NationStates

Kshrlmnt wrote: But if we're talking opinions on candidates' merits, you have mine there. Similarly, in my raiding experience, Wordy's one of the best I think I've gone against when it came to stealth and chase instead of the detags and libs a lot of defenders do, nowadays, and that could be valuable.

Let me stress once again that this is in the Technical forum. We're not necessarily looking for the best Raider, Defender, or Native - we're looking for stakeholders that not only understand the politics of gameplay, but who also have enough technical knowledge to make suggestions based on how that experience meshes with the mechanics of gameplay.

If you'll look back at Point 5 in the Terms of Reference in the original post, we're looking for technical solutions that our admins can implement. It may be that being a great raider / defender / native might be synonymous with understanding the technical back end of how things work. However, anyone ignorant of how the current (and past) system works will quickly find themselves at a disadvantage in the summit.

I've posted a thread inviting players to pull together a simple list of the various tech proposals of the past year or two. That should provide at least a baseline of some of the things we've discussed, and that merit further discussion in the Summit.

Kshrlmnt wrote:On yet another note, I don't see many imperialists applying....

If none of them want to apply, that's their choice.

Riemst, Belschaft, I see similarities between us with regards to natives and that they're sitting ducks.

Maybe we can talk a bit among each other and put forward some ideas, regardless of who gets chosen(if any at all)? I have something, but I'm not totally sure if it has been suggested yet somewhere, I don't see it on the collaborative list at least.

The Most Glorious Hack wrote:

Kshrlmnt wrote:On yet another note, I don't see many imperialists applying....

If none of them want to apply, that's their choice.

Wouldn't that skew any outcome from the Summit?

Oh, I've been wondering, will the NS community as a whole be able to comment and suggest alterations on any proposed changes coming from this Summit before they are implemented?

The Blaatschapen wrote:Riemst, Belschaft, I see similarities between us with regards to natives and that they're sitting ducks.

Maybe we can talk a bit among each other and put forward some ideas, regardless of who gets chosen(if any at all)? I have something, but I'm not totally sure if it has been suggested yet somewhere, I don't see it on the collaborative list at least.

yes we should talk. I don't care if i'm chosen. as long as my viewpoints are represented i'm happy.

but... where do we talk?

Riemstagrad wrote:

The Blaatschapen wrote:Riemst, Belschaft, I see similarities between us with regards to natives and that they're sitting ducks.

Maybe we can talk a bit among each other and put forward some ideas, regardless of who gets chosen(if any at all)? I have something, but I'm not totally sure if it has been suggested yet somewhere, I don't see it on the collaborative list at least.

yes we should talk. I don't care if i'm chosen. as long as my viewpoints are represented i'm happy.

but... where do we talk?

IRC?

Belschaft wrote:

Riemstagrad wrote:
yes we should talk. I don't care if i'm chosen. as long as my viewpoints are represented i'm happy.

but... where do we talk?

IRC?

On there. I made #natives on esper. Just join in I guess.

Kshrlmnt wrote:On yet another note, I don't see many imperialists applying....

It's still very early. You'll no doubt see a focused imperialist delegation present themselves. It is my hope though that the more moderate voices on the raider side don't get shouted down in this particular discussion because they, in my opinion, are the most likely to be able to articulate and accept reasonable compromise.

I have generally not agreed with the direction of NationStates admin/mod team since the implementation of the influence system. I agree that there were problems but I don’t believe the influence system was the answer to those problems. With respect to addressing the current R/D paradigm I find myself in wholehearted agreement with the mod team in their pursuit of people who can articulate a particular ideology, for lack of a better phrase, versus the most notable subscribers of any one ideology.

If I read between the lines of this Summit and its intent, it’s to have a very serious conversation about the dynamic between raiders and defenders that emphasizes the actual dynamic in play and not the personalities, petty conflicts, or snarky banter that usually accompanies raider/defender discussions.

Not that those aren’t to watch sometimes…

And if I am reading the spirit behind this Summit correctly, then I believe it is imperative that rather than having notable raiders, defenders, or natives (who’s a notable native anyway?), the Summit needs a cross-section of ideologies and people who have the ability to illuminate the finer points of said ideologies while synergizing with some of their antithetical counterparts. If notable players also happen to have the ability to do this then great, but seems like notoriety is not a primary requirement. I like that, honestly.

Also, I feel a weighty responsibility around this Summit. As a gameplayer who has has a number of conversations with gameplayers who have long since moved on from this game, one of the qualms we had with the moderation team is that we didn’t feel we had a voice. One the previous page, one moderator explained how mods have been careful not to interject themselves into Gameplay with a few exceptions (CG and Sedge, for example). While I believe that has been a worthwhile pursuit, I believe it has put us Gameplayers at a disadvantage for years because the game we played was very different from the one played by the “powers that be”, as it were. I believe this Summit gives the Gameplayers the chance we have always desired – a seat at the moderation table where we can voice our concerns and be heard. I am getting ahead of myself, but if this Summit is successful and we Gameplayers demonstrate to the moderators our ability to work with the moderation team to better the game…who knows what could happen next – and influence Summit? Just sayin’ you never know. 

One of the things I’d suggest to all participants and if selected I will definitely do this is solicit feedback from like-minded people who may not be an official participant. Summit participants essentially will represent a particular ideology and how I’ve tried to best represent people is to solicit their input on issues being discussed. Especially in the feeders, there are many folks like myself who are not on one side or the other of the R/D paradigm but who are intimately affected by the paradigm. As a participant of this Summit, I believe we have a responsibility to attempt to bring in as many of the shared ideas our perspective represents.

