[Change #5] Reformation SC proposal [ON HOLD]

[Kiwitaicho]

Nazi Europe was a success because everyone dislikes Nazis. Many people, I'm sure, would have been of the opinion that a region-destroyer such as NE deserves interference. There is no other group in NS that attracts that level of loathing.

As Mall points out, it wasn't a raider who brought that particular liberation and even then it had to be suggested TWICE before it passed.

[Astarial]

As Mall points out, it wasn't a raider who brought that particular liberation and even then it had to be suggested TWICE before it passed.

And it still received a lot of ire from people who saw it as abusing the Security Council - despite the fact that the SC's own description talks of spreading peace and goodwill by force if necessary.

There is no technical or mechanical reason why raiders cannot use the SC to further their goals, but that does not mean that such a proposition is at all feasible, because there's more to the game than technicalities and mechanics. Raiders don't hold a political majority - never have, and never will. The vast majority of regions not involved with R/D will always and forever vote according to what can be spun as a moral argument, the protection of helpless natives against the big mean raiders. This is why liberation resolutions pass with an overwhelming supermajority, why the only ones that fail are the ones beneficial toward raiding, and why they will never be able to make use of reformation proposals - helpfully named to pre-emptively direct people toward a protective defender mindset.

[Unibot III]

And it still received a lot of ire from people who saw it as abusing the Security Council - despite the fact that the SC's own description talks of spreading peace and goodwill by force if necessary.

That's because not everyone saw attacking Nazi Europe as "spreading peace and goodwill". But that's another discussion entirely, but I don't like how you're spinning the debate to assume your own moral viewpoint.

There is no technical or mechanical reason why raiders cannot use the SC to further their goals, but that does not mean that such a proposition is at all feasible, because there's more to the game than technicalities and mechanics. Raiders don't hold a political majority - never have, and never will. The vast majority of regions not involved with R/D will always and forever vote according to what can be spun as a moral argument, the protection of helpless natives against the big mean raiders. This is why liberation resolutions pass with an overwhelming supermajority, why the only ones that fail are the ones beneficial toward raiding, and why they will never be able to make use of reformation proposals - helpfully named to pre-emptively direct people toward a protective defender mindset.

Liberations do not always pass with an overwhelming supermajority - with a well-oiled anti-campaigns in place, liberations are quite difficult to pass. "Liberate Free Thought" for example, while being incredibly clear cut .. only very narrowly passed because Sedgistan and myself and a few others were campaigning like a son of a bitch to get every last vote against the equally formidable Imperialist anti-campaign.

Nowadays raiders don't try to anti-campaign nearly as much, even though they only lost Liberate Free Thought and Liberate Land of Liberals II by a few votes. Especially when the WA isn't nearly in favor of defenderism anymore, I don't know how much weight your argument has:

Back when I was really involved with WA Liberations, there was a huge defender WA stacking force: The North Pacific, 10000 Islands, The South Pacific and Capitalist Paradise, among a few others, depending on who I could rope in to vote. There's not that same political coordination anymore.The North Pacific, The East Pacific and The South Pacific don't stack and aren't defenderist... etc. The stackers or more or less the raiderist powers: Balder, Osiris, Europeia in a tri-force against The Rejected Realms and (maybe) 10000 Islands. You've seen the fireworks with "Condemn The New Inquisition" -- I know at least three others beside me who guessed the initial stacking score.

The voting power isn't there to suggest anything is a safe vote anymore.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that the way to really pass a malicious reformation vote is to create enough confusion that you confuse the defender voters -- this happened on "Repeal "Liberate Eastern Europe"", many of us had the wool pulled under our eyes.

[Evil Wolf]

Here's what I find amusing with you're argument, Unibot.

You're saying not that Raiders have the ability to use Liberation Proposals, and by extension the Security Council, for themselves, but rather you're stating that Raiders might have the ability to stop Defenders from using it for their Defender needs. Sometimes, though, not a majority of the time. Oh and most, if not all, of the last attempts failed.

That is no where near to being balanced. If anything it suggests that the Defender side has a near iron grip on the ability to use the SC for their side and their side alone and that all that the Raider side can ever hope to do is try to prevent a resolution from passing from time to time. Preventing a Liberation, or in this case a Reformation, from passing isn't a Raider victory, we didn't "win" anything except prevent a tool from being used against use.

