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

[Evil Wolf]

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.

Except you're deceptively overestimating our numbers. If Raiders really had the numbers you're suggesting, we'd be taking over Feeders and Sinkers with our massive unstoppable hordes. We don't do that because said faceless legions don't exist. Let's wait and see how Delegate Elect plays out. I highly doubt in a 12-hour endorsement slug-fest that raiders will come out on top even half of the time.

A major region can be taken with a dozen invaders and require more than a hundred defenders to liberate

Utter nonsense. I held Anarchy with about 15 raiders and the UDL managed to liberate it. I'm positive that 100 defenders weren't flooding the region, since I was point and I'm fairly certain I would have noticed that.

[Unibot III]

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.

Except you're deceptively overestimating our numbers. If Raiders really had the numbers you're suggesting, we'd be taking over Feeders and Sinkers with our massive unstoppable hordes. We don't do that because said faceless legions don't exist. Let's wait and see how Delegate Elect plays out. I highly doubt in a 12-hour endorsement slug-fest that raiders will come out on top even half of the time.

Nonsense, you cannot use such piling forces to invade, you can only use piling forces to pile post-invasion. You would be caught in a slow invasion.

A major region can be taken with a dozen invaders and require more than a hundred defenders to liberate

Utter nonsense. I held Anarchy with about 15 raiders and the UDL managed to liberate it. I'm positive that 100 defenders weren't flooding the region, since I was point and I'm fairly certain I would have noticed that.

A red herring, you didn't pile in Anarchy, so 100 defenders would have been unnecessary force. You invaded it with only a handful of invaders to top you off, then you had like fifteen nations move in to endorse you. That's not a case like Belgium, where a region is taken by twelve invaders, then piled with eighty-ninety invaders on top of that.

[Evil Wolf]

Don't you think, and this is going to be a wild idea here, that maybe if someone can come up with 85+ raiders for a single operation they deserve the victory? Wouldn't that be about time to shake hands and go "Good show, old blokes, but looks like you won this round" rather than ask ADMIN to install an InstaWin (™) button so that Raiders can never win and Defenders never lose?

There were plenty of times Defenders out endorsed me in Sinkers, Feeders, or raids where the native delegates were inactive and the raid got busted. I didn't whine about it, I just resolved to recruit more people and find better allies.

[Astarial]

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

Having worked together on large libs, you and I both know how frustrating that is. But stepping back from the internals of playing the game, if one's opponent has a region completely flooded and your own side can't match them... that's what winning is, and should be. It's completely legitimate for defenders to straight-up win in a contested delegacy when they end up with more numbers, but it also has to be legitimate for raiders to straight-up win.

And this latter point is addressed at everyone who's concerned about numbers being a win, whether it's raiders via heavy reinforcements or defenders during a Delegate Elect scenario. It's okay if some things can't be won. That happens, and it happens for both sides. Yes, it's frustrating being on the losing side, but it's a competitive game. Someone has to win, and someone has to lose. It's only when nothing is winnable for one side that there's a problem.

(As a side note, I'm not sure I agree that it's game-over if the region is completely flooded. Defenders can be drawn off by raiding other regions, particularly ones they're under more of an obligation to protect. Some raiders, particularly within the imperialist sphere, can be as well, since they have the political connections to make that possible. Politicking to win is a completely legitimate tactic.)

[Cerian Quilor]

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.

You have to get close during update. So the numbers are more equitable there. Even you say the issue is the non-update troops piling in.

To pile that 90+, Unibot, every favor and every ally has to be called in, and everyone is squeezed until they bleed. Yes, those numbers are out there, but assembling them all at any given time is a lot harder than you make it seem. If I could get the 90+ in The Creed (and the commensurate increase in produced influence, making the task easier), I would. But this is where, as usual, your absolutism breaks down. Raiders aren't a 'they', even when you lump Imperialists and Independents into the label of Raiders. They're a complex group of regions, each region a complex set of people. We're not a damn hive mind.

[Unibot III]

Don't you think, and this is going to be a wild idea here, that maybe if someone can come up with 85+ raiders for a single operation they deserve the victory? Wouldn't that be about time to shake hands and go "Good show, old blokes, but looks like you won this round" rather than ask ADMIN to install an InstaWin (™) button so that Raiders can never win and Defenders never lose?

There were plenty of times Defenders out endorsed me in Sinkers, Feeders, or raids where the native delegates were inactive and the raid got busted. I didn't whine about it, I just resolved to recruit more people and find better allies.

There is no equivalent opportunity for defenders though, Evil Wolf. Invaders pride themselves about getting eighty pilers then expect defenders to get eighty updaters. There's a difference between getting someone to pile and getting some to attend a mission at update. It's upwards of x5-x10 more difficult.

