Remove "Liberate"

[Evil Wolf]

I really didn't believe defenders thought the rules were relevant at all.

Quite right. Defenders have raided opponents in the past as well, just as Crashers have. I guess the rule of "It's ok if I do it" applies whenever Defenders pull invasions.

It hasn't been much movement on this thread lately. The two camps, invaders/raiders and defenders, are not at all willing to listen to each other's arguments, and are no way going to give each other any credit. For the defenders, invasion is per se bad, as invaders destroy peace loving, cozy little, innocent communities . As the witch-hunters of old, they would have banished the raider vermin from the game, because they are simply evil.

Lets be honest here, Crashing is part of the game, as mentioned, to say that it is an evil is just plain stupid. Liberation proposals, on the other hand, were backed and supported by those who made just that argument, stating that *griefing*, not Crashing, was destructive and counterproductive to game play. That even I, a Crasher, can agree upon.

However, once the liberation proposals actually made it into game play it became less about using them as a tool to defeat griefers and more as a tool to defeat the average everyday game player who enjoys the Crasher side of the game.

But, like I said, there seems to be a double standard here. When Crashers raid, that's just plain evil. When Defenders liberate using a Liberation Proposal ...well, that's just part of the game play.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you: Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Lets be honest here, Crashing is part of the game ..blah blah blah...stating that *griefing*, not Crashing, was destructive and counterproductive to game play. That even I, a Crasher, can agree upon.

Now let's examine the two situations where Liberations have been used.

Belgium: Macedon invaded, put an invisible password, and was in the process of banjecting natives. (A griefing)
Feudal Japan: A coalition of raiders invaded, banjected natives, put a password and squatted on that region for 2+ years without letting them back in, at least. (Another griefing)

However, once the liberation proposals actually made it into game play it became less about using them as a tool to defeat griefers and more as a tool to defeat the average everyday game player who enjoys the Crasher side of the game.

Ladies and Gentlemen, now I present to you: Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Evil Wolf]

Now let's examine the two situations where Liberations have been used.

Belgium: Macedon invaded, put an invisible password, and was in the process of banjecting natives. (A griefing)
Feudal Japan: A coalition of raiders invaded, banjected natives, put a password and squatted on that region for 2+ years without letting them back in, at least. (Another griefing)

Feudal Japan was actually part of an in-character war that happened between regions. There is way more to it than meets the eye and the label of "griefing" is a blatant oversimplification of the situation.

Belgium...yeah, now that was a griefing. They just wanted to destroy that region for kicks.

Just stating what I know ^_^

[Havensky]

The difference is motive. Liberators attempt to undo the damage caused by invaders and give the region back to the natives.

I will point out that most Defender groups do not condone invading invader regions. I know its happened, but groups that do find themselves isolated from the other defender groups. Invading an invader home region makes you an invader.

[Evil Wolf]

I'm sorry, "damage caused by invaders"? I think you're confusing us with Griefers. Most of the regions I've ever Crashed have become more active after the fact, not less.

And I wouldn't say that the Defender Purists (those who would never attack a Crasher group) are the majority. Far from it in my experience.

[Martyrdoom]

The difference is motive. Liberators attempt to undo the damage caused by invaders and give the region back to the natives.

I will point out that most Defender groups do not condone invading invader regions. I know its happened, but groups that do find themselves isolated from the other defender groups. Invading an invader home region makes you an invader.

My emphasis.

Well in that case give it back to 'The Ever Vigilent Shogun of Hamagatama Zenshi', he's plenty native; at the moment your technically giving it back to invaders.

[Havensky]

If Liberate had been available 2 years ago, I'm sure it would have happened sooner. I concede the your point about how long the invader had been sitting on the region with a password keeping everyone out is debatable - but the debate happened in the Liberation Proposal and the community decided that just because you sit there keeping out natives for 2 years, don't make yourself a native.

[Martyrdoom]

Indeed, I can see your point. Native is a troublesome term in general; from my perspective, however, what else can you be if you've been in a region for two years? After all there's no motive in the code, the FAQs do not even use the term 'native' but 'nation'. I'm not sure it's a progressive precedent having the WASC play a causal role in ousting a nation from a region it has resided in for two years, but that's just me, I would say that.

Plus, the use of a password is still at the discretion of those empowered to use it. It does have a flip-side in its use, and an intentional one I would argue, in that it can either be used to secure a region 100% or lockdown a region 100% (well, before 'liberations'). Was not Hamagatama Zenshi, given hindsight, somewhat justified in using it in a region in which he was a native longstanding resident nation? How can we second guess him regarding his intentions, i.e. whether the password was a lockdown or a security measure? I'd chance a guess and say it was a lockdown by what I've heard since, something which I don't condone unless its for security or re-founding purposes, but how can we infer this at the time, other than by word from the horses mouth?

Nevertheless, would it not be better keep the term 'native' away from liberation proposals? Even 'invader' and 'defender' possibly? Is there really a need to employ these terms? I'm not sure there is.

[Travancore-Cochin]

Feudal Japan was actually part of an in-character war that happened between regions. There is way more to it than meets the eye and the label of "griefing" is a blatant oversimplification of the situation.

