Remove "Liberate"

[The Sedge]

For evidence of your lack of knowledge regarding raiding/defending see your first point - "Exactly, since it was rhetorical. There is no way that anyone can liberate it unless some superpower donates tons of nations and time, which I highly doubt is ever going to happen." You need to think about what I said (about why I can't explain how Feudal Japan will be liberated) within the context of the fact that I'm a defender. If I knew a way of liberating the region, I would hardly post about it all over public forums.

There have only been 2 Liberation Resolutions, one of them has worked extremely successfully, and it is too early to judge the results of the second. Try waiting a while before dismissing them on the grounds of them not working.

[A mean old man]

For evidence of your lack of knowledge regarding raiding/defending see your first point - "Exactly, since it was rhetorical. There is no way that anyone can liberate it unless some superpower donates tons of nations and time, which I highly doubt is ever going to happen." You need to think about what I said (about why I can't explain how Feudal Japan will be liberated) within the context of the fact that I'm a defender. If I knew a way of liberating the region, I would hardly post about it all over public forums.

Yes, which is to be expected. I do not expect or ask of you to uncover any plans for the recapture of Feudal Japan, if any are in order. However, I do believe that it is unlikely that it will be possible to recapture a region from an angry raider delegate who currently has the support of 57 nations.

Just an idea: If the former residents were to be allowed back in by the delegate and endorsed him, then you might not have a problem. You might be able to work out an agreement with him concerning the Factbook entry and the regional government. However, I would fear betrayal by him, mainly because of the possible take-over attempt that he might fear from you. Maybe some sort of official pact in the forum could be arranged between you two. However, I am not familiar with the intent of this delegate and whether he is reasonable or not, so this is only an idea.

There have only been 2 Liberation Resolutions, one of them has worked extremely successfully, and it is too early to judge the results of the second. Try waiting a while before dismissing them on the grounds of them not working.

I missed the first. Do you mind posting a link?

Still, I don't like the idea of totally opening a region occupied by raiders intent on griefing to the public. I still believe that the former residents are better off rebuilding a stronger force with an active founder, much like Tokugawa Japan, and allowing the raiders to waste their time holding a region that they stole and which will never grow any larger.

[The Sedge]

I missed the first. Do you mind posting a link?

Debate: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6303&start=0

Resolution: http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... 0/start=57

[Free Noldor States]

Yeah, yeah, I know you all think raiders are evil monster that attack poor, vulnerable regions and nothing more. Yeah, maybe we are. But there is nothing, except maybe in the moral way, and you don't have a clue how worried being morally wrong would scare us, about region crashing. The game rules allow for nations to be ejected from any region, except one, and they do not specify why the delegate should or should not ejected any nations from the region. So griefing is now totally cool with the game rules. The game rules also allow for a password to put up in any region and they also don't specify why to use it or prohibit when to use it. Liberation proposals take away the ability of a region to use that password that the game itself allowed and they do it just because some people don't happen to like the fact that there is a password. Why allow certain regions to have a password and then take away the right to do that from others?

"WA proposals cannot address the rules or mechanics of the game, nor can they ask for new features." or so says the WA FAQ. But clearly, liberation proposals do address the mechanics of the game. It is as simple as that why they shouldn't be allowed. However, the WA appears to be control now by certain groups that do whatever they want for their own privilege.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

Oh please. Saying a region has a right to have a password is like saying people have a right to have a door on their house or have windows in their car. A password is a convenience feature it isn't a right. And yes, kicking people out of regions and barring anyone from them is legal, technically, but now, so is removing the password from regions. Don't like it? thats just too bad. A lot of people here don't like being invaded either.

[New Dracora]

*snip*

Your grasp of logic is so convoluted - so BAD - everytime you post it kills a kitten and makes baby jebus cry.

So please. Do us, the poor defenseless kittens and baby jebus all a huge big favour and never ever ever post again.

Ta.

[The Sedge]

"WA proposals cannot address the rules or mechanics of the game, nor can they ask for new features." or so says the WA FAQ. But clearly, liberation proposals do address the mechanics of the game. It is as simple as that why they shouldn't be allowed. However, the WA appears to be control now by certain groups that do whatever they want for their own privilege.

Thats a reason to update the FAQ...

[Gobbannium]

"WA proposals cannot address the rules or mechanics of the game, nor can they ask for new features." or so says the WA FAQ. But clearly, liberation proposals do address the mechanics of the game. It is as simple as that why they shouldn't be allowed. However, the WA appears to be control now by certain groups that do whatever they want for their own privilege.

First off, blaming the WA regulars for something that they did not and do not want is a bit rich.

