Xanthal's Drafting Thread [Invite Only]

[Xanthal]

I wanted very much to have this thread be open, but in the interest of staying on-task I've decided to follow the pack and close it. I've started with a list of Self-nominees who expressed an affiliation with the native perspective and were not selected as Representatives. If you want an invitation and think you would be a valuable and ongoing contributor to this discussion, please Telegram me. If you just have one thing to say, you can send your contribution to me directly via Telegram. I will be reading the open comment threads too, so please don't apply if you just want to comment broadly on the Summit rather than focus on native issues.

To keep things focused, I ask that participants address yourselves only to me rather than go back and forth with each other. If you disagree with something somebody else posts, tell me why rather than starting a debate with them. Make your case and let me respond to it if I have questions. We have limited time, and for better or worse, I am the one who needs to reach a conclusion and post in the closed Summit threads; protracted arguments are not helpful.

By the same token, I am probably not always going to share your opinion and my submissions will reflect that. The purpose of this thread is to bring ideas and perspectives to the table that I may not have fully considered, which could impact what I bring to the podium on behalf of my constituency. Accordingly, please be forthright in your posts, but respect that I cannot simultaneously agree with everybody, and that I must be faithful to what I conclude to be the best course. Also, just because I don't ultimately go your way on Issue A doesn't mean I don't want to hear what you have to say about Issue B. Remember: we're on a schedule, so it behooves us all to keep moving forward rather than dwell on settled issues.

Invitees
Ambassador of PUT
Astarial
Bears Armed
Crushing Our Enemies
Galiantus
Jamie Anumia
Mousebumples
Siv
Strawberrry Fields
Todd McCloud
Usual People In Life

[Xanthal]

[Summit #1] What's your ideal agenda?

Natives are a motley bunch, and useful to consider as a group mainly- as others have noted- for the shared characteristic that they are not raiders or defenders. Some cite this as a reason to marginalize them in a discussion of R/D. I see it as a colossal missed opportunity, one that I hope to be helpful in bringing to fruition. The current state of R/D has left natives outsiders, and as a result, often victims. Existing tools to secure a region are blunt instruments, and once an invader has seized power, natives are impotent, their only recourse appeals to the WASC and Defender organizations. Given this, it's little wonder that the only solution to their R/D woes many natives can see is opting out of the game entirely, either by Refounding or moving to a region with a Founder. This hurts everyone; shrinking the pool for raiders and defenders and further isolating natives from what is arguably the beating heart of the gameplay sphere. Making it easier for natives to withdraw their regions from R/D is not the answer.

The Influence system- as it is or with modifications- gives us a platform on which to build tools that allow natives to actively participate in their own defense. Properly calibrated, natives can have a defining impact on the fate of their region without crippling raiders or sidelining defenders. I believe it is time to move beyond the tired refrains of the existing debate and create a future for R/D wherein natives are not merely an often-reluctant backdrop, but a vital part of the contest. There will be difficulties in finding the correct balance, but this goes beyond a quick fix- it is an evolution of the game that will radically expand participation and curtail the deepening feelings of apathy and resentment that poison native perspectives on R/D. I believe we can do this, and though it will not be the simplest proposal on the table at this summit, I believe it can be not only possible, but practical.

This is my first run at an opening, currently running at 346 words out of a maximum 500. It's primarily a statement of principle, but I may incorporate some technical stuff. Largely, though, I want to leave details for [Summit #2], which I will write once I feel more confident about this one. Since I'm speaking broadly for natives, I'd like to know if there are particular issues you'd like me to bring up, bearing in mind this is a sort of psuedo-template for my agenda at the Summit. If you have core ideas you think I ought to incorporate into my platform, or reasons I should modify what I've already put down, now would be an excellent time to tell me.

[Mousebumples]

Thanks for the invite, Xanthal!

On the first read through, I'd probably suggest expanding further to touch on any specific technical suggestions you think may have merit/benefit to natives that you'd like to see considered in the summit. Examples might include a method to easier refounding, the "second update track" that [violet] mentioned here, etc.

I can't speak for what the mods have planned for this, going forward, but I would think that singling out specific potential changes would be especially helpful in perhaps ensuring that those possibilities are at least considered within the summit discussions.

EDIT: In light of [violet]'s most recent post, apparently this is not the approach to take. Anyhow, I have some questions about your statement above that I think could use further expanding upon - or at least, further rationale here, so I/we can perhaps make sure your post is as clear as possible.

Properly calibrated, natives can have a defining impact on the fate of their region without crippling raiders or sidelining defenders. I believe it is time to move beyond the tired refrains of the existing debate and create a future for R/D wherein natives are not merely an often-reluctant backdrop, but a vital part of the contest. There will be difficulties in finding the correct balance, but this goes beyond a quick fix- it is an evolution of the game that will radically expand participation and curtail the deepening feelings of apathy and resentment that poison native perspectives on R/D. I believe we can do this, and though it will not be the simplest proposal on the table at this summit, I believe it can be not only possible, but practical.