What use is a feature if it can't be reasonably used by both sides? How is that fair and balanced?

[Afforess]

Liberations do not always pass with an overwhelming supermajority - with a well-oiled anti-campaigns in place, liberations are quite difficult to pass. "Liberate Free Thought" for example, while being incredibly clear cut .. only very narrowly passed because Sedgistan and myself and a few others were campaigning like a son of a bitch to get every last vote against the equally formidable Imperialist anti-campaign.

This is off-topic. We are discussing the possibility of raiders ever passing a Reformation, not liberations, and definitely not defenders-passing-liberations.

The voting power isn't there to suggest anything is a safe vote anymore.

So only a mostly safe vote? I hope you will forgive me if I don't find any comfort in that.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that the way to really pass a malicious reformation vote is to create enough confusion that you confuse the defender voters -- this happened on "Repeal "Liberate Eastern Europe"", many of us had the wool pulled under our eyes.

I can't tell which side you are arguing. If anything this is further evidence that this entire proposal should be junked, ASAP.

[Mahaj]

Liberations do not always pass with an overwhelming supermajority - with a well-oiled anti-campaigns in place, liberations are quite difficult to pass. "Liberate Free Thought" for example, while being incredibly clear cut .. only very narrowly passed because Sedgistan and myself and a few others were campaigning like a son of a bitch to get every last vote against the equally formidable Imperialist anti-campaign.

This is off-topic. We are discussing the possibility of raiders ever passing a Reformation, not liberations, and definitely not defenders-passing-liberations.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that raiders could not pass a Reformation proposal.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This is off-topic. We are discussing the possibility of raiders ever passing a Reformation, not liberations, and definitely not defenders-passing-liberations.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that raiders could not pass a Reformation proposal.

Except every piece of evidence that currently exists regarding the SC.

[Astarial]

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that raiders could not pass a Reformation proposal.

Except every piece of evidence that currently exists regarding the SC.

Precisely - and that's how Liberation proposals are relevant, and that's why the data Cormac gathered is significant. To remind people:

Liberate Belgium: 4,715 (87%) to 676 (13%)
Liberate Feudal Japan: 4,575 (84%) to 894 (16%)
Liberate The Security Council: 3,465 (74%) to 1,215 (26%)
Liberate Democratia: 3,524 (72%) to 1,374 (28%)
Liberate Utopia: 3,138 (77%) to 936 (23%)
Liberate Free Thought: 2,896 (51%) to 2,832 (49%)
Liberate Land of the Liberals: 3,374 (66%) to 1,731 (34%)
Liberate Islam: 3,146 (64%) to 1,796 (36%)
Liberate Greece: 3,414 (74%) to 1,213 (26%)
Liberate Eastern Europe: 2,778 (53%) to 2,457 (47%)
Liberate Republicans: 6,509 (82%) to 1,455 (18%)
Liberate Wonderful Paradise: 7,303 (83%) to 1,477 (17%)
Liberate Catholic: 8,399 (80%) to 2,122 (20%)
Liberate Nationalist Union: 5,859 (60%) to 3,962 (40%)
Liberate Region of reunited muslim states: 6,598 (66%) to 3,406 (34%)
Liberate The United Kingdom of Britain: 8,658 (82%) to 1,933 (18%)
Liberate Benevolent Capitalism: 7,709 (85%) to 1,372 (15%)
Liberate Christmas: 5,571 (58%) to 4,040 (42%)
Liberate Hippiedom: 7,800 (82%) to 1,718 (18%)
Liberate South Pacific: 10,262 (86%) to 1,688 (14%)
Liberate NAZI EUROPE: 8,721 (68%) to 4,164 (32%)*

Liberation Resolutions Passed With a 75% or Higher Supermajority: 10 (~48%)
Liberation Resolutions Passed With a 66%-74% Supermajority: 6 (~29%)
Liberation Resolutions Passed With Less Than 66%: 5 (~24%)
Total Number of Liberation Resolutions: 21

In sum: Approximately 48% of all Liberation resolutions have passed with a 3/4 supermajority or greater. Approximately 76% of all Liberation resolutions have passed with a 2/3 supermajority or greater. Approximately 24% of all Liberation resolutions have passed with less than a 2/3 supermajority. Approximately 14% of all Liberation resolutions have passed with less than a 3/5 supermajority.

