Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

[Erastide]

New Security Council resolution category: Open Immigration

This would allow a nominated region to be open to anyone. If passed as a WA resolution, the region's banlist (if any) is wiped clean, and the region cannot have a banlist so long as the resolution stands.

Thoughts:
This would apply to regions with founders and regions without founders. If the region has a founder, they too would not be able to ban someone.

If a region has a password, that password is still in effect. Which would make this resolution rather pointless, so I would hope people didn't propose it for such regions.

If you include ejections, that means people that move in have no possibility of getting kicked out, so defenses would be quite a bit easier (a battle of sheer numbers). If you make it just bans, then defenses would have to occur at update times in the battle for delegacy. And the delegate would have some chance of kicking people out as they enter.

Scenario time:
Someone invades, they are delegate. They are unable to set a password for some period of time (assume long enough for a resolution to pass). During that time, defenders try to take it back but are rebuffed and banned from the region. (maybe some natives kicked too). It appears the invaders are there for a long haul. Resolution is suggested, quorum, voting (week plus time). Resolution goes into effect, now it's free entry for anyone the invaders have banned. Now, in a smaller region, the invaders (if intent on griefing) would most likely go for an invisible password rather than banning natives (leading to a Liberation proposal). But in a larger region with well established nations, the time to get a password would be quite long, so this could make a defense more feasible.

[Todd McCloud]

This really, really hinders the raiding game.


Very much against this one.

[Erastide]

Can you be more specific?

[Todd McCloud]

Can't really raid here. No real point if the natives / defenders are allowed to come back into a region and get a 'second chance'. Raiders don't normally get a second chance, so I don't really believe in this. Defenders should be organized and trained enough to mount a few attempts even with the current set of rules and WA standards.

EDIT: It's also pointless. Defenders could always just get another puppet and WA it for a second offense.

[Good Housekeeping]

Thoughts:
This would apply to regions with founders and regions without founders. If the region has a founder, they too would not be able to ban someone.

One unintended consequence would potentially be more "Getting Help" complaints to moderators, against nations who spam regional message boards or are otherwise offensive to the said region.

If you include ejections, that means people that move in have no possibility of getting kicked out, so defenses would be quite a bit easier (a battle of sheer numbers).

What about nations already ejected from their native regions? Would they would be allowed back into the region?

Now, in a smaller region, the invaders (if intent on griefing) would most likely go for an invisible password rather than banning natives (leading to a Liberation proposal). But in a larger region with well established nations, the time to get a password would be quite long, so this could make a defense more feasible.

Would those ejected be afforded the ability to return to such regions?

These questions aside, it is an intriguing proposal -- though potentially unworkable because NS Moderation is going to have to be far more involved.

(And that said -- I share Todd McCloud's wariness with regards to the disproportionate impact upon raiders. I certainly believe there needs to be restrictions against griefing as now legally practiced especially against regions that never had listed founders. But going completely the other way I don't think is the solution).

[Kandarin]

The relationship of passwords and this resolution type is a serious problem. After all, with a secret password in place every raider kick is a ban. The relatively narrow window between the taking of a region and said passwording is also a problem. For this category to be effective, it'd have to be passed within that narrow window, which (unless this category somehow got absolute priority) would be subject to interference from the quorum of other SC resolutions, to say nothing of the General Assembly. If a passed resolution of this category failed to pass in that narrow window of time, and it is very likely that it would, its authors would also have to pass a Liberation to get any effect.

For this reason, I believe that a variant of this category that also forbade ejection itself would be better. The key elements of the concept would still be there while the possibility of ejection from a passworded region as a dirt-cheap but effective ban would be eliminated.

Now, the ramifications of this are what makes it complex...and ultimately, I think, more reasonable. The no-ejection version sounds worse for raiders, but it actually isn't. Or at least, it doesn't have to be. As experiencing all of the conflicts in the entire history of the Rejected Realms has taught me, conflict in an ejectionless region may be a battle of sheer numbers, but it is also a battle of wills. Without ejection, invaders could not remove incoming defenders, but defenders, if victorious, could not eject the entrenched invaders. It's a double-edged sword for both sides, which would encourage caution in would-be proposal writers and force them to consider whether the regional situation they claim is really the truth.

