NationStates

I smell a challenge.

Ah, it's down to those words again: "Liberation"=positive, "Griefieng"=negative. And all in the eye of the beholder. A WA delegate can password protect a region. That's a fact. A WA delegate can also, at whim, eject anyone. Please read the FAQ. But do we bother? No, because it's important with motives. However, back to the words again. I meet players who interpret the words in their way. However, different players interprets different. For some players, all raiding is "griefing", for others, it's raiding+password, and for others it's raiding+password+ejection, and then the raider WA delegate sits there, and let the region to die. I would argue that "griefer" and "defender" are not objective words, but words containing moral values. And, as always, it's "My moral is better than yours." "Defenders" consequently label the raider as untrustworthy, a crook, evil. This they do purely on subjective, moral standards, not on the grounds of what the game actually states how players can behave. This they do in order to justify their own military ambitions, nothing more. Such hypocrisy is transparent, bar to the indoctrinated "defender" cadre. There are no such things as "defenders" and "griefers", it's only those who are with you, and those who oppose you, but "defenders" cherish to label opponents in negative moral terms. It's just like oxygen to them.
And yes, defenders surely enters raider's regions to destroy them. You are not the white, nice knights you want to believe you are. The much cherished AD of TITO openly admitted they have spies in my region. Obviously the motives (which are so damned important among posters here) justifies the means, typical reasoning of fanatics.

Sedgistan wrote:

Muffasaville wrote: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.

Feudal Japan.

Liberations can be self-contradictory.

Cinistra wrote:Ah, it's down to those words again: "Liberation"=positive, "Griefieng"=negative. And all in the eye of the beholder. A WA delegate can password protect a region. That's a fact. A WA delegate can also, at whim, eject anyone. Please read the FAQ. But do we bother? No, because it's important with motives. However, back to the words again. I meet players who interpret the words in their way. However, different players interprets different. For some players, all raiding is "griefing", for others, it's raiding+password, and for others it's raiding+password+ejection, and then the raider WA delegate sits there, and let the region to die. I would argue that "griefer" and "defender" are not objective words, but words containing moral values. And, as always, it's "My moral is better than yours." "Defenders" consequently label the raider as untrustworthy, a crook, evil. This they do purely on subjective, moral standards, not on the grounds of what the game actually states how players can behave. This they do in order to justify their own military ambitions, nothing more. Such hypocrisy is transparent, bar to the indoctrinated "defender" cadre. There are no such things as "defenders" and "griefers", it's only those who are with you, and those who oppose you, but "defenders" cherish to label opponents in negative moral terms. It's just like oxygen to them.

You know what else is subjective? The fun or joy of playing NationStates. Yes, that subjective feeling of satisfaction that's nowhere in the FAQ or in the game code; yet, without it, would NationStates exist?

Different people derive fun out of playing NationStates differently. The RPers are here to get fun out of RPing, the Generalites have fun hanging out in General and making bonds with others, Crashers like Evil Wolf have fun out of invading regions to mock defenders and some groups of defenders defend/liberate solely for the purpose of stopping crashers, while the vast majority of them do it out of feeling empathy for the victims of raiding/crashing/griefing. Griefers, however, have fun at the expense of others. That is their way of saying, "my fun is better than yours" and it sets them apart from the others.

I've been a victim of griefing myself. If someone "indoctrinated" me into the defender camp, then that someone is none other than the group of griefers who wronged me in the past, because I take part in defence/liberation missions now to ensure that others don't go through what I've been through.This is also why I see griefers as a bunch of lowlifes who want to be on a power-trip to satisfy their inflated egos, and I'd do anything to stop such people; as long as that "anything" does not involve having fun at the expense of others, including griefers themselves. I'm sure every other defender presently playing the game thinks the same way.

So, no, it's not "only those who are with you, and those who oppose you", but those who play the game to have fun, those who have fun at the expense of others, and those who want to ensure that having fun at the expense of others either does not happen, or is reduced to a minimum.

This thread is now about Invaders justifying their actions (y/n)?