Second, you are misinterpreting the FAQ. In the sense you are meaning, every WA proposal addresses the mechanics of the game. When regular proposal is passed, the stats of every member nation change; when a C&C passes, a shiny badge appears on the relevant nation's home page; when a Liberate passes, a password is vaped. Not so very different. What that phrase actually means is that any WA proposal that would require code to be rewritten is illegal, which is irrelevant to the whole Liberation argument.

[A mean old man]

*snip*

Your grasp of logic is so convoluted - so BAD - everytime you post it kills a kitten and makes baby jebus cry.

So please. Do us, the poor defenseless kittens and baby jebus all a huge big favour and never ever ever post again.

Ta.

Post

[Free Noldor States]

"WA proposals cannot address the rules or mechanics of the game, nor can they ask for new features." or so says the WA FAQ. But clearly, liberation proposals do address the mechanics of the game. It is as simple as that why they shouldn't be allowed. However, the WA appears to be control now by certain groups that do whatever they want for their own privilege.

Thats a reason to update the FAQ...

Fine. I see no point in arguing against that type of logic. Just admit the WA is now being run by defender interests.

Second, you are misinterpreting the FAQ. In the sense you are meaning, every WA proposal addresses the mechanics of the game. When regular proposal is passed, the stats of every member nation change; when a C&C passes, a shiny badge appears on the relevant nation's home page; when a Liberate passes, a password is vaped. Not so very different. What that phrase actually means is that any WA proposal that would require code to be rewritten is illegal, which is irrelevant to the whole Liberation argument.

Changing stats and putting badges is quite different from removing a password. It's more like telling a nation they can't have a nation title or a name because you don't like what they wrote. Yes, you are right on what you say about changing the code of the game but it also applies to thing like being able to have a national currency or a password in your region.

[United Gordonopia]

I think we should remove "Liberate" from the Security Council. Invasions are part of the game, and it is the region's fault they were invaded because they left themselves voulnerable.

It isn't their fault, if the creator left, they are vulnerable. That's not the fault of the inhabitants. Many regions don't want to password protect themselves, because it prevents them from getting new members as easily.

[A mean old man]

I think we should remove "Liberate" from the Security Council. Invasions are part of the game, and it is the region's fault they were invaded because they left themselves voulnerable.

It isn't their fault, if the creator left, they are vulnerable. That's not the fault of the inhabitants. Many regions don't want to password protect themselves, because it prevents them from getting new members as easily.

They could always start new regions with founders, or, if they have loyalty to their former regions, leave them to be deleted and re-establish them.

[The Sedge]

Have you ever tried re-founding a sizeable region? Its incredibly hard, because you'll find a lot of the nations don't understand whats going on, and don't want to move. It takes a long time, and usually results in a large decrease in population.

If you go and read this topic, you might understand why regions like to hold onto their region name: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14121

Plus, the whole principle behind your argument is ridiculous. Why should a region have to go and disrupt its whole affairs, just because some people like to ruin the game for others?

[New Dracora]

I think we should remove "Liberate" from the Security Council. Invasions are part of the game, and it is the region's fault they were invaded because they left themselves voulnerable.

It isn't their fault, if the creator left, they are vulnerable. That's not the fault of the inhabitants. Many regions don't want to password protect themselves, because it prevents them from getting new members as easily.

They could always start new regions with founders, or, if they have loyalty to their former regions, leave them to be deleted and re-establish them.

You just killed another kitten. I told you this would happen yet you went ahead posted anyway.

What kind of monster are you?

[A mean old man]

Have you ever tried re-founding a sizeable region? Its incredibly hard, because you'll find a lot of the nations don't understand whats going on, and don't want to move. It takes a long time, and usually results in a large decrease in population.

Sizeable regions usually aren't in enough danger to have to be re-founded, depending on what your idea of a sizeable region is. It's the smaller ones of say, around 5 to 8 WA nations, that are the ones that are the most easily overthrown by raiders bent on griefing, and regions that size shouldn't have too much trouble re-founding themselves.

However, should a "sizeable" region be threatened by the possibility of a take-over, I think it would be worth it to attempt to re-found the region. Mass-telegrams and possible ejections might be required, but wouldn't you say it's worth spending a fair amount of time and effort to secure your region? I mean, regional security is your occupation, after all. I'd say there's no better security than to have an active founder and NO threat whatsoever from raiding parties. My guess is that a re-founding would take less than 4 years (in Feudal Japan's case, 2 years in captivity, and at least 2 years predicted time it will take to re-capture the reigon) of having it captured and going through the trouble of liberating it.

