Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

[Bears Armed]

Second, if a stupid GA resolution is repealed, things go back the way they were. The stats change back,

I thought that it was only halfway back?

[Ardchoille]

But that still leaves me with this problem: however justified, however necessary, it may be, this category would hit the Founder of a raided nation; the most prominent native member of the region, already punished by being raided, is further punished by the WA for the crime of being raided?

Is it not usually true though that the vast majority of regions raided are founderless, because the very nature of a founder and of raiding means that invading a region with an active founder would be suicide.

This therefore means that I cannot see this resolution being used on a region with an active founder, meaning I can't really see how it effects their power.

Then if it won't be used on a region with an active Founder, why mention the Founder in the proposed category at all?

RL events happen to Founders, events as big as emergency surgery or road accidents or muggings, events as small as computer breakdowns. Even the most active Founders can be dragged by happenstance away from their regions, and in that period it is possible for raiders to invade. If it's not a raid/defend region, the Delegate may very well have little or no knowledge of how to react; he may not have access to regional controls, he may not even know it's happened until he's suddenly not Delegate any more. Back comes the Founder and kicks out the invaders, slams a password on, makes it all better -- is it any wonder we non-raiders are passionate about our Founders? I would oppose any category that took power from a Founder, no matter how unlikely it was to actually happen. Chip away at the powers of the Founder and suddenly we're all forced into playing raid/defend, or into spending time preventing ourselves from being forced into raid/defend.

[The Sedge]

If this only applied to delegates, rather than to founders, would you still object to it?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes, sorry, but I just don't get your argument. As I understand it, this category would be applied to a region that had been taken over by a raider. So if Atlantic Oasis were taken over by a raider, it could then be made subject to an Open Immigration order. Why wouldn't it be taken over (apart from the obvious -- that its Founder is alarmingly active, and that it would have many non-raid/defend nations who would try, in our bumbling way, to help)? Of my four active nations, three have been in quiet, non-raid/defending regions, and those three have all been raided. When did raiders start leaving obscure or easy targets alone?

I didn't say that those regions never get raided. I said it's very unlikely that they'd be the target of an "Open Immigration" resolution. I may be wrong, but I haven't yet seen a single quorum'd SC resolution targeted to a backwater, relatively unknown region, whether or not that region was raided. It's early in the game, but do you really think "Open Immigration for Arseilles" would honestly reach the voting floor, just because some raiders kicked and banned everybody? I don't. That's not to say I like the resolution type; I don't like the argument.

[Ardchoille]

If this only applied to delegates, rather than to founders, would you still object to it?

I don't think so. I'd have to think about the implications, because I obviously wouldn't see them as quickly as an active raider/defender. Then, too, I would be concerned about an excess of resolutions that tipped the balance too far one way or the other; if raiders find it too hard to get prestige regions they'll go for easy targets, and non-practised regions are bound to be easier than those that are professionally on watch, so that would make life more unpleasant for small, obscure, new or Founderless regions that don't want anything to do with that side of the game. I wouldn't want to see it legislated out of existence, because some players plainly find pleasure and involvement in it, but I wouldn't want it to be inescapable, either.

Right now, though, I think we should wait until we've seen more of the implications of Liberation proposals. I'd rather see how they stack up: whether they really are subject to bloc manipulation, whether they're judiciously applied or every man and his dog can push one through with a bit of oratorical flim-flammery, what sort of discrimination WA members show in voting for them and whether the SC is able to establish a reputation for probity and lack of bias in its decisions. That should influence how subsequent categories are written: whether they need to be strictly limited and explicitly stated, as GA ones are (supposed to) be.

What I mean is, the GA ones got to be the way they are as a result of a bunch of sneaky intelligent people trying to find ways to get around them. So I'd like to see what sort of rabbits the SC writers pull out of hats, first.

[Urgench]

Glen-Rhodes, sorry, but I just don't get your argument. As I understand it, this category would be applied to a region that had been taken over by a raider. So if Atlantic Oasis were taken over by a raider, it could then be made subject to an Open Immigration order. Why wouldn't it be taken over (apart from the obvious -- that its Founder is alarmingly active, and that it would have many non-raid/defend nations who would try, in our bumbling way, to help)? Of my four active nations, three have been in quiet, non-raid/defending regions, and those three have all been raided. When did raiders start leaving obscure or easy targets alone?