And it still received a lot of ire from people who saw it as abusing the Security Council - despite the fact that the SC's own description talks of spreading peace and goodwill by force if necessary.

That's because not everyone saw attacking Nazi Europe as "spreading peace and goodwill". But that's another discussion entirely, but I don't like how you're spinning the debate to assume your own moral viewpoint.

Morality schmorality. The WA's own description allows for its offensive use - that that has only ever occurred once, and that it was against a target that much of NS finds distasteful and, for some, offensive, and that it still received public backlash, is indicative of how liberations are not a tool open to raiders to use, and how reformations will not be either.

And yes, when I say that liberations pass with supermajority votes in favor, that statement stands the statistical test. It is the exception, not the norm, for them to pass narrowly, and there is no data that supports an assertion that patterns would be significantly different for reformations.

---

This change will kill off R/D, by taking the possibility of a straight win away from raiders. It will also kill off political intrigue, as any GCR (or UCR, though that's less common) that finds itself couped will be able to prevent the rogue delegate from doing any damage or in fact taking any actions to hold onto their delegacy (and will also completely negate the effects of the GCR influence capping that recently went into effect). It's a good change to make if you want complete GP stagnation, but I would argue quite strenuously that stagnation is terrible for the game.

The only way I could see this being at all viable is if it could only apply once to a particular region within the lifetime of the game - you get one shot, ever. But that also makes it relatively useless, since whatever raider or couper took the delegacy the first time need only bide their time and come back in a week, or a month, or however long, and just do what they were going to do in the first place.

Sedge, Ballo, [violet], and any other mods/admins following along... can any of you weigh in on whether you're willing to not implement this proposal at all? Or are we definitely going to be stuck with it in some form?

[Unibot III]

Here's what I find amusing with you're argument, Unibot.

You're saying not that Raiders have the ability to use Liberation Proposals, and by extension the Security Council, for themselves, but rather you're stating that Raiders might have the ability to stop Defenders from using it for their Defender needs. Sometimes, though, not a majority of the time. Oh and most, if not all, of the last attempts failed.

That is no where near to being balanced. If anything it suggests that the Defender side has a near iron grip on the ability to use the SC for their side and their side alone and that all that the Raider side can ever hope to do is try to prevent a resolution from passing from time to time. Preventing a Liberation, or in this case a Reformation, from passing isn't a Raider victory, we didn't "win" anything except prevent a tool from being used against use.

What use is a feature if it can't be reasonably used by both sides? How is that fair and balanced?

I didn't say that.

We've seen Liberation proposals used offensively and we will probably continue to see them used offensively while the WA Voting Block grows more and more raider-leaning.

[Evil Wolf]

We've seen Liberation proposals used offensively

No, we have not. We've seen one, single solitary proposal, which was backed by both Raiders and Defenders, pass against a Nazi region. Liberate Nazi Europe was not a Raider Proposal. It was submitted by a Feederite, then Lazarus Delegate Feux who is not a Raider, backed by the GCRs, and even a good number of Defenders supported it. This is very much the exception, not the rule and still does not support the argument that Raiders can use the Security Council for their own operations.

Asta's wonderful chart, right above Unibot's post, proves that most Liberation Proposals have passed dramatically in favor of the submitting party, which has been Defenderm in every case but Nazi Europe. There is no "Growing Raider Block" of WA voters. There is no evidence to even support that idea. The historical facts clearly show that Raiders can not use the Security Council, not for Liberation Proposals, not for Reformations.

Beyond the one sidedness of this proposal, however, I don't much like the game mechanics of it. It's a Game Breaker, a one hit knock out with no defense. ADMIN might as well rename Reformations to "InstaWins", because that's basically what would happen if used by one side against the other. It is far too powerful for either side to possess.

Once again, I'm with Asta in wanting MOD and ADMIN feedback on if Reformations will for sure be implemented or if this idea can be thrown out entirely.

[Aglrinia]

We've seen Liberation proposals used offensively

No, we have not. We've seen one, single solitary proposal, which was backed by both Raiders and Defenders, pass against a Nazi region. Liberate Nazi Europe was not a Raider Proposal. It was submitted by a Feederite, then Lazarus Delegate Feux who is not a Raider, backed by the GCRs, and even a good number of Defenders supported it. This is very much the exception, not the rule and still does not support the argument that Raiders can use the Security Council for their own operations.