How? I mean, it's impossible - I'd figure - to know what will work, but do you have specific ideas as to help with this? As has been stated elsewhere, the timing of the updates (no matter _when_ they are) will not work for all WA Delegates to be around to protect their region from raiders. Plus, having every WAD on patrol for every update seems unlikely and unreasonable to expect. (Heck, Jakker wasn't around for an update when UDL tried to liberate Dharma - and he was the point person for an active raid!)

I think educational stuff would help, to some extent. When my region was raided, that's what I needed. What to do, who to talk to, etc. I would expect that many natives (especially those who are raided for the first time) could use that sort of assistance - but is that really germane to this summit?

So, I guess that's my question, really. What ideas do you have to help empower the natives and make them more involved in R/D and in self-protection? I think your "Ideal Agenda" post would be better suited to focus in on that, a bit more, and how/what you'd like to see in that regard.

[Xanthal]

[Summit #1] What's your ideal agenda?

Natives are a motley bunch, useful to consider as a group mainly- as others have noted- for the shared characteristic that they are not raiders or defenders. Some cite this as a reason to marginalize them in a discussion of R/D. I see it as a colossal missed opportunity, one that I hope to be helpful in bringing to fruition. The current state of R/D has left natives outsiders, and as a result, often victims. Existing tools to secure a region are blunt instruments, and once an invader has seized power, natives are impotent, their only recourse appeals to the WASC and Defender organizations. It's little wonder that the only solution to their R/D woes many natives can see is opting out of it entirely. This hurts everyone; shrinking the pool for raiders and defenders and further isolating natives from what is arguably the beating heart of the gameplay sphere.

The Influence system gives us a platform on which to build tools that allow natives to actively participate in their own defense. I want a future for R/D wherein natives are not merely an often-reluctant backdrop, but a vital part of the contest. This goes beyond a quick fix- it is an evolution of the game that will radically expand participation and curtail the deepening feelings of apathy and resentment that poison native perspectives on R/D. Though it will not be the simplest proposal on the table at this summit, I believe with the right approach it can be not only possible, but practical. To this end I see vast potential in variations on technical suggestions such as Galiantus' and COE's, which distribute power among a region's residents, replacing the current winner-take-all system of Executive Delegacy in Founderless regions. Astarial's Native Resistance proposal is also of great interest to me, not least in that it favors regions that make a concerted effort to save themselves. Mousebumples' Regional Custodian idea also bears serious consideration for special cases, though I'm wary that, improperly applied, it could become an easy "R/D opt-out."

In all these cases, the key for me is to seek out a sweet spot that makes it easier for natives to participate in their own defense, but not so powerful that defenders and the WASC become unnecessary, and doesn't deprive raiders of targets. While I stop short of the assertion that regions should never be allowed to function in isolation, to me every region that sequesters itself behind a Founder or a password is a failure of the effort to engage all players in the full range of what NationStates has to offer. The goal is to make people want to participate, not make it more appealing for them to withdraw.

Pass #2 for your consideration, incorporating input from Mousebumples, Unibot, and Cerian Quilor.

EDIT: written before I saw [violet]'s post (or Mouse's edit), but I still like the broad strokes; hinting at what I believe to be promising lines of inquiry without getting into the guts of technical suggestions. I may scale back on the references if I need the space, though. On that note, this version runs 457/500 words. I'm still soliciting input on matters of broad principle here; as I said, this is something of a cheat sheet for my entire agenda, so if there are things you think I've glazed over or that you disagree with, I'd like very much to hear about it so I can take that into consideration before finalizing the post, which I would ideally like to do by the end of tomorrow so I can shift my attention fully to [Summit #2].

[Xanthal]

In related news, since I will be considering their proposals as part of my platform, and because both have made contributions to the Summit debate so far that I deeply respect, I have added COE and Astarial to the list of thread Invitees.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Thank you for the invitation. I'll keep my comments brief, because I will naturally have plenty of room in the summit itself to express myself.

It would seem that you were tapped to represent the "native" interest in the summit, whatever that interest may be. For my part, I think if natives want to prevent raids from occurring, or get raiders out of their region, that's what defenders are for. Anyone who really wants to do that sort of thing can join a defender group. I think the real role of the natives in an R/D game is to prevent their region from being totally destroyed. It is part of the definition of a native (no matter what definition you read) that they are on their home turf. I think that carries with it a right to protect that turf. Notice, I say protect and not defend. I think natives should be empowered with tools to prevent a raider delegate from ejecting too many of their countrymen, and to prevent a password from being permanently enforced.

Now, I don't think region destruction should be impossible. This is still a game, in my mind, and there should be no forgone conclusions. Any new capabilities given to natives to protect should balance raider power to destroy, not overpower them. What results, in my mind (and I'll elaborate on this in my R/D nirvana post) is a game of wits and skill between raiders and natives. If the natives play their cards right, they hold out long enough for defenders to arrive, or even frustrate raiders' attempts to destroy the region so much that the raiders depart on their own. On the other hand, if the natives use their newfound powers unwisely or clumsily, or in an uncoordinated fashion, raiders' intentions will be little affected by them, much as it is today.

In short: if natives are given power to influence the R/D game, they should not simply come in on the side of defenders - that would be boring and unbalancing. They need to come in on their own side, a third faction, with the power to resist total destruction, but not the power to remove raiders from their region.