For example, it is easy to see how a resolution like this would lead to a defender victory...if the invaders they opposed were just there to utterly destroy and refound the region. Such invaders, if the resolution passed, would have no real choice but to give up on their now-futile goal. But it is equally easy to see how such a resolution could instead result in an invader victory. Invaders have frequently said (and it is not my place to say that they are always wrong) that the regions they invade are lifeless and populated with uncaring natives and that their takeovers act to rejuvenate and encourage growth in regions. If this sort of resolution was applied to a region where this raider claim was true, any defender attempt to 'liberate' the region by force would surely fail. For want of a significant organization of natives that could hold the region by their own force, defenders would face a choice between garrisoning the region forever and abandoning the mission to the (thus vindicated) invaders.

I think this is a fair compromise. Defenders, along with pretty much everyone who isn't a region-emptying invader, have expressed desire for tools to oppose region-wiping invader strategies. Meanwhile, invaders have called for less interference in raids where, so they say, the natives have no real case to make. A resolution type that blocked ejection would advance both causes at once.

[Naivetry]

I would agree with Kandarin on this one, but I'd like to hear from Todd et al.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Hm.

Don't much care for things that screw with the Founder's divine right of control over a region.

[Erastide]

Can't really raid here. No real point if the natives / defenders are allowed to come back into a region and get a 'second chance'. Raiders don't normally get a second chance, so I don't really believe in this. Defenders should be organized and trained enough to mount a few attempts even with the current set of rules and WA standards.

EDIT: It's also pointless. Defenders could always just get another puppet and WA it for a second offense.

I sincerely doubt you would see this passed on any region that hadn't already been invaded by raiders seeking to remain there. Who would want this as a preventative measure. So when raiders first enter a region, to get his in place would take at *least* a week, more like two I would presume. And in that time period, defenders would have made several attempts to take back the delegacy.

Thoughts:
This would apply to regions with founders and regions without founders. If the region has a founder, they too would not be able to ban someone.

One unintended consequence would potentially be more "Getting Help" complaints to moderators, against nations who spam regional message boards or are otherwise offensive to the said region.

If someone is spamming they should be reported regardless. But this would also be able to be repealed, so if a region was out of danger they could go back to normal.

If you include ejections, that means people that move in have no possibility of getting kicked out, so defenses would be quite a bit easier (a battle of sheer numbers).

What about nations already ejected from their native regions? Would they would be allowed back into the region?

Ejection by itself allows immediate reentry to a region. Banning does not. If a nation had been banned previously, they would be allowed back in.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Vehemently opposed to this.

[Erastide]

Vehemently opposed to this.

Again, care to say why?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Spammers can be reported, that doesn't mean they are deleted; other nuisances can be reported, that doesn't mean they are deleted. They can still come back. The banlist is not only a tool of defenders, you know. Those of us with our own non-raiding/defending regions make good use of it too. You'd be taking away one of our only means of keeping bad apples out. Besides, hasn't the Belgium Liberation debacle already shown you the folly of using the WA to screw with player settings just because we can?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Vehemently opposed to this.

Again, care to say why?

Basically, what Hack said.

I should have posted with my belligerent founder nation Nerdocrombesia and preached about founder's god-given right to banject at will. Maybe another time.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Besides, hasn't the Belgium Liberation debacle already shown you the folly of using the WA to screw with player settings just because we can?

This.

[Todd McCloud]

Again, fully against this. This would really hinder the raiding game of being in the region for the long haul and removing natives. It would make refounding quite difficult, and would give the defenders, again, the upper hand. Let me play it out:

In 2006, Fox Rite led a raid in San Francisco Bay Area. This is a region which pretty much deserved it - all the things they were doing to both raiders and defenders was amusingly destructive at the time, and raiders had wanted to get their hands on that region for years. Finally, we took it and moved in raiders, totally over one hundred (trust me, this is what raiding used to be like). Even with the 100+ nations in there, it still took about 3-4 months to refound. Now, let's say we had this WA thing in place. It would probably get passed, because despite what justification we had there is always and always will be a stigma against raiders, and it would turn SFBA into literally an orgy of nations, completely ruining the region and turning it into another Laz or Rejected Realms. Might seem like fun, but for all the hard work we put into that region, we would feel literally betrayed by the game - we fought hard for the region, played nice and I didn't put a password in place until all the natives were out, etc. Want to stick it to the raiding game? Allow this to happen.