How convenient. Claiming that you're all against griefing while tacitly approving it by counter-claiming that acts of griefing are actually something else.

Who knows? Tomorrow, a situation like Belgium might be called empire building: "Oh, that's empire building, not griefing; it's griefing that ruins the game!"

[Evil Wolf]

It's the same justification TITO used to destroy all those DEN regions.

[Gobbannium]

I'm sorry, "damage caused by invaders"? I think you're confusing us with Griefers.

There is a perceptual problem here. To people like myself who do not want to be part of the raiding game at all at all at all, the difference between raiding and griefing is invisible. I certainly don't want either to happen to me, and would end up angry in either case. If the difference lies largely in your intent, as other posts have vaguely suggested, then it becomes closer to non-existent as I perceive it, which can't really be good.

[Evil Wolf]

Well, Crashers generally stick around for a short period of time, mock defenders, gloat a bit, then leave, thus leaving the natives of the region they conquered to carry on like they always have.

Griefers destroy the entire region, refound it, and turn it into a passworded graveyard.

But I can see how one can confuse the two.

[Martyrdoom]

I'm curious EW, am I a 'griefer' if I password a region, eject everyone, re-found it, and then open it up for free-entry?

[Evil Wolf]

Ah, now that's where it gets complex.

If you do it with native consent, no. Not even the most hard core of Defenders will argue that. It would be thus called a refounding.

The line between Griefing and refounding is drawn in my book by intent. Griefers generally want to just destroy a region for kicks with no intent of rebuilding it. Those refounding generally want the natives to return and the region to flourish.

I'll give you an example of walking this fine line. Several times now Lone Wolves United has attempted to refound Game Administrator SalusaSecondus' region of The Cuckoos Egg. We did this out of protest for Sal's spotty activity (he quite routinely lets his nation die) however we made sure that we had native support for a refounding before we went about doing this.

Now one could argue that by the simple fact that a Crasher group is attempting to refound a region, its a Griefing. But from my point of view, if you have native consent and the intent to let natives back into the region after the refounding, it does not count as griefing, even if the people doing it don't have the best reputation in the world.

[Martyrdoom]

Cheers EW,

Following on from this:

But from my point of view, if you have native consent and the intent to let natives back into the region after the refounding, it does not count as griefing, even if the people doing it don't have the best reputation in the world.

I routinely don't have 'consent' but I will gladly let former residents back in after the re-founding... is that griefing, from your perspective?

[Evil Wolf]

Not sure, would have to see the region to have an opinion. Usually when a Griefing occurs, its fairly obvious, one of the most famous examples of griefing (although at the time it was deemed a legal refounding) happened in the region of DEN.

Pre-Influence there used to be some very well defined griefing rules of what was greifing (and thus illegal) and what was just normal Crashing. Since the introduction of Influence, however, those rules were struck null and no longer enforced.

[Gobbannium]

Cheers EW,

Following on from this:

But from my point of view, if you have native consent and the intent to let natives back into the region after the refounding, it does not count as griefing, even if the people doing it don't have the best reputation in the world.

I routinely don't have 'consent' but I will gladly let former residents back in after the re-founding... is that griefing, from your perspective?

My (obviously inexpert) opinion would be that yes, it's griefing. If the distinction between the two was purely in intent, then you're fine; however, intent is unprovable, which makes it pretty useless as a self-justification. I'd prefer to go by the meat of what's said above; consent is provable, after all. Moreover it's a good indicator that the natives trust you to act as Founder. While the reverse, lack of consent, doesn't automatically mean that the natives don't trust you, it's not a good sign.

Well, Crashers generally stick around for a short period of time, mock defenders, gloat a bit, then leave, thus leaving the natives of the region they conquered to carry on like they always have.

Griefers destroy the entire region, refound it, and turn it into a passworded graveyard.

But I can see how one can confuse the two.

At the time you're being chucked out of your region, the promise of jam tomorrow is frankly just a promise.

[Martyrdoom]

Good job 'invasion-griefing' as it was called is now entirely legal!

[Evil Wolf]

Yes, with the introduction of Influence, Griefing became legal. The Liberation Proposals came about because when a few Crashers, including myself, supported the idea for two full updates a day, the defenders protested saying that Griefings, which actually take quite a bit of time, effort, and man power to pull off even in the smallest of regions, would suddenly (and inexplicably) explode out of control.

From that argument sprung the Liberation Proposals, the first tool expressly and intentionally introduced to the Crasher/Defender game which favored a side...that side of course being Defenders. Its easy to see why Crashers are displeased with the feature when you put it into these contexts.

However, its not a very good tool at stopping Griefing, it only prevents Griefers from throwing up a password, and that's after a very long period of time has already passed between its proposal and its acceptance as a resolution.

As far as preventing griefing, its a fairly pitiful tool.

[Martyrdoom]

Yes, with the introduction of Influence, Griefing became legal. The Liberation Proposals came about because when a few Crashers, including myself, supported the idea for two full updates a day, the defenders protested saying that Griefings, which actually take quite a bit of time, effort, and man power to pull off even in the smallest of regions, would suddenly (and inexplicably) explode out of control.