I didn't say that those regions never get raided. I said it's very unlikely that they'd be the target of an "Open Immigration" resolution. I may be wrong, but I haven't yet seen a single quorum'd SC resolution targeted to a backwater, relatively unknown region, whether or not that region was raided. It's early in the game, but do you really think "Open Immigration for Arseilles" would honestly reach the voting floor, just because some raiders kicked and banned everybody? I don't. That's not to say I like the resolution type; I don't like the argument.

I don't like this argument that just because things are unlikely they should not be considered in a decision making process, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Frequently it is the unlikely and therefore the discounted outcome which becomes the serious defect in any process of this kind.

If you presume that the worst case senario will never happen and you don't factor it in to your decision making you can be certain that the worst case senario will in fact pop up to bite you in the arse, it's Sod's Law.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't like this argument that just because things are unlikely they should not be considered in a decision making process, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Frequently it is the unlikely and therefore the discounted outcome which becomes the serious defect in any process of this kind.

If you presume that the worst case senario will never happen and you don't factor it in to your decision making you can be certain that the worst case senario will in fact pop up to bite you in the arse, it's Sod's Law.

It really goes both ways, then. You can't dismiss an idea simply because it might have an undesirable outcome amid myriad desirable ones. Granted, Kenny probably doesn't find any outcomes desirable in this situation. There are always messes and abuses.

[Urgench]

I don't like this argument that just because things are unlikely they should not be considered in a decision making process, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Frequently it is the unlikely and therefore the discounted outcome which becomes the serious defect in any process of this kind.

If you presume that the worst case senario will never happen and you don't factor it in to your decision making you can be certain that the worst case senario will in fact pop up to bite you in the arse, it's Sod's Law.

It really goes both ways, then. You can't dismiss an idea simply because it might have an undesirable outcome amid myriad desirable ones. Granted, Kenny probably doesn't find any outcomes desirable in this situation. There are always messes and abuses.

As it goes I'm not one for completely dismissing ideas ( despite my unearned reputation ) I'm more interested in seeing how a radical ( but possibly destructive ) idea could be ameliorated with precautions. But apparently I hate everything so I should probably shut up.

[The Sedge]

Having spoken to a couple of other defenders, our general feeling is that this is not necessary at the moment, and may be too strong a limit on raiding. The liberation resolutions help to combat griefing, but this seems to be more of a hindrance on raiding. Defenders have switchers, and are prepared to make several attempts at liberating regions which are occupied. An invader delegate can't be online at every single update (especially if we have the 2nd one introduced), so eventually a region can be liberated through sheer perseverance. While this idea is interesting, I wouldn't support it being introduced now, as I don't see it as being necessary for liberating regions being griefed.

[Glen-Rhodes]

As it goes I'm not one for completely dismissing ideas ( despite my unearned reputation ) I'm more interested in seeing how a radical ( but possibly destructive ) could be ameliorated with precautions. But apparently I hate everything so I should probably shut up.

The more one plays the victim, the more likely another is to play the persecutor. Anyways, I've been talking about Kenny, not Urgench.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

In my opinion I would advise holding off its implementation until the true effects of liberation are assessed. However, it will be ineffective if a password is in place.

[Tanaara]

I object because it sounds like regions that have little to absolutely no WA interaction - and Want None- could therefore be forced to allow nations in that they have no interest in having in.

My region has a password for a reason. We have no interest in having wandering nations in, much less having uninvited nations in. We have every right to choose who joins our region and to have the WA make it otherwise is unacceptable.

It would be utterly unfair for a WA resolution to force us to let in nations we don't want!

[Kandarin]

I object because it sounds like regions that have little to absolutely no WA interaction - and Want None- could therefore be forced to allow nations in that they have no interest in having in.

My region has a password for a reason. We have no interest in having wandering nations in, much less having uninvited nations in. We have every right to choose who joins our region and to have the WA make it otherwise is unacceptable.

It would be utterly unfair for a WA resolution to force us to let in nations we don't want!

I'm having a really hard time picturing any remotely plausible scenario in which Fatal Terrain is the target of a successful Open Immigration resolution, and the implausible ones require you to first get the WA interaction you now avoid and to do so on a grand scale. This wouldn't affect you.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm having a really hard time picturing any remotely plausible scenario in which Fatal Terrain is the target of a successful Open Immigration resolution, and the implausible ones require you to first get the WA interaction you now avoid and to do so on a grand scale. This wouldn't affect you.