[Xanthal]

On that note, here's a first pass at [Summit #2], open for comment (word count 337/500). My goal is to post a finalized version of this tomorrow night. Also, a reminder that I plan to post [Summit #1] to the REP thread tonight, so if you have comments to make on it, do so in the next few hours to ensure I have time to consider and incorporate them!

[Summit #2] R/D Nirvana

In a sentence, I want to see a 3.5-pole R/D game, with natives playing a role separate from defenders in the maintenance of their sovereignty against raiders, and the WA Security Council serving as a populist spoiler the (0.5). I think we're already mostly there. Raiders and defenders have self-segregated into largely distinct camps, and the SC already intervenes where enough popular outrage can be mustered among the wider player base. The missing component is natives. Natives will continue to be the most common target of raids, but rather than simply being victims, they play an active role in their preservation while a raid is ongoing. Region destruction should be functionally possible only when fewer than 1.5 poles mobilize to a significant, reasonable standard against it. That is, without the efforts of both natives and counter-invaders (normally defenders, but raiders can function as "defenders," too, in some cases), or either plus the SC, it should be feasible for an invasion force to do as they please with a region within the boundaries of the gameplay mechanics. The cost of taking a region out of contention (setting passwords, refounding, et cetera) should be very high for both natives and invaders, allowing as many regions as possible to stay in the pool of R/D targets.

Natives must come to terms with the potential necessity of coming to their own aid if they wish to insure their region's independence, but that said, the standard of action for raiders and defenders should be higher than for natives; this for the simple reason that raiders and defenders choose to make R/D a primary pursuit, while natives generally have their own business in the game that are not R/D related (regional politics, role-playing, answering issues, et cetera), and cannot be reasonably expected to know the technical intricacies of R/D in advance, nor learn them in time to save their region once an invasion takes root. I'm envisioning push buttons and telegrams here, not scripts and detailed IRC chats with defenders.

I'm going out on a limb with a few of the things in this one, and I'm relying on you all to help me make sure I've considered all the aspects. Though it's largely a semantic concern, I am cautious of the danger of conflating the role of natives and defenders in preserving a region, so seizing on notes sounded by COE and Unibot, out of an abundance of clarity I'm going to make a concerted effort to not refer to native actions as "defending" in this Summit. As always, all constructive input is appreciated!

[Astarial]

[Summit #1] What's your ideal agenda?

Natives are a motley bunch, useful to consider as a group mainly- as others have noted- for the shared characteristic that they are not raiders or defenders. Some cite this as a reason to marginalize them in a discussion of R/D. I see it as a colossal missed opportunity, one that I hope to be helpful in bringing to fruition. The current state of R/D has left natives outsiders, and as a result, often victims. Existing tools to secure a region are blunt instruments, and once an invader has seized power, natives are impotent, their only recourse appeals to the WASC and Defender organizations. It's little wonder that the only solution to their R/D woes many natives can see is opting out of it entirely. This hurts everyone; shrinking the pool for raiders and defenders and further isolating natives from what is arguably the beating heart of the gameplay sphere.

The Influence system gives us a platform on which to build tools that allow natives to actively participate in their own defense. I want a future for R/D wherein natives are not merely an often-reluctant backdrop, but a vital part of the contest. This goes beyond a quick fix- it is an evolution of the game that will radically expand participation and curtail the deepening feelings of apathy and resentment that poison native perspectives on R/D. Though it will not be the simplest proposal on the table at this summit, I believe with the right approach it can be not only possible, but practical. To this end I see vast potential in variations on technical suggestions such as Galiantus' and COE's, which distribute power among a region's residents, replacing the current winner-take-all system of Executive Delegacy in Founderless regions. Astarial's Native Resistance proposal is also of great interest to me, not least in that it favors regions that make a concerted effort to save themselves. Mousebumples' Regional Custodian idea also bears serious consideration for special cases, though I'm wary that, improperly applied, it could become an easy "R/D opt-out."

In all these cases, the key for me is to seek out a sweet spot that makes it easier for natives to participate in their own defense, but not so powerful that defenders and the WASC become unnecessary, and doesn't deprive raiders of targets. While I stop short of the assertion that regions should never be allowed to function in isolation, to me every region that sequesters itself behind a Founder or a password is a failure of the effort to engage all players in the full range of what NationStates has to offer. The goal is to make people want to participate, not make it more appealing for them to withdraw.

Some comments on specific segments, excerpted from the whole above:

It's little wonder that the only solution to their R/D woes many natives can see is opting out of it entirely.

I love this sentence!The idea that all regions, if given a chance, would rather not be a part of R/D in any way has always been a silly one - some will always want nothing to do with it, but some would relish the chance for "war", to get involved in interregional conflict. Give people options, and they'll take them. Back them into a corner, and they'll stop having fun. Players want to have a chance to not become helpless victims, and I think this captures that idea in a nutshell.

To this end I see vast potential in variations on technical suggestions such as Galiantus' and COE's, which distribute power among a region's residents, replacing the current winner-take-all system of Executive Delegacy in Founderless regions. Astarial's Native Resistance proposal is also of great interest to me, not least in that it favors regions that make a concerted effort to save themselves. Mousebumples' Regional Custodian idea also bears serious consideration for special cases, though I'm wary that, improperly applied, it could become an easy "R/D opt-out."