Asta's wonderful chart, right above Unibot's post, proves that most Liberation Proposals have passed dramatically in favor of the submitting party, which has been Defenderm in every case but Nazi Europe. There is no "Growing Raider Block" of WA voters. There is no evidence to even support that idea. The historical facts clearly show that Raiders can not use the Security Council, not for Liberation Proposals, not for Reformations.

Beyond the one sidedness of this proposal, however, I don't much like the game mechanics of it. It's a Game Breaker, a one hit knock out with no defense. ADMIN might as well rename Reformations to "InstaWins", because that's basically what would happen if used by one side against the other. It is far too powerful for either side to possess.

Once again, I'm with Asta in wanting MOD and ADMIN feedback on if Reformations will for sure be implemented or if this idea can be thrown out entirely.

The Liberation tool is a disgusting ability that should have never been created. It's merely nothing but the author shouting to the world "He locked me out, help me forge a key to unlock the door." The fact of the matter is there's no good locksmith in the whole of nationstates so in our attempts to unlock the door we break the lock, thus sadly making it so the door is always open.

[Sedgistan]

Sedge, Ballo, [violet], and any other mods/admins following along... can any of you weigh in on whether you're willing to not implement this proposal at all? Or are we definitely going to be stuck with it in some form?

The thread is being read by myself, the admins and other mods interested in gameplay. We're aware that of all the changes, this one has had the most negative feedback. Not posting here was deliberate - I wanted to see how the discussion continued to play out without our input.

Since it looks like our input is now necessary, I can say that we still want a mechanism to address this:

Combat situations where a group through weight of endorsements cannot realistically be removed from the delegacy through other means.

However, we don't want Reformations to end any chance of a long-term occupation of a region. I'm not convinced that the defender bloc has the significant numerical advantage over invaders that people assume they do (or did) have; however, I understand that with the several days preparation that a Reformation proposal would give them, it would be easier to achieve.

There is also the concern about Reformations killing off GCR coups, which is not something that is intended.

Assume for now that Reformations will still be implemented. However, look at ways of mitigating the concerns that have been brought up, perhaps with relation to other changes (Regional Officers in particular, I'd think).

[Kantrian Recruiter]

Sedge, the entire body of WA Liberation work (Not to mention a great many Gameplay Commendations and Condemnations) point out how easily a Defender-written, pro-defender, etc resolution gets passed. As long as a reformation proposal continues to do what it is currently slated to do, then there can't be any mitigation. You can't stand there and deny that evidence.

There might be other ways to handle the 'problem' you refer to, but targeting the influence most certainly isn't it. Zillions of others have come up in the various discussions of this problem, it seems odd that administration would settle on this on so firmly.

[Mahaj]

Not like we've ever seen a failed Liberation before...

[Astarial]

Since it looks like our input is now necessary, I can say that we still want a mechanism to address this:

Combat situations where a group through weight of endorsements cannot realistically be removed from the delegacy through other means.

I'm not sure I understand why this is something that needs to be addressed. If you have enough endorsements on a delegate that they can't be toppled... that's just widespread popular support. Why does there need to be a way to counter widespread popular support that isn't simply undermining that support?

Support for a GCR delegate can be countered via propaganda campaigns and political networking, spun to counter that delegate's own propaganda campaigns and networking. Support for a raider delegate can't often be countered by appealing to natives of the raided region, since generally they won't be a major influence keeping the raider in power, but it can still be eroded by other forms of political machination that convince non-updaters to withdraw. If efforts to do so are unsuccessful, the delegate has majority support and should win.

This game has always looked at winning in terms of absolute numbers - whoever has the most endorsements gets to be the delegate. This is already being mitigated by the Delegate Elect proposal, which will allow for a temporary state of non-winningness when "the most endorsements" isn't most enough. And that's fine, because there is a discrepancy in the balance between update and non-update forces, and DE has a chance of balancing that out.