I’m going to end my novel here but I really do appreciate the mod team putting this together and I hope that whoever participates in this summit, we strike a balance in the R/D paradigm that brings back the political machinations that used to be necessary to be successful in this game. My bias yes, but my hope is that this summit moves us closer to that endpoint and I look forward to discussing, debating, and understanding the various R/D viewpoints throughout the summit.

Punk Daddy wrote:One of the things I’d suggest to all participants and if selected I will definitely do this is solicit feedback from like-minded people who may not be an official participant.

I know several people who are already working and thinking about this too

This urges a question to the mods: If we have a thread here that sollicits feedback from a particular group, can we limit the thread to said particular group(more or less; especially hard since technically everyone is a native somewhere)? Otherwise we'd end up with four or five discussions on the same topic, with the same debates, with the same raiders/defenders dominating the discussion

The Blaatschapen wrote:This urges a question to the mods: If we have a thread here that sollicits feedback from a particular group, can we limit the thread to said particular group(more or less; especially hard since technically everyone is a native somewhere)? Otherwise we'd end up with four or five discussions on the same topic, with the same debates, with the same raiders/defenders dominating the discussion

No one should be disallowed from giving their perspective on any subject, or else this would become closer to a set of separate panels than a true summit, would it not? Why penalize any Invaders/Raiders or Defenders for being more 'emotionally dominant' than others?

Perhaps each participant could be allowed a [CLOSED] thread in this forum, where they can solicit input to, and discussion on, their posts in the summit. They could invite any nations they wanted, as well as entertain requests via telegram for invitation.

Monsters From the Id wrote:
No one should be disallowed from giving their perspective on any subject, or else this would become closer to a set of separate panels than a true summit, would it not? Why penalize any Invaders/Raiders or Defenders for being more 'emotionally dominant' than others?

That's not what I said at all. Also, fix my quote, please. Now it looks like Punk Daddy said it.

Could always make a separate thread on gameplay for your ideas/discussions.

Evil Lord Sauron wrote:Could always make a separate thread on gameplay for your ideas/discussions.

Well, my first impression is that it would get kind of cluttery, and if they all had to do directly with the summit, why not have them...in the summit subforum? Also, I believe that moderators would like to keep all this confined to the Technical forum, if anywhere, because it has to do with technical changes to the game, not the personal dynamics of raiders and defenders.

EDIT: I think the question here is not where, but WHETHER to allow this kind of topic.

Siv's logic is amazingly faulty. Since he's not even a 'native' in the context of the R/D game, he holds absolutely no stake.

Let me clarify, as it seems my wording was too polite.

MGP has showed up in regions I enjoy.

= invaded

Civilian

= native

Maybe I missed this, but is there a date for when nominations will end?

Lyanna Stark wrote:Maybe I missed this, but is there a date for when nominations will end?

There's a rough timeline here.

The Blaatschapen wrote:This urges a question to the mods: If we have a thread here that sollicits feedback from a particular group, can we limit the thread to said particular group(more or less; especially hard since technically everyone is a native somewhere)? Otherwise we'd end up with four or five discussions on the same topic, with the same debates, with the same raiders/defenders dominating the discussion

I don't think it'd be possible to have a mod-enforced limit on who participates, but you can make clear in the OP whose opinions you're soliciting. Also, it'd have to be a general "Group X's views" thread rather than "Group X's views on Suggestion Y" or we'd end up with dozens of threads on Suggestion Y alone.

Erastide wrote:I'm still a bit confused on what people that are not the nominees are meant to say about the nominees themselves. Assuming the nominee does a good job on their own with their self nomination and you agree with what they said, is there anything more to say? And if you think the person is being untrue or a poor candidate, you want people to detail the reasons why?

Reppy mentions supporting links, but since we're talking gameplay, a huge portion of links that might occur would likely be to offsite forums, many of which would probably restrict access.

If there's nothing more to say, well then there's no need to add anything But if people want to add reasons why we should consider someone - or discount them, then you are allowed to make them. Some of the mods know/know of most gameplayers, but others don't. Preferably nothing longer than the 300 words that nominations get (we don't want to have to wade through walls of text), and links should only be posted when necessary for similar reasons.

Obviously the usual rules apply, so "don't choose him; he's an arsehole" is out (even if he is an arsehole). That should be obvious, though.

Moronist Decisions wrote:Is there a way of making such comments confidentially?

Getting Help Request - though make clear that it's about the summit.

Crushing Our Enemies wrote:Perhaps each participant could be allowed a [CLOSED] thread in this forum, where they can solicit input to, and discussion on, their posts in the summit. They could invite any nations they wanted, as well as entertain requests via telegram for invitation.

As Summit Chair, I don't have a problem with this idea. As I understand it, the subforum is open to new threads by anyone. I think it's entirely reasonable to have threads that aren't argumentative, but collaborative. I'd prefer that it be politely player-enforced, but we'll cross that bridge if we get there.

Would it be acceptable to simply say that threads are owned by the OP, as is done in the RP forums? That way player-enforcement is assumed, but with some weight behind it.

For now, not. If we find that needs changing, we'll re-consider - but for now, we'd prefer the general commentary on the summit to need minimal moderating.

The Blaatschapen wrote:That's not what I said at all. Also, fix my quote, please. Now it looks like Punk Daddy said it.

Apologies; I overlooked erasing part of it the syntax. Meanwhile...

I guess I am opposed to limiting feedback in the way you suggest. If certain individuals show up in dialogue after dialogue, then they're simply that aggressive in their beliefs.