Given [violet]'s post, I might suggest taking out specific references to technical ideas and simply summarizing why you find some ideas particularly compelling, or particularly distasteful. Things like, as you've said, "favoring regions that make a concerted effort to save themselves" will work better in the context of this statement, I think, as it would not only apply for existing proposals, but also lay out the guidelines that people could take into account when suggesting new ideas they may think of during the summit. "I want Xanthal to support my proposal for native rights - does it reward effort? Is it easily abused? Will it remove the need for defenders or the point for raiders?" And it will give you your own rubric for judging moderator/admin suggestions or changes, or new technical proposals.

[Jamie Anumia]

Firstly, Thanks for the invite.

In response to your first post: I agree with most of your points. Just a note to consider though, a lot of the ideas you have mentioned focus on raid 'resistance' rather than stopping raids of the regions in the first place. So, I think one thing should be considered in regards to a native agenda: which is more important: "Being given a chance to prevent raids" or "Resisting Invasions"? I think it's an important thing that should be noted and not overlooked in favour of looking just at ways for natives to 'fight back', rather simply giving them a chance to 'fight off' an invasion in the first place, while still maintaining a fair balance and not damaging the R/D game while still giving a way for natives to be able to prevent invasions. I hope I've gave some points to consider. In regards to your second post, I'll post my thoughts soon.

[Galiantus]

First of all, thanks for the invite.

...

In all these cases, the key for me is to seek out a sweet spot that makes it easier for natives to participate in their own defense, but not so powerful that defenders and the WASC become unnecessary, and doesn't deprive raiders of targets. While I stop short of the assertion that regions should never be allowed to function in isolation, to me every region that sequesters itself behind a Founder or a password is a failure of the effort to engage all players in the full range of what NationStates has to offer. The goal is to make people want to participate, not make it more appealing for them to withdraw.

Agreed. I would argue that the initial entry into a region by invaders of any kind is neccesary to the survival of the R/D game; the focus of the fight should shift from being a fight between raiders and defenders, to a fight primarily between raiders and natives, defenders and the WASC acting mostly just to assist natives. Making it easier for more people to get involved is certianly the key to giving military gameplay more appeal.

The only sentence I may want to open further discussion on is where you say "...to me every region that sequesters itself behind a Founder or a password is a failure of the effort to engage all players in the full range of what NationStates has to offer." I am not neccesarily for or against this, but would you support any limitation of founder powers, or restrictions making it harder to password a region?

[Xanthal]

What ideas do you have to help empower the natives and make them more involved in R/D and in self-protection? I think your "Ideal Agenda" post would be better suited to focus in on that, a bit more, and how/what you'd like to see in that regard.

I tried to hint at that a bit more, but without getting technical being too specific is difficult. If you have a specific idea for a revision I could make, I'm interested.

I think it's an important thing that should be noted and not overlooked in favour of looking just at ways for natives to 'fight back', rather simply giving them a chance to 'fight off' an invasion in the first place, while still maintaining a fair balance and not damaging the R/D game while still giving a way for natives to be able to prevent invasions.

... would you support any limitation of founder powers, or restrictions making it harder to password a region?

I'm not opposed to this in principle, but aside from something like Riemstagrad's Delegate Change Pending proposal no idea for execution has caught my eye. My main hesitation here is giving natives too much power, since I'm already going to be pushing for expanded occupation-concurrent powers. Native tools are front-loaded as it stands towards preventing invasions, and my inclination is, if anything, to trim those tool sets in favor of more resistance capacity; not least of all because the current main tools of target-hardening- refounding and passwording- are as easily used against natives by invaders as they are used by natives against invaders, but mainly because regardless of who uses them, they're tools of isolation, not of participation. Still, assuming they can get traction with some other representatives, I'd be happy to entertain suggestions that add front-end tools to the native toolbox provided they promote engagement rather than withdrawal. Founders are touchier, because there are instances where a closed garden with an unassailable leader might be desirable- my high school political science teacher's region of students comes to mind. Because of that I'm not prepared to say Founders should be compromised, but I will say I think that the practice of Refounding simply to take a region out of the R/D game is undesirable.

I would argue that the initial entry into a region by invaders of any kind is neccesary to the survival of the R/D game; the focus of the fight should shift from being a fight between raiders and defenders, to a fight primarily between raiders and natives, defenders and the WASC acting mostly just to assist natives. Making it easier for more people to get involved is certianly the key to giving military gameplay more appeal.

I partially agree with this, but defenders can't be allowed to become superfluous. If regions can liberate themselves, there is no more R/D game. While one could doubtless muse over a number of intriguing alternatives to the existing paradigm, I have the sense that this summit will focus on evolution rather than revolution. Relegating defenders to a secondary role is not my objective, nor do I believe it would fly with the decision makers, let alone the other delegates. That said, since natives and defenders are more often than not on roughly the same side, balancing does need to take place to ensure that expanding native powers do not handicap raiders. What exactly that means will depend heavily on the shape of reforms. In short, it's far too early to get into specifics here.