This is *why* no one really raids The Rejected Realms or Laz. Just not worth keeping the troop numbers drained on there, and, with defenders and natives combined, their numbers will always trump raider numbers. Just the way it is. So now, if this thing gets passed, raiders can raid a region only to have the WA witch-hunt their raids to attempt to get them to not ban anyone anymore. So it kind of could kill off the defender game too = what's the point of defending if in a few weeks they could mess with the mechanics of the region and essentially kill off the raiding ability in that region?

Makes little sense to me, and I'm certain even some defenders would agree with me. Plus, as I pointed out, so long as a password isn't put on and the raid is a clean one, defenders *still* have multiple opportunities to take a region. How? Change out WA nation to one that isn't banned in the raided region, and shoot for a later date. It happens, the game is built that way. OR, spy or something like Belgium had done last night (thank goodness, I might add. I don't like password-grabs).

Basically, I don't think anyone can convince me this is a good thing. Unless, maybe, you allow us to mess with feeder mechanics so I can be elected as the founder of The East Pacific, but I'd imagine that is just as far-fetched as this.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Spammers can be reported, that doesn't mean they are deleted; other nuisances can be reported, that doesn't mean they are deleted. They can still come back. The banlist is not only a tool of defenders, you know. Those of us with our own non-raiding/defending regions make good use of it too. You'd be taking away one of our only means of keeping bad apples out. Besides, hasn't the Belgium Liberation debacle already shown you the folly of using the WA to screw with player settings just because we can?

Why would Antarctic Oasis, or any other non-raiding/defending regions, be the object of an "Open Immigration" resolution?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Because no resolution type can ever be subject to abuse, right, author of "Repeal NAZI EUROPE"?

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

Why would Antarctic Oasis, or any other non-raiding/defending regions, be the object of an "Open Immigration" resolution?

And why would a region be condemned that didn't deserve to be condemned? Why would a liberation resolution be passed for a region that has already been liberated? You're saying you can't envision any scenario in which an "Open Immigration" resolution is submitted out of spite and the WA passes it?

[Glen-Rhodes]

And why would a region be condemned that didn't deserve to be condemned? Why would a liberation resolution be passed for a region that has already been liberated? You're saying you can't envision any scenario in which an "Open Immigration" resolution is submitted out of spite and the WA passes it?

There are always abuses, but that doesn't answer my question. Why would Antarctic Oasis or any other non-raiding/defending region be the object of an "Open Immigration" resolution? It wouldn't, because these substantive resolutions are geared towards the raiding game. Somebody would have to paint AO as playing the raiding game, which would be false. Otherwise, do you really think the proposal would get that far? Condemn NAZI EUROPE got far because it condemned Nazism. The region name did the work. What does "Open Antarctic Oasis" have going for it?

It's our job, as experienced WA forumgoers and moderators, to weed out those abuses. If we throw out any abuse-prone resolution types, we might as well get rid of the World Assembly altogether.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

There are always abuses, but that doesn't answer my question. Why would Antarctic Oasis or any other non-raiding/defending region be the object of an "Open Immigration" resolution?

Why would NAZI EUROPE be targeted by a condemnation which was essentially a trolling effort as a proposal? Why would belgium be the subject of a liberation resolution when it has already been liberated? Yes, there will always be abuses. You speak the obvious.

I'm not going to have a multi-post argument with you on this Glen-Rhodes. You plainly have issues with admitting you are wrong and an almost pathological need to get the last word.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Why would NAZI EUROPE be targeted by a condemnation which was essentially a trolling effort as a proposal? Why would belgium be the subject of a liberation resolution when it has already been liberated? Yes, there will always be abuses. You speak the obvious.

I'm not going to have a multi-post argument with you on this Glen-Rhodes. You plainly have issues with admitting you are wrong and an almost pathological need to get the last word.

So, you aren't going to answer my question or respond to my post in any way, other than insulting my intelligence, of course. (I wouldn't expect anything less!)

Kenny's argument is bunk. There's no reasonable scenario in which Antarctic Oasis or any other backwater non-raiding/defending region with no stakes in the raiding game, would be the object of an "Open Immigration" resolution. Somebody might submit it, but it wouldn't be likely to reach quorum. Pointing to Condemn NAZI EUROPE and Liberate belgium is just plain stupid: those regions have notoriety, whether it be because of their name or because of an outspoken campaign to free them from raiders. AO, Jordia, or any other non-raiding/defending region is simply not that 'important'.