From that argument sprung the Liberation Proposals, the first tool expressly and intentionally introduced to the Crasher/Defender game which favored a side...that side of course being Defenders. Its easy to see why Crashers are displeased with the feature when you put it into these contexts.

However, its not a very good tool at stopping Griefing, it only prevents Griefers from throwing up a password, and that's after a very long period of time has already passed between its proposal and its acceptance as a resolution.

As far as preventing griefing, its a fairly pitiful tool.

I didn't know that; I didn't know the actual timescale, i.e. which one was being discussed/implemented first; I actually thought it was the other way around.

That's insane.

The best tool against griefing = the very password griefers use.

[Kalibarr]

It hasn't been much movement on this thread lately. The two camps, invaders/raiders and defenders, are not at all willing to listen to each other's arguments, and are no way going to give each other any credit. For the defenders, invasion is per se bad, as invaders destroy peace loving, cozy little, innocent communities . As the witch-hunters of old, they would have banished the raider vermin from the game, because they are simply evil. According to The Defender World View, raiders are lowly bullies, because the raider delegates actually does what WA delegates is entitled to, password protect a region , and pruning the occupied region. An excerpt from The Holy Scriptures, The Rules:
>Can I invade other people's regions? Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the WA Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.
>Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else? You can try. Invader Delegates tend to have very little Regional Influence, which makes ejecting long-time residents difficult. But Delegates can be as kind, generous, evil, or despotic as they wish. It's up to regional residents to elect good Delegates. and >My region's WA Delegate is an evil dictator who ejects nations for no reason! Make him stop!
Delegates are elected: if you don't like yours, it's up to you to get him/her unelected. While in power, Delegates can use or abuse their powers as they see fit.
Thus, "liberation" is used as a method to create new game mechanics, for "The Greater Good", the punishment of evil . Thus, all "true" peace loving players are obliged to and the defenders for their benevolent, humanistic and altruistic ways. All hail!
For raiders, though, defenders are viewed as the true imperialists, false saviours, who are willing to go to any lengths to wipe out raiders/invaders, or so called "griefers" by the means of altering game mechanics, thus, The Holy Rules themselves . : WA resolutions are a way to bring all member nations into line on a particular issue; be that environmental, democratic, free trade, or whatever. Don't suggest game improvements there. They just clutter up the place. And they make people think, "Hey, yeah, that would be cool! Why doesn't that bum Max Barry get off his ass and do that?" I get e-mails. This Original Sin, is viewed as the beginning to The End, where the NS Deamons, known as the Mods, can now at request from the WASC (an equivalent to The Round Table of Camelot), through the machinations of The White Knights of Defenderdom. This Heresy, the alteration of The Holy Scriptures, as we all can read at The First Book of Creation, The FAQ, must be stopped or else the game itself will decline into the Dark Age of complete Boredom .
So here we are, the raiders have the lower hand, when trying to convince the NS players in general, and the victims of raids in particular, that raiding indeed is an expression of Freedom. Defenders can always claim they are protectors of the weak and powerless, and in this Holy Mission, the result justifies they means.
It's ironic though, that raiding is a supported way of life by many Internet users, but by the word of pirate. The pirate is at large romanticized in the popular media by the POTC movies, and file sharers are at large view upon as heroes. However, in NS raiders are the agents of the devil, propagators of True Evil .

Your Right About one thing,Invaders and Defenders are never going to agree on this topic,It's almost useless to debate it.

[Evil Wolf]

I didn't know that; I didn't know the actual timescale, i.e. which one was being discussed/implemented first; I actually thought it was the other way around.

That's insane.

The best tool against griefing = the very password griefers use.

I've never liked passwords myself, I've seen too many founderless regions accidentally kill themselves off because a delegate put in a password then went inactive or died, with no one to replace them.

[Sedgistan]

Actually, anti-griefing measures were being discussed before the 2nd upadate idea. I was one of the people who said that we shouldn't have a 2nd update until we had a successful anti-griefing measure introduced, as otherwise it would lead to more griefing of regions. Yes, destroying other regions is legal, but its not something that is really wanted by anyone (other than those doing the destroying).

viewtopic.php?p=539018#p539018
viewtopic.php?p=548765#p548765

[Muffasaville]

I didn't know that; I didn't know the actual timescale, i.e. which one was being discussed/implemented first; I actually thought it was the other way around.

That's insane.

The best tool against griefing = the very password griefers use.

I've never liked passwords myself, I've seen too many founderless regions accidentally kill themselves off because a delegate put in a password then went inactive or died, with no one to replace them.

Well, perhaps they need to be "liberated"! I mean ,the WA now has the wonton authority to override the security measures of a region, whats stopping them? In fact, the next time I want to attack a well defended region, i'll make sure to garner support in the WA by using larger words and incomprehensible reasons, and get them to 'liberate" it for me to make my job easier.

I think the liberate funtion has the ability to be widely misused.

[Sedgistan]

I think the liberate funtion has the ability to be widely misused.

Well then try and prove it...

If it turns out you're right, I'll go and campaign for the removal of Liberation resolutions, and for the old griefing rules (or some other substitute) to be implemented.