But apparently, that's not a valid argument, because it's possible, even though it's not plausible... which means that the possibility is going to somehow lead to the realization of backwater regions being affected. The logic escapes me, but it must be correct because of Murphy's Law! Even though it is an adage, not an actual, die-hard, law. I counter with this!

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I counter with this!

Well, allow me to retort. With this:

[Urgench]

I object because it sounds like regions that have little to absolutely no WA interaction - and Want None- could therefore be forced to allow nations in that they have no interest in having in.

My region has a password for a reason. We have no interest in having wandering nations in, much less having uninvited nations in. We have every right to choose who joins our region and to have the WA make it otherwise is unacceptable.

It would be utterly unfair for a WA resolution to force us to let in nations we don't want!

I'm having a really hard time picturing any remotely plausible scenario in which Fatal Terrain is the target of a successful Open Immigration resolution, and the implausible ones require you to first get the WA interaction you now avoid and to do so on a grand scale. This wouldn't affect you.

I suspect there is a veritable wealth of things you might have a hard time picturing, but all it takes is someone with somewhat more imagination than you to turn this idea to nefarious purposes, and I am willing to bet that there is a plethora of people with a greater quotient of imagination than you.

[Unibot]

I suspect there is a veritable wealth of things you might have a hard time picturing, but all it takes is someone with somewhat more imagination than you to turn this idea to nefarious purposes, and I am willing to bet that there is a plethora of people with a greater quotient of imagination than you.

Well, I don't claim to be more imaginative than Kandarin.

But, I'd imagine if I was a raider. I would immediately join this forum with a WA puppet, and start drafting a proposal to Open Immigration to "Smallregiona". I'd go onto NSwiki, write up an article about it, briefly discussing the invaders that recently invaded, and caused trouble. Then create a fake forums for the region, (Smallregiona is one of the moderate regional powers without a forum, or a strong community thats well represented). Invisionfree is good, but Zetaboards is better for setting up a quick forum that looks impressive. Hack the CSS and change it to suggest that the forums is well used (not hard to do), or even better, just leave it fairly empty and suggest that the lacking community barely uses their forums or they are brand new. With even a small raiding group you could fill a blank forums with random junk that looks like regional community babble, fairly quickly.

Then the important part, create a thread that's discussing the recent takeover, a teary section where people cry over their region being pillaged.

You strike the draft, post the links to the forum, NSwiki, and the Region's page as proof...

You suggest that the raider group in charge of the raid, was in fact the one you're working for (but you're hiding that!), and that the current delegate of "Smallregiona" is a tyrannical raider working for them.

As a raider group you send a small group of puppets to the Smallregiona's RMB and post messages in a foreign language to English, Macedonian works good because Google Translate doesn't translate the Macedonian language well. The messages suggests "we have control of your region!", but have done no such action. The people in the region will just respond to it with silly replies like "I don't speak Spanish mannn...!"

Using a different puppet than the one that posted on the RMB, you send some threats to the delegate of defenders coming to the region, to capture the delegacy. The small region's delegate, is confused, and bans the puppet. This helps him look more like a tyrannical delegate. If he posts on the RMB, it will be 'that the banned guy worked for those damned defenders'.

All of this would be just my extra security that the proposal-writers are going to be convinced. You probably wouldn't need to do all this, but if I were to lie to a 1,000 people, I would want my bases covered. Most people aren't even going to check the region though.

"Smallregiona" gets an Open Immigration, the invaders swoop into the delegacy.

Then its a straight numbers game I suppose. I don't know if raiders would favor there or not. Unless they could convince someone to pass a repeal, but that would stretch my abilities of lieing wayy too thin.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

I suspect there is a veritable wealth of things you might have a hard time picturing, but all it takes is someone with somewhat more imagination than you to turn this idea to nefarious purposes, and I am willing to bet that there is a plethora of people with a greater quotient of imagination than you.

Well, I don't claim to be more imaginative than Kandarin.

But, I'd imagine if I was a raider. I would immediately join this forum with a WA puppet, and start drafting a proposal to Open Immigration to "Smallregiona". I'd go onto NSwiki, write up an article about it, briefing discussing the invaders that recently invaded, and caused trouble. Then create a fake forums for the region, (Smallregiona is one of the moderate regional powers without a forum, or a strong community thats well represented). Invisionfree is good, but Zetaboards is better for setting up a quick forum that looks impressive. Hack the CSS and change it too suggest that the forums is well used (not hard to do), or even better, just leave it fairly empty and suggest that the lacking community barely uses their forums or they are brand new. With even a small raiding group you could fill a blank forums with random junk that looks like regional community babble, fairly quickly.