But Reformations as laid out aren't balanced, and they'll remove the very idea that there is a scenario that can actually be described as winning. If they go into effect, it won't matter if a raider has a hundred endorsements and defenders only have 20 - the raider delegate will be tied up in Reformation knots indefinitely, until they get frustrated and abandon the delegacy on their own, never having been able to touch the ban button. GCR coups will become utterly meaningless, because the delegate will have no way whatsoever to hold onto their seat.

If it's really necessary to add a bit of extra oomph to the effort to balance an honest-to-god numerical superiority... why not change the scope of reformations entirely? Have them affect something other than regional controls, so they don't seem like just a godly version of DE. What about influence - they could wipe some amount of accumulated influence within the targeted region (all or simply a large chunk, like 75%), or they could reduce influence gain for nations in the region for a certain period of time.

But even if the scope is changed, I'm still not convinced this is a good idea, or at all needed, and in combination with the others, it very much risks overkill. Of the 7 changes that have been presented, three of them (DE, Reformation, and Custodian) will weight game balance against raiding, and none will counter that. Officers, Update Times, and Influence all seem to be relatively well balanced for and against both sides, and Annexations will likely provide a benefit to both defenders (who can better protect regions by organizing them into an empire structure) and to imperialists (duh), but not to pure raiders.

This at the very least merits a pause to think about - is R/D currently really that unbalanced, that three gigantic game changes need to be made in favor of one side? If that were the case, you'd expect to see evidence that defenders are utterly incapable of countering raiders, and that's simply not true - note the recent raid on Sapphire, which was actively defended against and only succeeded because it was a passworded region, and the recent liberation attempt, which only just barely did not succeed (by something like one endorsement, I think? At least according to the UDL thread).

DE, Reformation, and Custodian are all enormous changes, and it's simply impossible to predict all of the effects they will have on the game in advance. If they are all rolled out, I think it is highly possible that raiding as a sub-game will simply disappear due to the inability to create success within it. It would be far, far better to introduce them one at a time over a period of at least several months, in order to allow the impacts of one change to be fully felt before deciding whether more are still needed. I would suggest starting with Delegate Elect, and then just watching it for a while. See how often raiders hit targets that would qualify for DE status based on size, and see how often, of those targets, they're close enough in endo count to actually trigger DE. See how often they hit and hold targets that don't qualify for DE too, because if DE kicks in at 10 endos and raiders completely stop going after targets larger than 9 endos, that's an unintended consequence that needs to be addressed. See if tweaking the size or the endorsement differential fixes any problems that arise. In other words, test and retest these one at a time. And in six months if raiders are stomping all over defenders and the change hasn't had enough of an effect on updater/non-updater balance, then try another one.

[Kantrian Recruiter]

And as you even see there, there wasn't a password, Mahaj. yes, Liberations fail. But the preponderance of evidence stands. You want this because you know you can pass it and use it to make a game over for raiders.

Also, 100% agreement with Alstariel.

[All Good People]

Combat situations where a group through weight of endorsements cannot realistically be removed from the delegacy through other means.

So...wait. You want to create a mechanism that overrides endorsements ?

"Combat situations".....r/d gameplay....
"
A group through weight of endorsements"......Delegate has enough endorsements, no one can topple him/her...

"cannot realistically be removed through other means"....... so that 'means' being a Reformation resolution that will override the effect of endorsements ?

Nonsense.

[Gest]

Also, 100% agreement with Alstariel.

I agree with this sentiment that the "solution" to raiders being able to mobilize more people should be dealt with through regional officers and the delegate elect feature. The defenders aren't incapable now of taking mitigating measures, having sleepers in a region, to improve their chances.

Anyone who thinks punting this to the SC is a balanced approach to take is willfully oblivious. People grow attached to property even virtual property. You're never going to a get a significant number of people to support trespass.

[Unibot III]

Wiping influence wouldn't resolve major piling - if your opponent has the region completely flooded, it's a game-over scenario. Raiders have been trying to deny that for years since they've switched to piling tactics but at it's core, piling is one the main causes for the decline in R/D competition (not better timing and faster switching -- as others have claimed), yet it is uncoincidentally, the cause that is most controversial.

[Evil Wolf]

Wiping influence wouldn't resolve major piling - if your opponent has the region completely flooded, it's a game-over scenario.

HA! HA! That's funny. It's also not true.