Plus, the whole principle behind your argument is ridiculous. Why should a region have to go and disrupt its whole affairs, just because some people like to ruin the game for others?

Well, I'd say being raided is a lot more disrupting in a region's whole affairs than re-founding the region for security purposes wouldn't you?

[The Sedge]

You're still missing the point - why should regions have to choose between running the risk of being destroyed, or stunting their growth (password), or a risky, time-consuming and damaging re-founding?

[Bears Armed]

Plus, if a region that tries to refound really is at risk of raiding, there might already be one or more raider 'sleepers' already present there... in which case the raiders might try (and possibly manage) to pre-empt this by jumping in do the re-founding themselves -- before the natives' chosen "founder" manages to do so -- as soon as the name becomes available.

[Martyrdoom]

It's the name of the game. See what happened with 'France' when a defender re-founded it. I did'nt see anyone up in arms about that, not even the raiders.

Risk, effort, trade-offs, all part of the game. I don't believe going down the avenue of neutering the game is progressive nor is allowing it to become some kind of ritual.

[A mean old man]

You're still missing the point - why should regions have to choose between running the risk of being destroyed, or stunting their growth (password), or a risky, time-consuming and damaging re-founding?

Now you just sound like you're against raiding altogether. The game has risks. It's how it's played. Regions have to choose between these risks when they lose their founder. Like I said, a "risky, time-consuming and damaging re-founding" is, in my opinion, very much worth the effort for some permenant regional security.

Plus, if a region that tries to refound really is at risk of raiding, there might already be one or more raider 'sleepers' already present there... in which case the raiders might try (and possibly manage) to pre-empt this by jumping in do the re-founding themselves -- before the natives' chosen "founder" manages to do so -- as soon as the name becomes available.

Everything has its risks. If the delegate is truly clever enough to be in their important position they will figure something out (passwords, monitoring endorsement changes, etc.). The Sedge, you work in the FL Regions Alliance, I'm sure you could get some temporary WA support in a nation being re-founded to maintain the delegateship and keep the raiders at bay until the nations were all transferred. Inconveniences happen. Like Martyrdom said:

Risk, effort, trade-offs, all part of the game. I don't believe going down the avenue of neutering the game is progressive nor is allowing it to become some kind of ritual.

[A mean old man]

Also, in response to the Bears Armed quote:

If a raider tried to do the re-founding themselves, they would either:

Have to be delegate in order to be trusted. If the delegate is already a raider or has been a raider for a long period of time, than the region would be lost already, right? This seems highly unlikely to me.

Or, a much more plausible idea:

Try to initiate the re-founding as a minor nation in the region. If a raider tries to do the re-founding, the populace already should be organized enough in a forum to know who has authority in the region to know what's really going on and to see through the raider's deception (or, at least, not obey the spontaneous will of a random nation and discuss it with the delegate and the rest of the populace first).

You see, it really is all a matter of how organized and secure your region is, either in numbers of WA nations, having a founder, having a delegate, initiating a password (even temporarily for a re-founding), and maintaining an effective forum to have clear communication between all the nations and their delegate or leader(s). You can't expect a game to be entirely fair and risk-free without work and sacrifices.

[Veilyonia]

It's the name of the game. See what happened with 'France' when a defender re-founded it. I did'nt see anyone up in arms about that, not even the raiders.

If you go back and read the liberation threads from that time, you'll realize that many invaders were peeved. Some even went so far as to claim "moderator intervention." By refounding the region, the founder restored the rightful natives to their home, as opposed to letting the region sit in desolation for the next few years, forgotten. What a brilliant "trophy" indeed...

[The Sedge]

You're still missing the point - why should regions have to choose between running the risk of being destroyed, or stunting their growth (password), or a risky, time-consuming and damaging re-founding?

Now you just sound like you're against raiding altogether. The game has risks. It's how it's played. Regions have to choose between these risks when they lose their founder. Like I said, a "risky, time-consuming and damaging re-founding" is, in my opinion, very much worth the effort for some permenant regional security.

I'm not against raiding altogether, I'm against raiding to destroy a region.

Everything has its risks. If the delegate is truly clever enough to be in their important position they will figure something out (passwords, monitoring endorsement changes, etc.). The Sedge, you work in the FL Regions Alliance, I'm sure you could get some temporary WA support in a nation being re-founded to maintain the delegateship and keep the raiders at bay until the nations were all transferred. Inconveniences happen.

Yes, but raiders can get the update time, and try and re-found at the time when you try. If they do that, its 50/50 who is going to get it.

