NationStates

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.

So? We've made liberation part of the game too.

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.

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

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.

I possibly would'nt condone the use of the term 'blame' but they sure weren't prudent enough given the in-game mechanics we are all immersed in whether we like it or not. Have an active founder or use a password. Or that was the case. Liberations can now undermine the utility of that very password in terms of a region's security, just add a bit of intrigue and manipulation of evidence and we have invasion by legislation.

Liberation as a concept merely allows 'defenders' to fulfil their inner most secret urgings - to invade regions and control. Look at Iran for instance.

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

Liberations don't counter invasions - they are now a fundamental part of invasions.

I sense a LOCK!

Martyrdoom wrote:Liberation as a concept merely allows 'defenders' to fulfil their inner most secret urgings - to invade regions and control. Look at Iran for instance.

And saying "liberations are invasions" is a typical used by raiders, when unwilling to admit that they just got their arses handed to them by defenders. In Iran, the defenders just so happened to be one step ahead of the raiders, so, naturally, they had to develop an excuse to cover their humiliating defeat.

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.

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.

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.

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 having had used it.
Care to explain?

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?

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. 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.

Since liberation proposals will probably be the new 'fix it easy' button used by defenders, I propose perhaps something that tips the balance back into the realm of neutrality. Perhaps a review of how influence is calculated, or lowering the requirements for a regional password even?

I truly believe this liberation proposal system will be used and abused; it kind of reminds me of those Game Shark codes one would input into Super Nintendo games in order to give Mario forever invincibility or what not. I just never found that sort of gameplay very fun - it loses the challenging aspect, for one, and two, while you're having fun obliterating those once-hard enemies, something down inside you just makes the obliterations seem hollow.

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. The fact that the raider regions have been falling is directly correlated to the drop / infighting in many defender regions. And that's the way it is. But if we are to alter the game, what should we do? Double-update times have been shown to assist *both* raiders and defenders, so we're stagnant there. Changing the influence system to a more rapid accumulation of influence would be fair, I believe, as the WA is now a correct-all for refounding raids. Perhaps... speeding the influence up to double or even triple the current time frame would be applicable. This would go hand in hand with a faster, more dynamic game, as well as make things interesting, not to mention hastening the implementation of a password.

Still, the fact does remain: I believe the scales are swung heavily in favor of defenders, and in order to accommodate *both* sides, we have to move the scales a little closer to unity.

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.

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.

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.

Most invaders get by without re-founding regions, and a lot of those who do try (eg Unknown) also enjoy raiding without re-founding. That kind of raiding isn't harmful to the game, and I have no problem with its existence. I will say though, that I see raiding done with the intent of re-founding as being different, and something that should not be encouraged - game mechanics should make it extremely hard, or even impossible. I know its 'part of the game', but I've only seen griefing harm NationStates, rather than benefit it.

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 disagree

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.

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.

What if we were to make the effects of Liberation temporary?

Spartan Philidelphia wrote:What if we were to make the effects of Liberation temporary?

The resolutions can be repealed, I don't see how making them temporary would work/make a difference.

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.

Like removing Founder-imposed restrictions!! Or is this sacred ground? I mean, there really haven't been and pro-raiding WA discussions...

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 disagree

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.

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.

Of course I'm not saying that the WA members are all just village idiots - far from it. I know the vast majority don't suffer fools gladly.

The native delegate doesn't have to have any material indication at all that the region is being targeted - if they are in a region with no founder, they should know they are vulnerable and assume they will be targeted at some point, however likely or unlikely the possibility of any invasion happening. Subsquently they install a password to be sure and take it from there. That was a balance.

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.

Where would you draw the line between what you seem to see as legitimate refoundings by some invaders and what Macedon does? To me they're all griefing, so I'm curious what the difference between them are.

Besides how many Liberation resolutions have gotten passed so far? 4? That's not much compared to all the invasions, which have been in that time. Besides all it does is lift the password from a region. Plenty of invaders have been able to hold conquests against 1,2,3 waves of liberation tries, without ever using a password.

Personally I'd have preferred other ways of stopping griefing, since I'm sure there's griefings, which slips beneath the notice or which happens too fast for a liberation resolution to matter, but this is the tool the admins have given us and it shouldn't be removed without a another discussion of what then to do about the griefings.

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.

The difference in my humble opinion between invaders who refound regions (who possibly could be called 'imperialists') and Mencer-esque organisations is that the former wants an active and open region under their absolute control while the latter want a dead region/trophy that is a testament to their exploits.

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.

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.

I'm not dictating anything to anyone. I'm merely relaying the implications of the mechanics of the game as they stood. They could also get themselves a founder or failing that found their own region. Yeah, trade-offs are inherently 'unfair' because you generally can't have your cake and eat it.

By the same token invasion-griefing drives people to the game, as I personally know when I signed-up after reading 'All About Influence'.