I remember quite clearly the Pixiedance coup in TNP back in 2005. It was pre-influence, mind you, and only one update existed back then. Three players controlled Pixiedance and were banning anyone who opposed them with absolute impunity. Defenders did not have the benefit of influence slowing down or preventing Pixie from banning whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. They were facing off their prey in a Feeder, one of the hardest battlegrounds in NS, before or after Influence. And yet Pixiedance lost. Pixiedance was drummed out through a relentless resistance movement and brilliant tactics on the part of the ADN operatives who were controlling Stars of Sky. They didn't need a Security Council InstaWin (™) proposal to do it either, and they were operating in far harder circumstances than Defenders currently face.

Raiders have had the ability to re-enforce their position (a tactic pretentiously called "piling" by the UDL) since as long as gameplay has ever existed. Defenders can do it as well, and they have in the past with great degrees of success.

What shocks me the most about all these recent proposed changes to the SC is that they are aimed at ensuring that Defenders win. It's as if ADMIN is declaring that raiders should not be able to win and that Defenders must always come out the victor in order for the game to be "fair and balanced", but proposals like this one doesn't make the gameplay balanced, it just turns raiders into nameless Red-shirted mooks for Defenders to crush at their leisure.

This proposal is essentially trying to fix a problem that doesn't even exist and through an extreme manner that, if this were Role Play, would be equal to screaming out "I nuke you, and I win".

[Cerian Quilor]

Wiping influence wouldn't resolve major piling - if your opponent has the region completely flooded, it's a game-over scenario. Raiders have been trying to deny that for years since they've switched to piling tactics but at it's core, piling is one the main causes for the decline in R/D competition (not better timing and faster switching -- as others have claimed), yet it is uncoincidentally, the cause that is most controversial.

People have always been piling to secure what they capture, Unibot. Its called tactics.

[Unibot III]

Wiping influence wouldn't resolve major piling - if your opponent has the region completely flooded, it's a game-over scenario.

HA! HA! That's funny. It's also not true.

I remember quite clearly the Pixiedance coup in TNP back in 2005. It was pre-influence, mind you, and only one update existed back then. Three players controlled Pixiedance and were banning anyone who opposed them with absolute impunity. Defenders did not have the benefit of influence slowing down or preventing Pixie from banning whomever they wanted, whenever they wanted. They were facing off their prey in a Feeder, one of the hardest battlegrounds in NS, before or after Influence. And yet Pixiedance lost. Pixiedance was drummed out through a relentless resistance movement and brilliant tactics on the part of the ADN operatives who were controlling Stars of Sky. They didn't need a Security Council InstaWin (™) proposal to do it either, and they were operating in far harder circumstances than Defenders currently face.

Raiders have had the ability to re-enforce their position (a tactic pretentiously called "piling" by the UDL) since as long as gameplay has ever existed. Defenders can do it as well, and they have in the past with great degrees of success.

What shocks me the most about all these recent proposed changes to the SC is that they are aimed at ensuring that Defenders win. It's as if ADMIN is declaring that raiders should not be able to win and that Defenders must always come out the victor in order for the game to be "fair and balanced", but proposals like this one doesn't make the gameplay balanced, it just turns raiders into nameless Red-shirted mooks for Defenders to crush at their leisure.

This proposal is essentially trying to fix a problem that doesn't even exist and through an extreme manner that, if this were Role Play, would be equal to screaming out "I nuke you, and I win".

The North Pacific Directorate is a much different case than a typical piled raid -- pile raids occur with much more frequency than a major coup like The Pixiedance Affair. With the Pixiedance Affair, The ADN had the opportunity to build the "perfect citizen" and engineer a revolution against The NPD/NPG.

There is no need to switch leads in a typical raid, so UDL would need to get operatives all the away up into the highest ranks of raider organizations to get them used as leads. But then, we'd also need to burn that operative to save the region. Which means we'd be wasting operatives and all of the investment put into them to get into these upper echelons of raiding communities, upwards of ten times a year. That's just not a feasible suggestion and you know that.

Comparing The Pixiedance Affair with your typical pile raid is devoid of any context. These pile raids happen in much greater frequency and are much more controlled environments than a distressed feeder.