EDIT: Moved the new revision of [Summit #1] to its own post; this one got a little intimidating.

[Todd McCloud]

Hey there, thanks for the invitation.

It seems as though you're focusing on the native perspective of the R/D game. That being, I'll focus only on stuff that I think would affect the natives of the R/D contest (which probably means this will impact regular gameplayers). Since I'm a feeder guy, I'll be thinking with that in mind. I'm not entirely for the prevention of raids, because I believe that those events, like coups, can affect a region positively if the natives are able to rise above it. After all, it happens in real-life - natives can band together, rise up, and become a really tremendous force against the current regime. Why not here?

Maybe we could have something like Astarial's suggestion here. Again I'm not for hindering raids or coups, but for giving the natives *something* to do. An interesting idea, though with a horrible chance of abuse, would be to have nations at a certain WA endorsement count the power to remove other WA nations at a lesser endorsement count. The idea's unpolished, but it represents something I'd like to add to gameplay - the ability for natives to fight back if they can get organized enough. CoE's suggestion here seems like a good idea too.

I've read over your posts, and they look good so far. I admit I'm kinda sick right now, so I'll be sure to read them over again when I'm not hocked up on medicine, but yeah.

[Xanthal]

[Summit #1] What's your ideal agenda?

Natives are a motley bunch, useful to consider as a group mainly- as others have noted- for the shared characteristic that they are not raiders or defenders. I see this as a colossal missed opportunity, one that I hope to be helpful in bringing to fruition. The current state of R/D has left natives outsiders, and as a result, often victims. Existing tools to secure a region are blunt instruments, and once an invader has seized power, natives are impotent, their only recourse appeals to the WASC and defender organizations. It's little wonder that the only solution to their R/D woes many natives can see is opting out of it entirely. This hurts everyone; shrinking the pool for raiders and defenders and further isolating natives from what is arguably the beating heart of the gameplay sphere.

The Influence system gives us a platform on which to build tools that allow natives to actively participate in preserving their regions. I want a future for R/D wherein natives are not merely an often-reluctant backdrop, but a vital part of the contest. This goes beyond a quick fix- it is an evolution of the game that will radically expand participation and curtail the deepening feelings of apathy and resentment that poison native perspectives on R/D. I believe with the right approach it can be not only possible, but practical.

To this end I see vast potential in suggestions which distribute power among a region's residents, replacing the current winner-take-all system of Executive Delegacy in Founderless regions. Tweaking how influence is accumulated and the cost of using high-impact regional controls is also of great interest to me, either independently or as a function of some player action. I am predisposed toward ideas which favor regions that make an effort to save themselves, though I don't think natives should be held to the same standard of R/D engagement as raiders and defenders, who choose to make it a central part of their NS experience. My focus is enabling resistance to an invasion in-progress, but I'm open to modifying native tools to prevent invasions from taking root in the first place: trimming them or- if it can be done without discouraging native engagement with R/D- adding to them.

In all these cases, the key for me is to seek out a sweet spot that makes it easier for natives to participate in their own security- but not so powerful that defenders and the WASC become unnecessary- and doesn't deprive raiders of targets. While I stop short of the assertion that regions should never be allowed to function in isolation, to me every region that sequesters itself behind a Founder or a password is a failure of the effort to engage all players in the full range of what NationStates has to offer. The goal is to make people want to participate, not make it more appealing for them to withdraw.

This version includes semantic alterations to more sharply distinguish native and defender actions (thanks to COE and Unibot!), conversion of technical suggestions to more a list of principles (thanks Astarial!), and a bit more on target hardening and my disposition toward current native tools (thanks Jamie Anumia and Galiantus!). Barring something revelatory being said in the next couple hours, this will be the last draft of [Summit #1]. At the end of the day I will post a final version to the REP thread based on this and whatever additional input I receive before then. This draft comes in at 492 words of the 500-word maximum, so at this point additional content will have to come at the expense of other content. I can still trim from the ends if I have to, and do a bit of streamlining in the middle, but real estate in [Summit #1] is officially at a premium. Suggestions for entirely new concepts at this stage would be best delivered with the need for brevity in mind.

Don't forget that my [Summit #2] draft also remains open for comment, with a target finalization time of tomorrow night. The earlier you get your comments in, the more time we'll have to consider and incorporate them!

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I enjoy your perspective on native attempts to prevent raids as disengagement with the game. It presents military gameplay as another aspect of the game that enriches the player experience, rather than something to opted-out of. The credibility you bring to the summit as the long-term delegate of a founderless region is appreciated. Thank you!

[Mousebumples]

Summit 1 post looks good, to me. I like the idea of giving the WAD (preferably a native; though it would obviously be used by both sides of the R/D game as well) more tools to prevent the invasion of their region. (i.e. limiting how quickly individuals can enter a given region - i.e. limit of 1 per minute or something costs X influence and lasts a set period of time; allowing the WAD to select an "update" window - i.e. a 30 minute portion of the update - during which their region would update, to allow them to be perhaps be online more often and fit the update with their schedule; etc.)

I don't think either of those really need to be specified within this original post, but I thought I'd mention them now ... just in case you're not already aware of them.

[Xanthal]

I like the idea of giving the WAD (preferably a native; though it would obviously be used by both sides of the R/D game as well) more tools to prevent the invasion of their region. (i.e. limiting how quickly individuals can enter a given region - i.e. limit of 1 per minute or something costs X influence and lasts a set period of time; allowing the WAD to select an "update" window - i.e. a 30 minute portion of the update - during which their region would update, to allow them to be perhaps be online more often and fit the update with their schedule; etc.)

The idea of making the update time more in line with when the relevant players are online to monitor it is interesting, but it's made most important by the prevalence of clock raiding, which to my understanding is something the summit organizers want to dial back, so I'm a bit less concerned with that than I might be otherwise. Also, unless they have good reason to think a raid is coming at a particular update, it's unlikely many Delegates will want to hawk over their region's control panel every night when R/D is not the primary reason they play the game. Shifting update times is still a good idea, it's just down my priority list a ways.

The immigration rate limit I'm more skeptical of, though it would certainly be conducive to encouraging non clock-based raiding. I'm going to be looking to raider and defender Representative opinions a lot when it comes to proposals that have the most immediate impact on how raids and defenses are executed, because they involve gameplay mechanics I know they grasp better than I do. To whatever extent possible, I want to benefit from the insight of others in forming my own opinions, especially where gaps in my own knowledge (and there are plenty, I sold myself as a R/D outsider in my self-nomination for good reason) are concerned.

[Todd McCloud]

I'm going out on a limb with a few of the things in this one, and I'm relying on you all to help me make sure I've considered all the aspects. Though it's largely a semantic concern, I am cautious of the danger of conflating the role of natives and defenders in preserving a region, so seizing on notes sounded by COE and Unibot, out of an abundance of clarity I'm going to make a concerted effort to not refer to native actions as "defending" in this Summit. As always, all constructive input is appreciated!

Just want to say, I really appreciate that viewpoint. Defenders have their own game, raiders have theirs, and the natives need to have their own separate game too. I agree with your assessment that there needs to be a fairly 'simplistic' type of game for the natives, because many of them aren't too immersed with the gameplay dynamics, politics, even simple things like update times. I also don't want this to turn into a defenders + natives vs raiders... I'd rather it be defenders vs raiders vs natives, sort of thing, with natives and defenders more separate, you know, to prevent the balance of power from shifting from one camp to the other. So, from *their* side of the game, things where they don't have to get involved in the politics, things they can do that they wouldn't have to rely on defenders help or even help from the SC as much.

I guess I'm thinking with a more feeder mindset here, but things where the old regime can react from a coup. For the last two coups (TSP and TEP), there wasn't much the old regime could do unless they managed to sneak in a bunch of troops from other groups late one update or the couper simply lost interest or gave up. And the "giving up" part can take a very long time if the person happens to have a lot of resolve. Hypothetically speaking (and this is a big hypothetical so don't get any ideas ), I'm currently the top guy with influence in TEP. If for whatever reason I wanted to coup the region, there's not much they could do to stop me outside of appealing to my sense of care for the place and especially the people there. They could also slowly and systematically wear my influence down, but that could take a very long time and I could employ tactics to slow that up. There's gotta be a way for them to come back and fight me instead of me making a mistake in how I handle things, for instance. And I guess, on a smaller scale, that would apply to UCRs who are waiting it out in a longer raid. Something for natives to do to make an independent fight back, I guess, would be ideal.

[Xanthal]

[Summit #1] has been posted to the REP thread. Below is a slightly updated draft of [Summit #2]. Ideally I want to post this by about this time tomorrow, so speak up everyone! At 373/500 words and not really edited for brevity, there's plenty of room for changes!

[Summit #2] R/D Nirvana

In a sentence, I want to see a 3.5-pole R/D game, with natives playing a role separate from defenders in the maintenance of their sovereignty against raiders, and the WA Security Council serving as a populist spoiler the (0.5). I think we're already mostly there. Raiders and defenders have self-segregated into largely distinct camps, and the SC already intervenes where enough popular outrage can be mustered among the wider player base. The missing component is natives. Natives will continue to be the most common target of raids, but rather than simply being victims, they play an active role in their preservation while a raid is ongoing. Region destruction should be functionally possible only when fewer than 1.5 poles mobilize to a significant, reasonable standard against it. That is, without the efforts of both natives and counter-invaders (normally defenders, but raiders can function as "defenders," too, in some cases), or either plus the SC, it should be feasible for an invasion force to do as they please with a region within the boundaries of the gameplay mechanics. The cost of taking a region out of contention (setting passwords, refounding, et cetera) should be very high for both natives and invaders, allowing as many regions as possible to stay in the pool of R/D targets.

Natives must come to terms with the potential necessity of coming to their own aid if they wish to insure their region's independence, but that said, the standard of action for raiders and defenders should be higher than for natives; this for the simple reason that raiders and defenders choose to make R/D a primary pursuit, while natives generally have their own priorities in the game that are not R/D related (regional politics, role-playing, answering issues, et cetera), and cannot be reasonably expected to know the technical intricacies of R/D in advance, nor learn them in time to save their region once an invasion takes root. I'm envisioning push buttons and telegrams here, not scripts and detailed IRC chats with defenders. That's not to say, however, that a group of natives going the extra mile shouldn't be rewarded. This should all be packaged in a system restricted entirely by gameplay mechanics, requiring little to no moderator intervention.

