Notice about a related thread in Gameplay

[Old Hope]

This thread:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=453712&start=25
has implications on the World Assembly. Discussion takes place there, but it is definitely something GA and SC regulars might want to know about.

[Kuriko]

This thread:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=453712&start=25
has implications on the World Assembly. Discussion takes place there, but it is definitely something GA and SC regulars might want to know about.

Most of us here are aware, since the SC is heavily GP leaning. I don't see the idea taking off, and if it does I bet admin will do something to protect WA approvals.

[Galiantus III]

This thread:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=453712&start=25
has implications on the World Assembly. Discussion takes place there, but it is definitely something GA and SC regulars might want to know about.

Most of us here are aware, since the SC is heavily GP leaning. I don't see the idea taking off, and if it does I bet admin will do something to protect WA approvals.

It's basically guaranteed to take off, mainly because it is something any small military can do to filibuster a proposal (oh look, an RP way to explain this). And based on what I know, I expect this to happen increasingly often, especially in the SC.

As for admin, I wouldn't get your hopes up. There are clearly methods that could be used by gameplay regulars who support the WA to counter this, and Admin is not going to go change a thing simply because gameplayers don't want to form defensive organizations. This happened with raiding and defending, and they aren't removing raiding, so your options are either (a) get upset and say it's unfair, or (b) oppose those who do this, either with your words or with your actions.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Most of us here are aware, since the SC is heavily GP leaning. I don't see the idea taking off, and if it does I bet admin will do something to protect WA approvals.

It's basically guaranteed to take off, mainly because it is something any small military can do to filibuster a proposal (oh look, an RP way to explain this). And based on what I know, I expect this to happen increasingly often, especially in the SC.

As for admin, I wouldn't get your hopes up. There are clearly methods that could be used by gameplay regulars who support the WA to counter this, and Admin is not going to go change a thing simply because gameplayers don't want to form defensive organizations. This happened with raiding and defending, and they aren't removing raiding, so your options are either (a) get upset and say it's unfair, or (b) oppose those who do this, either with your words or with your actions.

Exactly how WA lean gameplayers can counter this? A series of rapid WA raiding can't be mostly successfully to be stop by defenders of its done on a tight trigger. It is only done by ones with quick reflexes and WA authors wouldn't be able to do anything except take time to notice who lost their approval but by that time you don't know if they can get online again to approve it again

[Bears Armed]

There are clearly methods that could be used by gameplay regulars who support the WA to counter this, and Admin is not going to go change a thing simply because gameplayers don't want to form defensive organizations.

When you resort to ''victim-blaming' to defend your actions, that's a fairly clear sign that they're indefensible.

[Frisbeeteria]

It's basically guaranteed to take off

You've been tilting at this windmill for the best part of six years now, and the windmill is stubbornly remaining a stone building. Insisting that it's an inflatable bouncy house won't make it one.

Congrats on a single successful raid night and all that, but your ego (or delusion or whatever it is) won't magically make everyone else start doing it.

[Galiantus III]

There are clearly methods that could be used by gameplay regulars who support the WA to counter this, and Admin is not going to go change a thing simply because gameplayers don't want to form defensive organizations.

When you resort to ''victim-blaming' to defend your actions, that's a fairly clear sign that they're indefensible.

First, that is not victim blaming. Second, whether this kind of gameplay is indefensible is entirely up for debate, but ultimately doesn't matter. An organization that utilizes blockers/filibusters could have quite a variety of motives. They could be ideologically opposed to the WA, they could just see it as fun, or they could be quite involved in and supportive of the WA, but simply wish to filibuster one specific proposal. Perhaps friends of an issue author could use this to block proposals to repeal their friend's issue. They could even use this defensively if the SC proposed an offensive liberation on a region.

It's basically guaranteed to take off

You've been tilting at this windmill for the best part of six years now, and the windmill is stubbornly remaining a stone building. Insisting that it's an inflatable bouncy house won't make it one.

Congrats on a single successful raid night and all that, but your ego (or delusion or whatever it is) won't magically make everyone else start doing it.

This is clearly a useful application of military gameplay, and it is frankly beyond me why practically no one has thought to use it. My goal is to spice up the game, and my actions were simply to dispel the notion that it is an ineffective strategy. If you think a display of how five people can have a strong impact is not evidence of that, you are the delusional one.

The only thing you are right about is that my ego won't magically make everyone else start doing this. Incidentally, I am suggesting people use it for purposes I might disagree with, and working with active militaries who think this would be fun. You are right - this absolutely does require some work from me to get it off the ground. I cannot just sit back and expect it to happen on its own.