[Unibot III]

Wiping influence wouldn't resolve major piling - if your opponent has the region completely flooded, it's a game-over scenario. Raiders have been trying to deny that for years since they've switched to piling tactics but at it's core, piling is one the main causes for the decline in R/D competition (not better timing and faster switching -- as others have claimed), yet it is uncoincidentally, the cause that is most controversial.

People have always been piling to secure what they capture, Unibot. Its called tactics.

When Macedon used tactics to secure what they captured, it was agreed to be a game-over scenario and game-over scenarios are generally regarded as bad for R/D.

[Evil Wolf]

When Macedon used tactics to secure what they captured, it was agreed to be a game-over scenario and game-over scenarios are generally regarded as bad for R/D.

But Macedon were greifers and the reason why they were successful in France, for example, was because they passworded the region and Liberation Proposals didn't exist. It was because of griefers like Macedon that we made Liberation Proposals. In fact, they would have a very difficult time repeating the deeds that earned them the first condemn in NS history today because of Liberation Proposals, so no more "game over" by password because that's been fixed.

Unibot, why do you want another tool to fix a problem that the last tool already fixed?

These pile raids happen in much greater frequency and are much more controlled environments than a distressed feeder.

Tell you what, Unibot, lets implement Delegate Elect status first and watch the first few instances where Defenders and Raiders have to duke it out in a 12 hour Endorsement Battle and see how that goes before we even think about implementing Reformations. If what you're saying is correct and Raiders have such a huge advantage when it comes to numbers, those Endorsement Battles should be curve stomp victories for any group of Raiders. Of course, both you and I know that's not the case, isn't that right Unibot? So what I predect we're going to see very close battles, at least if the Delegate Elect Status only lasts one 12 hour update. If it lasts any longer than that, Defenders will hands down win an Endorsement Battle. There is really no dispute about that, it's a constant historical fact. We saw it in Balder and Osiris when they were created.

[Unibot III]

When Macedon used tactics to secure what they captured, it was agreed to be a game-over scenario and game-over scenarios are generally regarded as bad for R/D.

But Macedon were greifers and the reason why they were successful in France, for example, was because they passworded the region and Liberation Proposals didn't exist. It was because of griefers like Macedon that we made Liberation Proposals. In fact, they would have a very difficult time repeating the deeds that earned them the first condemn in NS history today because of Liberation Proposals, so no more "game over" by password because that's been fixed.

Unibot, why do you want another tool to fix a problem that the last tool already fixed?

This would be logically sound if password-griefing was the only "game over" scenario ever possible in the history of NationStates.

Unfortunately, it is not.

Just like how password-griefing became a "game over" scenario after Regional Influence (and more specifically the griefing rules's dissolution), piling has become a "game over" scenario -- a pile can be used to demolish a region into rubble where defenders have no chance of countering the invasion. The asymmetrical need for more defender updaters than invader updaters has always been present, but has only become the primary point of exploitation in the past few years of Military Gameplay.

A major region can be taken with a dozen invaders and require more than a hundred defenders to liberate -- in gross cases like Belgium. Ironically, it was Belgium last time that served as proof that password-griefing was a "game over" scenario.

Tell you what, Unibot, lets implement Delegate Elect status first and watch the first few instances where Defenders and Raiders have to duke it out in a 12 hour Endorsement Battle and see how that goes before we even think about implementing Reformations. If what you're saying is correct and Raiders have such a huge advantage when it comes to numbers, those Endorsement Battles should be curve stomp victories for Raider. Of course, both you and I know that's not the case, isn't that right Unibot? So what I predect we're going to see very close battles, at least if the Delegate Elect Status only lasts one 12 hour update. If it lasts any longer than that, Defenders will hands down win an Endorsement Battle. There is really no dispute about that, it's a constant historical fact. We saw it in Balder and Osiris when they were created.

We have to get it close to activate the Delegate Elect process -- if the Delegate Elect process encourages invaders to pile more than they already do (and they're holding back -- we know they can pile over 90+ on a lead, not the 40+ we see lately), then we'll be back with the same problem of piling as a "game over" scenario.

I don't see why invaders would not be encouraged to pile more invaders into the region after Delegate Elect is added as a feature. The Delegate Elect feature may very well encourage what it was trying to alleviate without a further political reason to play "fair" (regions with less piling will not look like justified targets for a "Reformation" proposal -- Belgium would have).