New Dracora wrote:This thread is now about Invaders justifying their actions (y/n)?

It seems it's just as much about some defenders self-glorifying. I'll be one of the first to say that region griefing, which I'll define as a malicious invasion set up to grab a region, eject its residents, and seal it off to die slowly (or to log in every 60 days to keep it on life support) is bad for a lot of people. However, it's not like raiding/invading and defending are monocultures. Not all invaders do it for the same reasons, so far as I can tell. Some do it for the transient thrill, some to establish a new base of power, and some to oppose other organizations of gameplayers. Not all defenders do it for the same reasons: some are altruistic, and really try to keep long-term residents in power; some do it to punish invaders, and aren't terribly concerned with the invaded regions; and some do it to oppose other organizations of gameplayers.

I have stated earlier, and maybe it's irrelevant, but liberations now require more political savvy on the part of raiders/invaders. I think that the real goal for some invader groups should be to carry out a co-opting of the WA to pass a liberation that can be used to push into a region. The tool is causing problems? Break it. In any case, it'd provide more entertainment for me, which is always a good thing.

New Dracora wrote:This thread is now about Invaders justifying their actions (y/n)?

Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to justify their actions?

Why don't people understand that raiding or defending is not the only way to have fun?

(and wouldn't having a password eliminate that fun anyway?)

Greater Hyrkania wrote:

New Dracora wrote:This thread is now about Invaders justifying their actions (y/n)?

Why shouldn't anyone be allowed to justify their actions?

Did I say you weren't allow to do it?

Just sayin'

Not sure this is the right thread, but shouldn't the silly little sticker in Feudal Japan be removed now as the region successfully has been un-liberated?

Cinistra wrote:Not sure this is the right thread, but shouldn't the silly little sticker in Feudal Japan be removed now as the region successfully has been un-liberated?

I brought that up here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=20227 - though it hasn't been acknowledged by an admin yet.

Shouldn't this thread be in the Technical Board or something?

Morlago wrote:Shouldn't this thread be in the Technical Board or something?

IMHO, the answer from the admins is a clear 'no'. That reduces this thread to 'gripe about the game feature', which doesn't belong in Technical.

Ballotonia

Ballotonia wrote:

Morlago wrote:Shouldn't this thread be in the Technical Board or something?

IMHO, the answer from the admins is a clear 'no'. That reduces this thread to 'gripe about the game feature', which doesn't belong in Technical.

Ballotonia

Don't forget the griping about the gripe as well.

Travancore-Cochin wrote:
"You know what else is subjective? The fun or joy of playing NationStates. Yes, that subjective feeling of satisfaction that's nowhere in the FAQ or in the game code; yet, without it, would NationStates exist?

Different people derive fun out of playing NationStates differently. The RPers are here to get fun out of RPing, the Generalites have fun hanging out in General and making bonds with others, Crashers like Evil Wolf have fun out of invading regions to mock defenders and some groups of defenders defend/liberate solely for the purpose of stopping crashers, while the vast majority of them do it out of feeling empathy for the victims of raiding/crashing/griefing. Griefers, however, have fun at the expense of others. That is their way of saying, "my fun is better than yours" and it sets them apart from the others.

I've been a victim of griefing myself. If someone "indoctrinated" me into the defender camp, then that someone is none other than the group of griefers who wronged me in the past, because I take part in defence/liberation missions now to ensure that others don't go through what I've been through.This is also why I see griefers as a bunch of lowlifes who want to be on a power-trip to satisfy their inflated egos, and I'd do anything to stop such people; as long as that "anything" does not involve having fun at the expense of others, including griefers themselves. I'm sure every other defender presently playing the game thinks the same way.

So, no, it's not "only those who are with you, and those who oppose you", but those who play the game to have fun, those who have fun at the expense of others, and those who want to ensure that having fun at the expense of others either does not happen, or is reduced to a minimum."

Once again, defenders defend their actions through poor understanding of the rules as well as definitions. This thread should clarify the subject:http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13