder it. We've seen it here - a password can be removed in a week's time. That puts limitations on a raider.
by Martyrdoom » Mon Aug 24, 2009 3:40 pm
by The Sedge » Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:05 pm
Martyrdoom wrote:Ananke you talk of stopping griefing but in effect you are dictating to others how they should play the game - what is acceptable and what isn't. Invasion-griefing is, afterall, a legitimate way of playing the game.
by Martyrdoom » Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:09 pm
The Sedge wrote:Martyrdoom wrote:Ananke you talk of stopping griefing but in effect you are dictating to others how they should play the game - what is acceptable and what isn't. Invasion-griefing is, afterall, a legitimate way of playing the game.
And you're dictating to founderless regions that if they want to guarantee their security, they should put up a password (therefore killing off any chance of growth) or risk being griefed. Not a fair trade-off there. Griefers destroy communities, and drive people out of the game. They do not deserve to be allowed to play the game in that way.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement