[Summit #3] Agenda Breakout Discussion [OPEN]

[Unibot III]

You know, I'm looking at all these representatives that say we need more political development and I can't help but wonder if it that is short-sighted. Bear with me; I agree that getting more political regions involved with R/D would be awesome to create drama. But I think that people may be confusing "politicization" with "dramatization".

I'd say the most "political" era of defending was not the Pre-Influence era like I think most would identify it as; I think FRA was actually more political than the ADN or the RLA, largely because it lost a lot of the moral high ground after Regional Influence. The best politicians often run their organizations into the ground; they're so good at what they do, they can avoid conflict and hold onto power way too long. These are your Pope Hope's, your Kandarin's, Fudgetopia's, Krulltopia's, Todd McCloud's (to a lesser extent -- he likes to cause trouble, but not really in TEP). At the end of the day, politicization only means more drama when the politicians are bad, but in general, returning to more politicization, I think, would mean returning to an era of greater inactivity and stagnation.

R/D has risen to be more active and less stagnate in general than usual; I think the cause is not politicization, it's ideology. Defenders are finally back to really claiming the high ground and that's causing the real sparks. You can't code this stuff, it just happens. Ideology starts as ideas. If you take a snapshot of 2004, the "golden era of R/D", you'll see politics sure, but you will also see a load of deep-rooted ideology -- I think we need people to believe in something again; when people believe, conflict is more likely to arise than when simply power and relevance is on the line.

[Cormac Stark]

R/D has risen to be more active and less stagnate in general than usual; I think the cause is not politicization, it's ideology. Defenders are finally back to really claiming the high ground and that's causing the real sparks. You can't code this stuff, it just happens. Ideology starts as ideas. If you take a snapshot of 2004, the "golden era of R/D", you'll see politics sure, but you will also see a load of deep-rooted ideology -- I think we need people to believe in something again; when people believe, conflict is more likely to arise than when simply power and relevance is on the line.

To be clear, there is only one form of R/D that has become more active and less stagnant lately and that is tag raiding and defending/detagging against tag raids. The other forms of raiding have actually become less active now than they were even when I started playing the game in February, and defenders who would prefer not to defend against tag raids or to detag them consequently are less able to participate as well. When you throw in piling and the virtual impossibility of liberating piled regions, you find bored raiders sitting around doing nothing in a region for a month and defenders who aren't interested in defending against tag raiding having nothing else to do.

This problem also leads to less politicization and less ideology. It's hard to get politically excited or to shape ideologies around graffiti, most of which can be removed within, at most, 24 hours and is scrawled on very small and inactive founderless regions that have few if any actual natives. Now, as I've said previously, I don't think the solution is to limit tag raiding. Tag raiding is tied in with the boring and uncompetitive nature of piling; address piling and make larger raids more fun and competitive and tag raiding will naturally decrease. But I think to say that R/D is more active and less stagnant is to look at only one aspect of it and to fail to see that other forms of R/D have fallen into almost complete stagnation.

I also don't think that the sniping back and forth between tag raiders and defenders should be mistaken for politics or ideology. It's just sniping back and forth with very little political or ideological substance, which is why you consistently see the big political and ideological battles over the fewer and fewer long-term raids. It's been Catholic, RORMS, Christmas, Hippiedom, Eastern Islands of Dharma, Roman Empire, etc., that have gotten raiders and defenders politically and ideologically fired up, not the twentieth graffiti attack on Magicka.

[Eist]

Well said, Cormac! For better or worse for UDL these echo my sentiments exactly (but you said it without the ranting or name calling )

[Unibot III]

R/D has risen to be more active and less stagnate in general than usual; I think the cause is not politicization, it's ideology. Defenders are finally back to really claiming the high ground and that's causing the real sparks. You can't code this stuff, it just happens. Ideology starts as ideas. If you take a snapshot of 2004, the "golden era of R/D", you'll see politics sure, but you will also see a load of deep-rooted ideology -- I think we need people to believe in something again; when people believe, conflict is more likely to arise than when simply power and relevance is on the line.

To be clear, there is only one form of R/D that has become more active and less stagnant lately and that is tag raiding and defending/detagging against tag raids. The other forms of raiding have actually become less active now than they were even when I started playing the game in February, and defenders who would prefer not to defend against tag raids or to detag them consequently are less able to participate as well. When you throw in piling and the virtual impossibility of liberating piled regions, you find bored raiders sitting around doing nothing in a region for a month and defenders who aren't interested in defending against tag raiding having nothing else to do.

This problem also leads to less politicization and less ideology. It's hard to get politically excited or to shape ideologies around graffiti, most of which can be removed within, at most, 24 hours and is scrawled on very small and inactive founderless regions that have few if any actual natives. Now, as I've said previously, I don't think the solution is to limit tag raiding. Tag raiding is tied in with the boring and uncompetitive nature of piling; address piling and make larger raids more fun and competitive and tag raiding will naturally decrease. But I think to say that R/D is more active and less stagnant is to look at only one aspect of it and to fail to see that other forms of R/D have fallen into almost complete stagnation.

I also don't think that the sniping back and forth between tag raiders and defenders should be mistaken for politics or ideology. It's just sniping back and forth with very little political or ideological substance, which is why you consistently see the big political and ideological battles over the fewer and fewer long-term raids. It's been Catholic, RORMS, Christmas, Hippiedom, Eastern Islands of Dharma, Roman Empire, etc., that have gotten raiders and defenders politically and ideologically fired up, not the twentieth graffiti attack on Magicka.

I think you're right that tag-raiding tends to reduce ideological conflict, because it is such a minuscule effect on every region and you really stop caring about Magicka after a while (I think I'm practically a native of a few of the regions we defend from tag-raids).

And I think you're correct to say that occupations with healthy competitiveness would be better for stirring the minds and the hearts of the people involved. But I don't we're talking about politics, so much as ideology -- which is what I was trying to get at. If anything, I think political development is higher when we're not doing much -- since raiders need to be politically astute to arrange piles and defenders are at their highest risk politically when defender organizations run out of things to do (they start picking up odd jobs and fighting with other organizations to do stuff and claim continued relevance).

Eist's joyousness is misplaced; I've been proposing more competitiveness in occupation raids since the very beginning of this conference, I think that's what has been missing in R/D for a long time, but I don't think this has anything to do with "TAG-RAIDING IS BOORING", "WE NEED MORE POLITICS" or "RARRH PILING BE BAD", so much as the heart of R/D, the liberation-raid stage, has been on cardiac arrest for a long-time which causes problems all over the place.

[Cerian Quilor]

As long as there are groups that exist just to raid, and groups that exist just to defend, we won't see that much in the way of politics from either of them.

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I think we're all using the word "political" to mean different things. When I say "politics" or "political skill" I'm simply referring to leadership ability, diplomacy, and the ability to influence others to join your cause or current endeavor.

[AS22]

2. Allow high-influence natives limited access to regional controls

I like this as a way of allowing motivated natives to become more involved in regional defense, beyond simply endorsing their Delegate. At the risk of complicating it, I believe it meshes with our existing plan for Regional Officers, which is essentially to let whoever's in charge create and name roles (e.g. Secretary of Defense) with various permissions. Under Regional Officers, a region might have a Delegate but also several other nations who have been granted some Delegate-like powers, including the ability to eject nations, close embassies, etc.

This may work like "High-Influence Natives" plus:

1. Reward active nations rather than old ones. (You accumulate Influence simply by hanging around, but you'd only be a regional officer if you were engaged in the region.)
2. Offer potential for subterfuge. E.g. an enemy manages to get themselves into a position of authority and unlocks the gates for invaders.

It requires a crapload more code. But Regional Officers is on the To-Do list anyway.

I think this needs to be discussed prior to implementation, in fact I'm a bit concerned that this has made your "to-do" list already.

I don't agree with your "subterfuge" point. In fact, I think this makes the opposite true in the case of GCRs. In GCRs this will only mean that the region's security sector will now have someone else able to weild the ban hammer. These positions are unlikely to be victims of subterfuge, which in this case would be essentially some form of forum capture.

If you have an operation that relies on an outside group going through the time and pain of executing that level of forum capture, you are complicating the results of their efforts by putting important abilities like ejection in two hands rather than one. I think the delegate should be the only one able to eject and ban other players. Because really, the more realistic subterfuge options revolve around compromising the delegate, either on the forum or in game. If there is a secondary "delegate" who can eject and ban, you've just made that game more difficult than it already is.

People like Krulltopia or TNP will likely staff that position with a reliable Senator or high influencer/Sec Council respectively - security sector positions can actually harder to compromise than the delegacies themselves in many cases, because there is a greater premium on influence, reliability, and long term trust. So your creating a secondary delegate that could neutralize a true coup or w/e on the delegacy - when that is difficult enough already. Especially if influence remains as is, with the "Minister of Defence" being not only a secondary delegate but a more powerful one.

I don't like the idea. I think it makes subterfuge harder not easier. If a group wants to create forum capture to get eject and ban powers, then go after the delegate. The more likely "in game" scenarios are only challenged by this idea, and they are difficult enough.

EDIT: Also I think given the added emphasis you would place on security type jobs because they now have ejecting powers, you would make forum capture harder.

IE...it would be harder for Spy X to get access to the Private Intelligence forum by being appointed "Security Officer" or w/e, because that position is now associated with eject and ban powers and is more likely to be given to a high influence apolitical. Of course because of scripting, GCRs a more likely to simply have automated webpages with the latest scan rather than any sort of intelligence or army forum, but that is another problem altogether.

EDIT #2: I actually had to come back to this after thinking about it for another minute. Even by creating a second person who just has "limited" ejection capabilities, you are really killing a lot of options/scenarios. All it can take to kill an in game coup or attack is one ejection, you're essentially giving regional delegacies four eyes when they already have two.

Also, in regions with constitutional or legal blocks on ejection and banning, you could give the security sector an "op-out" by having a deputy take out a troublemaker, to immunize the delegate from legal challenge/backlash. I think you could encourage more ejections this way if the delegate has a way to wash his/her hands of them.

I'm just going through possible scenarios based on GCR security/political realities, and I see the delegate being able to assign someone else ejection powers -however limited- as over leveraging sitting delegates when they are over leveraged enough. I don't believe your nice idea about "subterfuge" takes these realities into account given how most of the GCRs are currently operating.

[Ballotonia]

I think this needs to be discussed prior to implementation, in fact I'm a bit concerned that this has made your "to-do" list already.

None of these are on the ToDo list. They're mentioned explicitly precisely to focus attention for further discussion. It is undecided and unknown whether any of the items listed will even make the ToDo list and ever see implementation, it depends on discussion taking place (please note summit discussion has [violet]'s special attention).

Ballotonia

[Bears Armed]

People like Krulltopia or TNP will likely staff that position with a reliable Senator or high influencer/Sec Council respectively - security sector positions can actually harder to compromise than the delegacies themselves in many cases, because there is a greater premium on influence, reliability, and long term trust. So your creating a secondary delegate that could neutralize a true coup or w/e on the delegacy - when that is difficult enough already.

Which is what would happen in the equivalent situation in RL, so this would make NS a closer simulation of RL in that respect... and bearing in mind that some raiders in the past have tried to "justify" their actions by asserting that their addition of conflict to the game makes it it a closer simulation of RL...

[Unibot III]

I think we're all using the word "political" to mean different things. When I say "politics" or "political skill" I'm simply referring to leadership ability, diplomacy, and the ability to influence others to join your cause or current endeavor.

Well, I'm using politics in the sense of the management of differences in social contexts.

You're using politics in the sense of cooperation and motivation.

CQ is using politics (I believe) in the sense of realism; a shrewd game of maximizing interests.