Then the important part, create a thread that's discussing the recent takeover, a teary section where people cry over their region being pillaged.

You strike the draft, post the links to the forum, NSwiki, and the Region's page as proof...

You suggest that the raider group in charge of the raid, was in fact the one you're working for (but you're hiding that!), and that the current delegate of "Smallregiona" is a tyrannical raider working for them.

As a raider group you send a small group of puppets to the Smallregiona's RMB and post messages in a foreign language to English, Macedonian works good because Google Translate doesn't translate the Macedonian language well. The messages suggests "we have control of your region!", but have done no such action. The people in the region will just respond to it with silly replies like "I don't speak Spanish mannn...!"

Using a different puppet than the one that posted the RMB, you send some threats to the delegate of defenders coming to the region, to capture the delegacy. The small region's delegate, is confused, and bans the puppet. This helps him look more like a tyrannical delegate. If he posts on the RMB, it will be 'that the banned guy worked for those damned defenders'.

All of this would be just my extra security that the proposal-writers are going to be convinced. You probably wouldn't need to do all this, but if I were to lie to a 1,000 people, I would want my bases covered. Most people aren't even going to check the region though.

"Smallregiona" gets an Open Immigration, the invaders swoop into the delegacy.

Then its a straight numbers game I suppose. I don't know if raiders would favor there or not. Unless they could convince someone to pass a repeal, but that would stretch my abilities of lieing wayy too thin.

My God. That's brilliant. And diabolical.

I'm hearing Sympathy for the Devil in my head for some reason.

[Kandarin]

A vast, complicated game of Xanatos Roulette that is dependent on conditions that are only present in a few regions, successful timing including predicting events weeks or months in advance that are far outside of any one group's control, requires simultaneously fooling dozens of groups from several different backgrounds while keeping quiet anyone with any history of the region to the contrary, and also involves a large number of people, some with mad hacking skills, all of whom must be totally on board and which, in the end, nets a wee RP region that the invaders can't eject people from

Paraphrase mine. If anyone in NS has the power, numbers of pure loyalists, connections, charisma, and sheer godlike intellect to pull that off without a hitch, they don't deserve the game trying to block them from doing it. They deserve a medal. And if that's what needs to happen for this category to get abused, I'd say we're not in much danger.

[Unibot]

Eh, I once convinced my region that we were raided by a group of notorious invaders, banned half the people, and even managed to convince some famous defenders that the Brotherhood of Blood had invaded by region (I got a laugh out of that one, because they started giving me advice on how to handle the Brotherhood). Its not that hard to convince people acting in fear, and once you convince them, everyone else follows suit. I did it for an NS Essay on Fear as a Political tactic in Regional Communities. No one doubted that a raiding group hadn't hit the region, between the WFE being trashed, and the RMB being cleared - all I had to do was pretend they attacked before the update (which use to be very late at night for many of the members of my region).

[Unibot]

My God. That's brilliant. And diabolical.

I'm hearing Sympathy for the Devil in my head for some reason.

Though I know you're making fun of me, I must state the pure freaky coincidence that I'm listening to that Stone's song right now at this freaking moment. Weird.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

My God. That's brilliant. And diabolical.

I'm hearing Sympathy for the Devil in my head for some reason.

Though I know you're making fun of me, I must state the pure freaky coincidence that I'm listening to that Stone's song right now at this freaking moment. Weird.

I was serious.

[Unibot]

Oh thanks, I suppose.

By the way - I haven't done a social experiment with my region in a long time, if you're wondering... I won't anymore, because people are in the region other than school friends that I dragged into NS.

[The Altani Federation]

This strikes me as a case of "let's add something shiny and new 'cuz it's cool" before we've even worked out the bugs in the existing "shiny and new and cool" things that have already been added.

Utterly opposed. If a region wants to ban someone, they should be able to. And if a region would prefer that their Founder not be castrated by WA fiat, that's their right as well.

[Greenlandic People]

This strikes me as a case of "let's add something shiny and new 'cuz it's cool" before we've even worked out the bugs in the existing "shiny and new and cool" things that have already been added.

Utterly opposed. If a region wants to ban someone, they should be able to. And if a region would prefer that their Founder not be castrated by WA fiat, that's their right as well.

Quoted for truth.