[Urgench]

Why would NAZI EUROPE be targeted by a condemnation which was essentially a trolling effort as a proposal? Why would belgium be the subject of a liberation resolution when it has already been liberated? Yes, there will always be abuses. You speak the obvious.

I'm not going to have a multi-post argument with you on this Glen-Rhodes. You plainly have issues with admitting you are wrong and an almost pathological need to get the last word.

So, you aren't going to answer my question or respond to my post in any way, other than insulting my intelligence, of course. (I wouldn't expect anything less!)

Kenny's argument is bunk. There's no reasonable scenario in which Antarctic Oasis or any other backwater non-raiding/defending region with no stakes in the raiding game, would be the object of an "Open Immigration" resolution. Somebody might submit it, but it wouldn't be likely to reach quorum. Pointing to Condemn NAZI EUROPE and Liberate belgium is just plain stupid: those regions have notoriety, whether it be because of their name or because of an outspoken campaign to free them from raiders. AO, Jordia, or any other non-raiding/defending region is simply not that 'important'.

I sometimes think you just like to be contrary GR. You've used exactly the opposite logic to justify repealing Condemn Nazi Europe, what's so different about this proposed category in comparison to Liberation and C&Cs is a complete mystery.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I sometimes think you just like to be contrary GR. You've used exactly the opposite logic to justify repealing Condemn Nazi Europe, what's so different about this proposed category in comparison to Liberation and C&Cs is a complete mystery.

I'm not disagreeing for the sake of being in disagreement. What I'm saying is that simply because a resolution type can be abused isn't a good argument to not implement it. Saying that someday, somehow, a backwater region that doesn't play the raiding game is going to be the target of a resolution like this isn't reasonable. It's like saying we should get rid of the Global Disarmament category simply because somebody might come along and try to ban militaries altogether. Possible? Yes. Likely? Probably not.

I'm not sure how my opinion on this is any different than my opinion on Condemn NAZI EUROPE. I didn't say, when arguing to repeal it, that we should get rid of C&Cs because they could be abused. When I first posted the draft, I made fun of how WA didn't moderate itself when Condemn NAZI EUROPE was in the approval stage. That condemnation happened because people weren't doing their due diligence. It's not the resolution type's fault that it went through.

EDIT: Though, it doesn't really matter. "Open Immigration" doesn't seem like it'll be implemented. I'm just irritated at that argument against it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No, you're just irritated at the people making the argument against it. But we forgive you.

[Erastide]

Again, fully against this. This would really hinder the raiding game of being in the region for the long haul and removing natives. It would make refounding quite difficult, and would give the defenders, again, the upper hand.

I don't think it's bad to have this option to stop refounding of a region that didn't want to be refounded.

In 2006, Fox Rite led a raid in San Francisco Bay Area. This is a region which pretty much deserved it - all the things they were doing to both raiders and defenders was amusingly destructive at the time, and raiders had wanted to get their hands on that region for years. Finally, we took it and moved in raiders, totally over one hundred (trust me, this is what raiding used to be like). Even with the 100+ nations in there, it still took about 3-4 months to refound. Now, let's say we had this WA thing in place. It would probably get passed, because despite what justification we had there is always and always will be a stigma against raiders, and it would turn SFBA into literally an orgy of nations, completely ruining the region and turning it into another Laz or Rejected Realms. Might seem like fun, but for all the hard work we put into that region, we would feel literally betrayed by the game - we fought hard for the region, played nice and I didn't put a password in place until all the natives were out, etc. Want to stick it to the raiding game? Allow this to happen.

I'm sorry, but you played nice by kicking out all the natives?

This is *why* no one really raids The Rejected Realms or Laz. Just not worth keeping the troop numbers drained on there, and, with defenders and natives combined, their numbers will always trump raider numbers. Just the way it is. So now, if this thing gets passed, raiders can raid a region only to have the WA witch-hunt their raids to attempt to get them to not ban anyone anymore. So it kind of could kill off the defender game too = what's the point of defending if in a few weeks they could mess with the mechanics of the region and essentially kill off the raiding ability in that region?

There are always going to be more regions than would be protected under this resolution. And as Kenny pointed out, I doubt any region would want this resolution in place unless they felt they needed it.