I disagree with realists and imperialists like CQ; I actually think that Raiderism and Defenderism are the optimal military policies for most communities and those that desire more "complex" forms of military gameplay are actually the ones putting their own desires and idealities before the interests of the region. I'll write an essay on this more, but essentially my reasoning is that NS =/= RL, thus the main benefits of a military are not economic or geopolitical necessarily they are activity, fighting enemies via proxy battles (which just waters down to more activity) raising awareness of your region abroad, security (which is usually the least of one's concerns in founder regions). Military policies that deviate from standards of Raiderism and Defenderism tend to stray away from these benefits, usually for some idealistic goal (e.g., "We will be ABOVE the R/D game!", "WE WILL BE INDEPENDENT!").

But yeah, "politics" and "political development" mean different things for everyone. So when we're all saying we want more politics, we should be careful to make sure we're actually all in agreement.

[AS22]

People like Krulltopia or TNP will likely staff that position with a reliable Senator or high influencer/Sec Council respectively - security sector positions can actually harder to compromise than the delegacies themselves in many cases, because there is a greater premium on influence, reliability, and long term trust. So your creating a secondary delegate that could neutralize a true coup or w/e on the delegacy - when that is difficult enough already.

Which is what would happen in the equivalent situation in RL, so this would make NS a closer simulation of RL in that respect... and bearing in mind that some raiders in the past have tried to "justify" their actions by asserting that their addition of conflict to the game makes it it a closer simulation of RL...

My point was that contrary to what [violet] said, this change will not increase competition or make feeders more of a meritocracy. All this change would be doing would be creating a secondary delegacy that will only further consolidate the established interests in GCRs...which is not something I think either I or [violet] wants.

I'm also not a defender, so your words on raiders are misplaced in addressing me.

[Cerian Quilor]

I think we're all using the word "political" to mean different things. When I say "politics" or "political skill" I'm simply referring to leadership ability, diplomacy, and the ability to influence others to join your cause or current endeavor.

Well, I'm using politics in the sense of the management of differences in social contexts.

You're using politics in the sense of cooperation and motivation.

CQ is using politics (I believe) in the sense of realism; a shrewd game of maximizing interests.

I disagree with realists and imperialists like CQ; I actually think that Raiderism and Defenderism are the optimal military policies for most communities and those that desire more "complex" forms of military gameplay are actually the ones putting their own desires and idealities before the interests of the region. I'll write an essay on this more, but essentially my reasoning is that NS =/= RL, thus the main benefits of a military are not economic or geopolitical necessarily they are activity, fighting enemies via proxy battles (which just waters down to more activity) raising awareness of your region abroad, security (which is usually the least of one's concerns in founder regions). Military policies that deviate from standards of Raiderism and Defenderism tend to stray away from these benefits, usually for some idealistic goal (e.g., "We will be ABOVE the R/D game!", "WE WILL BE INDEPENDENT!").

But yeah, "politics" and "political development" mean different things for everyone. So when we're all saying we want more politics, we should be careful to make sure we're actually all in agreement.

You are understanding my use of politics correctly.

And a region that is Imperialist, like TNI, does fight enemies via proxy battles (see the TNI war with the FRA and now the UDL) and create activity (I came to TNI 60%-70 to take part in its military and Imperialist policy, and 30-40% to take part in the interesting sounding political culture their updates described. Other players might do the same, and giving players a job in government, even one as minor as being a non-updating supporter, gives them more investment in the region. When I left the game back in June (starting with slow disengagement in Early june and proceeding into late june), I stayed on in TNI the longest because I had a position in TNIAF, and I wanted to keep doing the job I had been entrusted with. I had an investment in the region. Eventually, I left because I was burned out, and felt TNIAF needed an active, not-burned out person in that job to use its role to maximum efficiency, but it was a hard decision.

And it does advertise the region. Granted, they don't trumpet their victories in Gameplay much, but every tag they make includes their name, and a link to their region. When they hold, and talk about that in GP, that's a huge ad.

Pure Defenders and Pure Raiders are fine, and serve a useful role in NS, but they are fundamentally not making political decisions on the international stage in a broad 'geopolitical' sense. There may be politics involved in a given hold, or in their own internal apparatus, but there is no politics in who they choose to raid or defend (occasionally pure raiders will make political decisions, ish, on raids, such as when TBH raided and occupied Dharma, but less commonly).