[Old Hope]

This is clearly a useful application of military gameplay, and it is frankly beyond me why practically no one has thought to use it. My goal is to spice up the game, and my actions were simply to dispel the notion that it is an ineffective strategy.

Or... maybe people have thought about it and said "no". I mean, you have seen raiders saying that they won't pursue this.
This should be a red flag to you.

As for admin, I wouldn't get your hopes up. There are clearly methods that could be used by gameplay regulars who support the WA to counter this, and Admin is not going to go change a thing simply because gameplayers don't want to form defensive organizations.

It's not so much getting my hopes up than than knowing that the application of this tactic will lead to requests of admin actions, and said actions are actually quite likely to happen!
The following is possible if you form a group that regularly raids lots of approving delegates every time a nation makes a proposal that garners increased support:
Every proposal fails. Believe me, I know how this works. They will fail. All of them. It isn't easy to bring proposals to queue with campaigns, with you killing every support... Mind you, only one campaign telegram per proposal means that the proposer cannot even notify the people you unseated that they need to vote again.
But what happens next?
Admin will obviously be pestered. At that point I would definitely do this - you already know why.
Various things could happen:
1. Admin does nothing.
The WA ceases to function, people leave the game.
2. Admin closes off rapid WA on/off strategies.
Tag raiding practically ceases to exist. Some raiders leave the game. WA raiding keeps to be possible, but you can't unseat lots of delegates in a single update without equivalent numbers. This is obviously my favored approach.
3. Admin bans raiding.
Raiding ceases to exist, raiders either leave the game voluntarily or get DOS'ed. Mods need to handle what is raiding and what is not- a very bad thing.
4.A fourth option that will not magically fix things either.

Now, I am not sure what will actually happen, but I am not willing to risk getting 1 or 3.
Are you willing to risk getting 2 or 3? Because right now everything works. If you insist on doing WA raiding, then one thing will break.

[Galiantus III]

This is clearly a useful application of military gameplay, and it is frankly beyond me why practically no one has thought to use it. My goal is to spice up the game, and my actions were simply to dispel the notion that it is an ineffective strategy.

Or... maybe people have thought about it and said "no". I mean, you have seen raiders saying that they won't pursue this.
This should be a red flag to you.

Yes, there are raiders who won't pursue this. That is their personal taste, not a red flag.

As for admin, I wouldn't get your hopes up. There are clearly methods that could be used by gameplay regulars who support the WA to counter this, and Admin is not going to go change a thing simply because gameplayers don't want to form defensive organizations.

It's not so much getting my hopes up than than knowing that the application of this tactic will lead to requests of admin actions, and said actions are actually quite likely to happen!
The following is possible if you form a group that regularly raids lots of approving delegates every time a nation makes a proposal that garners increased support:
Every proposal fails. Believe me, I know how this works. They will fail. All of them. It isn't easy to bring proposals to queue with campaigns, with you killing every support... Mind you, only one campaign telegram per proposal means that the proposer cannot even notify the people you unseated that they need to vote again.
But what happens next?
Admin will obviously be pestered. At that point I would definitely do this - you already know why.
Various things could happen:
1. Admin does nothing.
The WA ceases to function, people leave the game.
2. Admin closes off rapid WA on/off strategies.
Tag raiding practically ceases to exist. Some raiders leave the game. WA raiding keeps to be possible, but you can't unseat lots of delegates in a single update without equivalent numbers. This is obviously my favored approach.
3. Admin bans raiding.
Raiding ceases to exist, raiders either leave the game voluntarily or get DOS'ed. Mods need to handle what is raiding and what is not- a very bad thing.
4.A fourth option that will not magically fix things either.

Now, I am not sure what will actually happen, but I am not willing to risk getting 1 or 3.
Are you willing to risk getting 2 or 3? Because right now everything works. If you insist on doing WA raiding, then one thing will break.

It sounds to me like the only thing Admin would do is modify the rules surrounding TG use, so that when an organization does one of these runs it is legal for a campaign to contact the delegate, explain what happened, and ask that they extend their approval again. And right now there also isn't anything keeping a group of nations from joining together and watching for when these operations happen, specifically so they can do just that. There are ways to counter this without looking to admin for major technical changes, you just aren't thinking of them.

[Ransium]

We don’t need this thread in three different forums. Gameplay is the correct place for it locked.