Moreover, the idea that Reformation proposal is an Instawin button is a grand exaggeration.

I agree with CQ that large formations are not in style as much as two or three 40+ pile raids at a time (which are still incredibly incredibly hard to liberate against -- which reduces how many attempts are tried against invasions, slowing done the R/D to a boring unilateral snorefest) -- so that both the imperialists and the major invading cliques can claim victories that were engineered to be largely anti-competitive from the very beginning. Can I blame them? No absolutely not. They're doing what is in their rational interest to accomplish their goal. Just like Macedon was doing when they very effectively password-grieved.

But is this good for the game? Does the anti-competitive practices of mass piling have a downturn effect on the number of attempted liberations -- causing the game to staginate into two or three pile raids with little opposition, plus tag raiding as the inevitable relief? Yes, absolutely. It's not a positive factor in the activity and health of Military Gameplay; it shuts down competition and drives the game to be largely one-off, low-level-of-success liberations against a smorgasbord of pile raids which just... sit there... and do nothing... with no competition... because of your own rationalness in piling as much as you can.

The game's administrators should get involved when all actors are being rational and that leads to a downward effect on activity -- that's when we know the system is broken. That's when we know to alter the system so that all actors can play with their interests in mind and the game's overall health can be better for it, not worse.

[Silver Seas]

And your solution is to simply reverse who benefits from the 'snorefest'. The Reformation proposal makes Occupying impossible. It ends any occupation it hits.

Stop comparing piling to Macedon. They are radically different.

[Unibot III]

And your solution is to simply reverse who benefits from the 'snorefest'. The Reformation proposal makes Occupying impossible. It ends any occupation it hits.

Stop comparing piling to Macedon. They are radically different.

How is a Reformation proposal, an instant solution?

1. It takes at least four days at the very least to pass them. That means you have four days to pile more and prepare for the proposal's passage. Furthermore, if you're smart, you would only pile raid when the WASC queue is bugged up with resolutions -- or if you're really smart, you would bug up the WASC queue before you pile raid. Yes, that tactic is legal and I suspect it's been done at least once. Bear in mind, if you have three (legal) resolutions in the queue and the defenders are quick to propose the resolution (really fast), it would still take over two weeks for the resolution to come into effect.
2. We would still have to pile the region to be successful.
3. We would have the pass the bloody thing, which is not as easy as it sounds when you've got a load of major players against even the concept of what you're trying to do. WA Liberations nowadays are pretty infrequent, back when they were needed more they were a pain in the butt to debate and lobby especially if the invaders lobbied back. I can only remember one case where the invaders... really.. really fought the liberation proposal, which was Liberate Free Thought and that only passed because the lobbyists on the defender side worked their butts off to pass the resolution with a squeaky 50/50 margin.

I think the existence of the Reformation proposal would encourage invaders to take on a more political role. There's a lot of ways you can manipulate the WA to essentially stall any proposals you don't like:

1. Bumming up the queue with contentious stuff or repeals of liberations (the ol' "cleaning the books" argument) or if you're really smart, you propose a series of resolutions that are almost undefeatable ("Commend EveryonesFavoriteFeederDelegate"), which tires voters out.
2. Finding illegalities in the defender proposal. Sometimes possible.
3. Using false or misleading testimonies and evidence to stall discussion over irrelevant facts. <--- this worked AMAZINGLY in "Liberate Land of the Liberals", there was some guy who claimed he was the original founder of the region and didn't want the region liberated which nearly derailed the entire project.
4. Using popular sentiments ("defenders these days just rely on tools and resolutions") to spin against the resolution.
5. Turning the focus of the debate from the safety of the region to a debate between "Defenders and Raiders", increases the likelihood that onlookers will not see it as a discussion with a "right" answer -- in fact they'll tune us right out because "R/D bitchfests" are annoying. <-- Invaders are already good at this.
6. Lobbying heavily in the areas you're most likely to gain traction outside of the official forums.
7. Coordinating vote stomping networks <--- this is largely already in place; Osiris + Europeia + Balder is a vote cannon when it wants to be.

[Cerian Quilor]

Major players don't decide how SC resolutions pass. The lemmings do, and most of the time the lemming vote goes your way.

[Unibot III]

Major players don't decide how SC resolutions pass. The lemmings do, and most of the time the lemming vote goes your way.

Lemmings go the way the vote is going, CQ. If they go my way, its because the votes are going my way ----> all comes down to the people with the votes.

[Aglrinia]

Major players don't decide how SC resolutions pass. The lemmings do, and most of the time the lemming vote goes your way.

Lemmings go the way the vote is going, CQ. If they go my way, its because the votes are going my way ----> all comes down to the people with the votes.