[Xanthal]

I guess I'm thinking with a more feeder mindset here, but things where the old regime can react from a coup. ... There's gotta be a way for them to come back and fight.... And I guess, on a smaller scale, that would apply to UCRs who are waiting it out in a longer raid. Something for natives to do to make an independent fight back, I guess, would be ideal.

You're right to note that these things can have an impact on intra-regional (native vs native) power struggles, too. Because this is a summit on R/D my focus has to stay on that, but I encourage you to voice any concerns you have on behalf of feeders regarding side effects; it would certainly be nice to at the very least not break things outside R/D in the quest to improve it, and positive side effects would be all the better. As for the specifics of how natives fight back, we're not to that point yet in the Summit, but if you have any thoughts it's not too early to start looking ahead so long as we don't lose track of the responses that need to be turned out here and now.

[Xanthal]

Extra Credit #1

This hasn't really come up directly in the Summit questions yet, but it has in the open discussion and it's something I've been meaning to comment on so you all at least know my thinking on the matter, because it's extremely important: "what is a native?"

I have my own answer to this, but it's more a feeling than a technical definition. Frankly, I think although we all share many general ideas about what constitutes "nativity," none of us would come up with an identical response. My intention, therefore, as some may have read between the lines in my ideal agenda, is to sidestep this issue by using the Influence system. High Influence in a region does not equal native status, but being tied strongly to continuous residency and multiplied by WA status while maintaining that residency, it tends to favor natives, and disfavor raiders and defenders, who- assuming they're following the rules- would presumably prefer not to leave their single WA nation sitting innocently in a region for months accumulating Influence while they could be out using them to raid or defend. If they are willing to do so, one could argue they have earned the advantage. This is where decentralizing power as part of native resistance comes in, because it hedges against the actions of any single high-Influence nation, and would almost always tend to place more total accumulated influence in the hands of "natives."

The main issue here, obviously, is that non-WA natives get a collective short straw, and as we get into the meat of things I'll have to decide whether that's the price of doing business (which could catastrophically undermine Founderless regions with very low or no WA population) or whether there's a way to mitigate it without disrupting the natural advantage held by native WA nations over raider and defender ones. Again, we're not there yet, but since "nativity" is the nexus of a lot of what I'm going to be called upon to talk about, it bears discussing now. At least one subgroup of natives is going to get burned no matter what, and love it or hate it, Influence is the system we have and I see no viable strategy that does not build on it. What I would greatly appreciate from all of you is to suggest tweaks or additions to the Influence system that could be used to better favor a broad definition of natives that I can propose, bearing in mind the need for buy-in from raiders and defenders, and the fact that it should be entirely gameplay mechanics-based (i.e. require no moderator refereeing).

I am prepared to go forward with this approach leaving the Influence system as it is, but if anyone has a brilliant idea about making Influence work better, I think it would be worthwhile to entertain that in the event I have the opportunity to push for changes in that arena.

[Mousebumples]

What I would greatly appreciate from all of you is to suggest tweaks or additions to the Influence system that could be used to better favor a broad definition of natives that I can propose, bearing in mind the need for buy-in from raiders and defenders, and the fact that it should be entirely gameplay mechanics-based (i.e. require no moderator refereeing).

A few general comments on your above "What is a native?" question, before I delve into the details of an idea I just had that probably needs some working and tweaking ...

My region has about 30 members right now. Many of them have been there for 2-3 years - many for longer if you discount the "everyone left so we could refound" moment. As such, many of them would probably (technically) be considered "natives." However, if I had to pick a handful of natives that have been around for ages (like myself) and have been active for ages (again, like myself), I could probably pick out a small handful - perhaps 3 or 4 nations.

What if the WA Delegate (or Founder if non-exec WA Delegate) had a way to "appoint" particular individual nations as Natives of the given region? These appointed Natives (non-WAD, non-Founder) would gain influence at a slightly increased rate - perhaps 1.25 x regular influence accrual. This could help to insulate some specific nations (especially if they are non-WA) from eventual booting/griefing by future raiders.

There should - of course - be a limit on how many nations could be "selected," in order to limit the abuses of this system and avoid providing a greatly increased barrier to raiders. Perhaps half the number of WA nations in a given region ... up to a limit of 5 or so? In order to support regions who democratically elect (and regularly change) their WAD, the list should be maintained with the election of a new WAD, but perhaps the new WAD should be restricted from changing that list for a set period of time. (Alternatively, the list could be cleared entirely with each new WAD election, but I'd still think a waiting period should be in place before a new WAD can select nations for those positions.)

Conversely, I'd wonder if there should be an impact on activity (logging in) to influence accrual. As has been mentioned in other threads in this summit chamber, it seems counterintuitive for inactive nations (i.e. not having logged in for 20+ days) to maintain a very large influence level, even if they're not doing much of anything.

One thought I had was along these lines:

Testlandia accrues influence at X pace.