[Bears Armed]

Plus, if a region that tries to refound really is at risk of raiding, there might already be one or more raider 'sleepers' already present there... in which case the raiders might try (and possibly manage) to pre-empt this by jumping in do the re-founding themselves -- before the natives' chosen "founder" manages to do so -- as soon as the name becomes available.

Everything has its risks. If the delegate is truly clever enough to be in their important position they will figure something out (passwords, monitoring endorsement changes, etc.). The Sedge, you work in the FL Regions Alliance, I'm sure you could get some temporary WA support in a nation being re-founded to maintain the delegateship and keep the raiders at bay until the nations were all transferred. Inconveniences happen.

You evidently don't know how the refounding process actually works. The region in question has to be completely emptied for this, so that it ceases to exist at the next update and its name then becomes available again to people who want to found regions... so a raider who is watching the region at that update (perhaps because they check it at every update, perhaps because they were monitoring a 'sleeper' puppet there and were cued in by its expulsion as a [necessary] part of the emptying process) would then have just as much chance as the former delegate of getting to be founder, it would simply come down to who could get their request into the system quickest... and of course the natives would probably have only one chosen nation trying to do this, whereas the raiders might have several all trying to do so, which would tip the odds in their favour...

[A mean old man]

I'm not against raiding altogether, I'm against raiding to destroy a region.

Which is, I agree, wrong, however is usually the intent of your average raiding party. And, after more consideration and seeing the points of your arguments in the debate, believe that liberation is a helpful thing in some cases, but only if the former residents' retaliation has been planned beforehand and is swift and successful (NOT the case, in either scenario, Belgium or FJ. The usurper delegate of Belgium was at least reasonable enough to allow the natives to return peacefully), however, it has enough flaws (many stated earlier in the thread, so I don't feel the need to repeat them) that I am still leaning more towards LESS liberation and MORE foresight and security.

And I know you'll say to stop looking at the obvious despair in FJ at the current time and to give FJ a while to see the final result of the liberation, but that's another argument of mine. So much time devoted to the re-capture when a little foresight would've saved them two years ago (I'm not entirely familiar with the exact circumstances of the FJ occupation, but I wouldn't expect it to be too different than any others). I'm not saying it isn't possible to re-capture these regions, but I still believe it would've been much more convenient had they secured themselves adequately beforehand.

Yes, but raiders can get the update time, and try and re-found at the time when you try. If they do that, its 50/50 who is going to get it.

I guess, like I said, everything has its risks. If you're against password-protection (I understand your reasons for this and mostly agree with them), re-founding, disrupting a region's affairs, and yet against raiding with the intent of griefing (also wrong, but is, unfortunately, part of the game right now), how exactly do you suggest we defend FL regions from raider threats? Liberation, now supposedly a method of securing FL Regions, is hardly secure and its effectiveness can be strongly debated (obviously).

You evidently don't know how the refounding process actually works. The region in question has to be completely emptied for this, so that it ceases to exist at the next update and its name then becomes available again to people who want to found regions... so a raider who is watching the region at that update (perhaps because they check it at every update, perhaps because they were monitoring a 'sleeper' puppet there and were cued in by its expulsion as a [necessary] part of the emptying process) would then have just as much chance as the former delegate of getting to be founder, it would simply come down to who could get their request into the system quickest... and of course the natives would probably have only one chosen nation trying to do this, whereas the raiders might have several all trying to do so, which would tip the odds in their favour...

The Sedge already made this point.

You may stop trying to base arguments on your opinion of my "lack of knowledge," as well. I find it to be less of a point in the argument and more of a personal attempt to bring down my point of view, and I do not appreciate it. Your point against my views can still be made without this.

I know that the region has to be completely emptied for this. I'd rather not spell everything out for you exactly and just trust you to make assumptions. I would think my mention of password-protecting, WA support from the FL Regions Alliance, etc. etc. would be enough to get the point across that I know that a region is deleted through the removal of all nations and that these ideas I'm throwing down are ways to keep the region secure while attempting a re-founding.

And again on the raiders/update time/founding argument, nothing comes without risks. If I were in a FL region, I would be willing to take these risks to ensure my regional safety.

[Lower Land]

I think we should remove "Liberate" from the Security Council. Invasions are part of the game, and it is the region's fault they were invaded because they left themselves voulnerable.

It isn't their fault, if the creator left, they are vulnerable. That's not the fault of the inhabitants. Many regions don't want to password protect themselves, because it prevents them from getting new members as easily.

Thats not the only reason they are leaving themselves voulnerable. If they dont have a Delegate, that leaves them voulnerable, if the Delegate does not have many endorsements, the lower amount, the more voulnerable. There are many aspects that leave a region voulnerable, and it is the region's fault for not tending to those aspects.