I think it's quite safe to say that; however, the delegates of the feeders, sinkers, and 10000 islands vote affects the ruling so long as you make them happy you're fine. Let's face it not everyone actually reads what's up to vote some people just vote how in the direction in seems to be going. If not you've got to work your ass of making a rather large amount of delegates from the smaller regions happy. However there are some regions such as Nationstates, and Gate of Evil that will always vote against a security council resolution regardless of what it is.

[Gest]

Raider Tactics in 2014:

Finding illegalities in the defender proposal.

---

NS can have a big tent or it can subjugate the combat game completely to politics. This proposal gives the defenders an automatic political win that let's them appeal any raid. The admins may not like us but we're overall beneficial to the game. For example we bring in revenue, more than 90% of founderless regions I would bet. If you believe that there is an underlying issue then find a combat way to solve it. Force us to play a game where an integral component involves doc review, proposal stuffing, and vote canvassing, and don't be surprised if there are a lot less raiders around.

[Frisbeeteria]

The lemmings do, and most of the time the lemming vote goes your way.

I think there's a natural bias from the player base to vote against anything raider friendly. The great Silent Majority of WA players isn't interested in getting raided, and vote accordingly. I don't think you can attribute that exclusively to lemming movement,

I think Raiders are rightly concerned about this or any other SC proposal type favoring natives and defenders.

[Unibot III]

I disagree Fris: I don't think lemmings even read the text or understand the context of the text for the most part ... which is why they're lemmings. The primary reason why a lemming votes for or against is because of how the vote tally is going.

Furthermore, the claims of "10000 Islands" are overstated -- it really depends on whether 10XI's delegate is active and stacking (many of them prefer to wait for a vote, nowadays). We haven't seen that since AD's tenure. Without 10XI, the defender stacking vote is largely blown out of the water by the Osiris+Europeia+Balder vote cannon (as of late).

If a major power isn't stacking or stomping, they're essentially wasting their vote unless the resolution's margin is incredibly tight. Most resolutions are decided within the first five to ten hours -- and mostly decided within the first hour. Close votes are the ones where both sides are actively telegramming delegates with campaigns.

Gest: Defenders have been forced to get more political to accomplish their goals Post-SC, I don't see why invaders shouldn't be encouraged to get more political. Furthermore, not every raider is needed to do what I've said -- those who are interested in that kind of stuff would do just fine.

[Mallorea and Riva]

The lemmings do, and most of the time the lemming vote goes your way.

...
I think Raiders are rightly concerned about this or any other SC proposal type favoring natives and defenders.

Obviously I agree. Could you or Ballo comment on where we currently stand regarding whether or not this proposal will actually be implemented?

[Silver Seas]

The lemmings do, and most of the time the lemming vote goes your way.

I think there's a natural bias from the player base to vote against anything raider friendly. The great Silent Majority of WA players isn't interested in getting raided, and vote accordingly. I don't think you can attribute that exclusively to lemming movement,

I think Raiders are rightly concerned about this or any other SC proposal type favoring natives and defenders.

A knee jerk reaction vote, without knowing the details (which the phenomenon you describe is) is lemming behavior.

@Unibot: The overwhelming data of liberation passages speaks for itself. You will be able to get these Reformations passed as easily as your series of self-congratulatory commendations for UDL members were passed.

[Frisbeeteria]

Could you comment on where we currently stand regarding whether or not this proposal will actually be implemented?

Nope. I have nothing to do with this process. I should have clarified that I was posting as a player, not a mod.

A knee jerk reaction vote, without knowing the details (which the phenomenon you describe is) is lemming behavior.

That's not the phenomenon I was describing at all. I was saying that players who don't participate in R/D have a general bias against raiding. Yes, there's a lemming effect too, but it's not the sole driver for this.

Again, posting as a player.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Could you comment on where we currently stand regarding whether or not this proposal will actually be implemented?

Nope. I have nothing to do with this process. I should have clarified that I was posting as a player, not a mod.

Fair enough, thank you Fris.

[Unibot III]

You will be able to get these Reformations passed as easily as your series of self-congratulatory commendations for UDL members were passed.

Oh yeah, like that time "Commend Glen-Rhodes" passed.. wait, no it failed (on its first submission), 4,585 votes to 4,583. Because of .. what's that? Oh yeah, a large anti-campaign by invaders. I wonder what would have happened if invaders had put in the effort for a second anti-campaign.

And defenders did such a great job passing "Condemn TNI": defeated by 8,844 votes to 2,471. What a smashing success!