• If Testlandia hasn't logged in for over a week, his influence drops and only accumulates at 0.5X pace.
• If Testlandia hasn't logged in for over 2 weeks, his influence no longer accumulates, but does not decrease at all.
• If Testlandia hasn't logged in for over 3 weeks, his influence now decays slightly, perhaps losing 1% per day. (100 --> 99 --> 98.01 --> 97.03 --> 96.06 --> 95.1, etc.)
• If Testlandia hasn't logged in for over 4 weeks, he would CTE, provided he isn't in Vacation Mode.

I would think that Native Appointment could also be used to negate these effects. However, if a nation hasn't logged in for over a week, perhaps the Native-Bonus to influence gain should also be negated.

I'd think that there could be some strategy involved here, if regions wish to engage in this. The 5 "Appointed Natives" could be whoever is democratically elected to a governmental position - or to 5 of said positions. The 5 "Appointed Natives" could be judgement calls made by the WAD. The 5 "Appointed Natives" could be changed every so often, to try to spread the extra influence gain around and then make many more of the natives that much harder to banject, in case of invasion.

Anyhow, this is very rough - and probably filled with issues. If anyone else thinks it's worth investigating, I can certainly make a tech thread about it ... although I probably won't have time for that until after work tonight.

EDIT:
One more thought/suggestion/amendment:
What if regions could have 5 "specially designated nations" - Natives or Threats?

Natives would work as described above, but being named a thread could/should perhaps negate any influence gains for that nation at that time. (It wouldn't necessarily result in the loss of influence, but at least stop the further accrual of influence.)

Designations of Threats and Natives could be used by both sides - although I'm sure that raiders are much likely to populate the lists with Threats v. Natives, given my understanding of Raiding Theory/Influence Accrual. Natives and Defenders could use both to bolster fellow Natives and/or to limit the influence being accrued by what they view as a potential sleeper puppet.

Now, I wonder what else I'll come up with, over time ...

[Xanthal]

[Summit #2] R/D Nirvana

In a sentence, I want to see a 3.5-pole R/D game, with natives playing a role separate from defenders in the maintenance of their sovereignty against raiders, and the WA Security Council serving as a populist spoiler the (0.5). I think we're already mostly there. Raiders and defenders have self-segregated into largely distinct camps, and the SC already intervenes where enough popular outrage can be mustered among the wider player base. The missing component is natives. Natives will continue to be the easiest and likely most common target of raids, but rather than simply being victims, they play an active role in their preservation while a raid is ongoing.

Launching raids is easy against as broad a range of targets as possible, but control of a region can be contested at any stage with the proper coalition. Serious, permanent damage to a region should be feasible only when fewer than 1.5 poles mobilize to a significant, reasonable standard against it- that is, both natives and counter-invaders (normally defenders, but raiders can function as "defenders" too, in some cases), or either plus the SC. Nearly all invasions end when the invaders decide to move on or when they are pushed out. Only the most inactive or universally maligned of regions face a serious threat of final destruction or permanent occupation. The cost of taking a region out of contention (setting passwords, refounding, et cetera) is very high for both natives and invaders, allowing as many regions as possible to stay in the pool of R/D targets.

Natives must come to terms with the potential necessity of coming to their own aid if they wish to insure their region's independence, but that said, the standard of action for raiders and defenders should be higher than for natives; this for the simple reason that raiders and defenders choose to make R/D a primary pursuit, while natives generally have their own priorities in the game that are not R/D related (regional politics, role-playing, answering issues, et cetera), and cannot be reasonably expected to know the technical intricacies of R/D in advance, nor learn them in time to save their region once an invasion takes root. I'm envisioning push buttons and telegrams here, not scripts and detailed IRC chats with defenders. That's not to say, however, that a group of natives going the extra mile shouldn't be rewarded.

This all packaged, of course, in a system dictated entirely by gameplay mechanics, requiring little to no moderator intervention.

Up to 415/500 words with some additional personal thoughts formed reading the submissions of other Representatives. Barring a major revelation, this will be the last draft of [Summit #2]. At the end of the day I will post a final version to the REP thread based on this and whatever additional input I receive before then, so if you have any input speak now!

[Astarial]

I like it! Minor note though - "insure" should be "ensure".

[Xanthal]

[Summit #2] has been posted to the REP thread with a few final modifications to encompass further thinking on the subject and correct tenses and spelling/grammar (thanks Astarial!). While we wait for the next question to be posted, I'm still interested in ideas relating to Extra Credit #1. Also, if you have something else you feel is important to discuss looking forward, bring it up. If I miss something and nobody brings it to my attention, it won't get considered!

[Xanthal]

Extra Credit #2

In the course of pushing for more native powers to oppose invasions once they've taken root, I may be called upon to consider modifying or sacrificing some tools that natives currently have to block invasions up front. I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this; whether there are some tools you hold sacred or would be willing or even happy to part with. I'm not saying I'll go one way or the other on any of them yet, but as I consider my options I want to have the opinions and insights of others in mind. Some such tools to consider (if you can think of others about which you have input, feel free to bring them up as well):

• Ejecting
• Banning
• Password protection
• Refounding
• The access of Founders and/or Delegates to any of the above