(Why was Condemn TNI different than Condemn TBR, TBH or LWU? Because TNI didn't want their condemnation so they organized a counter-campaign)

The reality is: when invaders actually put effort in trying to sway the WA, they do have influence. But I've only seen them engaged in counter-campaigns a few times in the past three years.

[Afforess]

You will be able to get these Reformations passed as easily as your series of self-congratulatory commendations for UDL members were passed.

Oh yeah, like that time "Commend Glen-Rhodes" passed.. wait, no it failed (on its first submission), 4,585 votes to 4,583. Because of .. what's that? Oh yeah, a large anti-campaign by invaders. I wonder what would have happened if invaders had put in the effort for a second anti-campaign.

And defenders did such a great job passing "Condemn TNI": defeated by 8,844 votes to 2,471. What a smashing success!

(Why was Condemn TNI different than Condemn TBR, TBH or LWU? Because TNI didn't want their condemnation so they organized a counter-campaign)

The reality is: when invaders actually put effort in trying to sway the WA, they do have influence. But I've only seen them engaged in counter-campaigns a few times in the past three years.

The best invaders can do is stop your legislation. They can not use legislation for their own ends. This ultimately proves Mall & Co's point, not yours.

[Unibot III]

The best invaders can do is stop your legislation. They can not use legislation for their own ends. This ultimately proves Mall & Co's point, not yours.

Nonsense.

You can use it purely to annoy. People have no imagination: it's the WA Security Council, you can LIE YOUR ARSE OFF and the moderators are not allowed to intervene. You pick a region people don't know well and you can easily pretend to be disgruntled natives -- get yourself ban and ejected. These opportunities present themselves. "Liberate Eastern Europe" is a perfect example of this -- "Liberate Haven" got pretty close too.

Alternatively, it could be used to annoy larger regions like GCRs -- a case would simply be needed to argue that a GCR government is tyrannous. Easy as pie. Lazarus? Commie juncta that just kicked various members out! Balder? Imperialist summer cottage! Osiris? Astarial's illegal overthrowing of the Republic! The Pacific? Dictatorship! The South Pacific? Deadweight Anti-Frak Oligarchy! The West Pacific? Westwind + Eli -- 'nuff said! The North Pacific? [insert any recent violations of its lawbooks]! The East Pacific? Anti-Adspam Francoist Colony! You can spin anything... anything if you put your mind to it and repeat that message, then repeat it again and then repeat it again. Throw in some obvious bribes to some public officials and the political motivations various GCRs would have for wanting to see each other burn... and you've got a very real possibility at being able to completely devastate a GCR until a Repeal can be passed.

[Kiwitaicho]

Even if we acknowledge what you're saying for a second, is accurate, defenders would still benefit from this proposal disproportionately more than raiders would.

Period.

Defenders are always going to have the benefit of PR and they don't need to make up a story that could potentially be thwarted.

[Unibot III]

Even if we acknowledge what you're saying for a second, is accurate, defenders would still benefit from this proposal disproportionately more than raiders would.

I think it would be fair to say that like WA Liberations, defenders have more opportunities and more use for Reformation proposals. But I don't think it's fair to say that unlike WA Liberations, Reformation Proposals have no potential for abuse.

It was never a precondition of the creation of the WA Liberation category that raiders would equally benefit and equally use the WA Liberation category -- that would be absurd and clearly untrue. What was a precondition of the creation of the WA Liberation category was that WA Liberations had to be open to abuse, which WA Reformations would be too -- that's all I'm arguing.

If you make the debate in terms of: "this feature needs to help raiders just as much as defenders", we'll get nowhere, we'll miss the point and we also won't be approaching the serious systematic problem with Gameplay: piling.

The current problem with Military Gameplay is not that raiders are unfairly disadvantaged, the problem is that currently it is in the rational interest of invaders to pile regions so much that Military Gameplay is reduced to tag-raiding as a last resort to find some (any) form of competition. That's when you know the system has completely and utterly collapsed.

[Cerian Quilor]

You think that we could actually make that stick. But the failure of Liberate Haven is pretty much picture proof you have no clue of which you speak.

This change isn't solving a problem. Its taking a sledgehammer to it and destroying a whole host of other things along with the 'problem' of piling.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

The notion of completely removing ejection powers does seems to be largely viewed as unfair.

How about a resolution which, in a subtly different implementation, causes a region's Delegate(s) to be treated as having no influence. They would (as we learned during Milograd's coup) be able to expel other nations with no influence, such as nations coming in from the outside. They would not, however, have the power to expel nations present at previous updates. As it would not be possible to pass such a resolution before a delegate-elect gets their powers, these nations would presumably by and large be natives. Nations which manage to enter and not be expelled at later updates could also be secured, or the resolution could remove their ability to gain influence (or even freeze influence in the region entirely).

Thoughts?