Poll: Opting out of the invader/defender game

[Marcuslandia]

Let's try to get some hard numbers. How many _players_ want to express their preferences? It would be nice if no one tried to stuff the ballot box, but I seriously expect certain....enthusiastic players to run every puppet they can through the poll. So, DO NOT TAKE THESE NUMBERS SERIOUSLY. I guarantee they are warped.

[Romanar]

If I had my way, my region would be MORE involved in the I/D game. Maybe not at either extreme, but the same mechanism that allows raids also allows interesting politics, particularly in the Feeders, and adds more to inter-regional relations.

[Erastide]

It depends what you mean by "opt out". Do you confine people to a region and never allow them to leave?

[Marcuslandia]

It depends what you mean by "opt out". Do you confine people to a region and never allow them to leave?

Well _that_ depends on the identifying characteristics of an invasion. Basically, a large group of WAs move into a region. The newcomers vote as a block to install their own Delegate. The Delegate sets a secret password. The banjects start.

If a region has decided to opt out, that fact is very boldly shown in the WFE. "Thou shalt not invade this region! Violators will be persecuted." If any of the of the last three steps in an invasion occurs, the Mods get flagged. (They're in the best position to recognize an invasion when they see one.) If they ascertain that the large influx was of invaders, "appropriate" steps are taken to dismantle the invasion and the violators properly chastised for invading an opt-out region.

The flipside of being resident in an opt-out region MUST be that no resident or recent resident ("recent" to be defined) may participate in an invasion or liberation of another non-opt-out region, under the same penalty of receiving the same chastisement dished out to invader violators.

[Martyrdoom]

For arguments sake if the result indicated a wish for an opt-out and it was then going to be implemented would it naturally abrogate and supercede the other related issues, such as the Liberation proposal, the eliminating (or modifying) of the passwords proposal, the replacement of inactive founders proposal etc?

[Naivetry]

It depends what you mean by "opt out". Do you confine people to a region and never allow them to leave?

Well _that_ depends on the identifying characteristics of an invasion. Basically, a large group of WAs move into a region. The newcomers vote as a block to install their own Delegate. The Delegate sets a secret password. The banjects start.

If a region has decided to opt out, that fact is very boldly shown in the WFE. "Thou shalt not invade this region! Violators will be persecuted." If any of the of the last three steps in an invasion occurs, the Mods get flagged. (They're in the best position to recognize an invasion when they see one.) If they ascertain that the large influx was of invaders, "appropriate" steps are taken to dismantle the invasion and the violators properly chastised for invading an opt-out region.

The flipside of being resident in an opt-out region MUST be that no resident or recent resident ("recent" to be defined) may participate in an invasion or liberation of another non-opt-out region, under the same penalty of receiving the same chastisement dished out to invader violators.

This would be as bad or worse than a return to the griefing rules - incredibly hard to enforce. Every time the mods got a complaint, they'd have to investigate the invading nations to see if the players had nations elsewhere in a "no-invasion" region. And that would still not stop raiders who decide not to base themselves out of any region, or who don't maintain permanent ties to any one region in particular, but simply organize on an offsite forum. If you dealt out penalties to the region rather than to the nation, things would be even worse, since an invader could sabotage a peaceful no-invasion region by stashing a nation there and then conducting a noisy raid elsewhere.

"recent" to be defined

This is the whole problem. It would simply delay invasions, not prevent them (just like Influence), while allowing political enemies of newcomers to claim that the newcomers were invading, even if they weren't. Meanwhile, real raiders would simply wait until the naturalization period had expired before completing the raid.

[Marcuslandia]

It's a given that players are permitted to have multiple player positions (nations). If a player places one of those nations in an opt-out region, there is no requirement that he treat ALL of his nations as opted out.

If an opt-out resident runs off to play I/D, it is _that_ nation that would be at fault; NOT the entire region.

I do not see opting out as a mechanism that replaces or supersedes other game mechanics. It is simply a way to allow players to be assured that their region will not be invaded, nor will their immediate neighbors often be off stomping on somebody else's region. It would be a community where you didn't need to lock your doors, and burglars are not allowed to be residents. Cuts down on the atmosphere of paranoia everyone else must breathe everywhere else they live in NS.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I'm not sure this is technically possible but I agree that like protecting homes from burglars it should be possible to protect regions from invaders.

Just a note: if you are a founder you should be able to do just that using password protection.

[TannerFrankLand]

More important numbers would be how many invaders/defenders would end up losing interest in the game if raiding was outlawed, which is basically what this would do seeing as almost every major region would opt out probably...

[Martyrdoom]

It's a given that players are permitted to have multiple player positions (nations). If a player places one of those nations in an opt-out region, there is no requirement that he treat ALL of his nations as opted out.

If an opt-out resident runs off to play I/D, it is _that_ nation that would be at fault; NOT the entire region.

I do not see opting out as a mechanism that replaces or supersedes other game mechanics. It is simply a way to allow players to be assured that their region will not be invaded, nor will their immediate neighbors often be off stomping on somebody else's region. It would be a community where you didn't need to lock your doors, and burglars are not allowed to be residents. Cuts down on the atmosphere of paranoia everyone else must breathe everywhere else they live in NS.

Right. And so all of those other proposals (liberation, password and founder) we have been discussing would conceivably operate within those regions that 'opt-in'?

I don't mind a community where you would'nt need to lock doors and burglars are not allowed to be residents as long as that community does not have the opportunity to go and do the things they are themselves immune from. Still, I can see NS practically fragmenting before our eyes if we go down this path. And if theres too many people opting-out, theres no substantial I/D game to be had.

[Fatatatutti]

Don't know much about it but the whole Invader/Defender thing seems pretty silly to me. When I was twelve, the big kids in school would take the soccer ball away from the little kids and kick it over the school. Isn't that about the same thing?

I can see that "opting out" wouldn't be enforcible. You can't stop a majority of voters from deciding to go one way or the other. But for an organized group to rush in and deliberately force its wishes on a region just for "fun" - that's one of the lowest things I can think of, a perversion of democracy and just downright mean.

I'd be embarassed to be associated with anybody who thinks such bullying is the "heart and soul" of the game.

[Naivetry]

Don't know much about it but the whole Invader/Defender thing seems pretty silly to me. When I was twelve, the big kids in school would take the soccer ball away from the little kids and kick it over the school. Isn't that about the same thing?

And then the defenders come in and give the soccer ball back. And in the process, they are forced to work together with other regions, create treaties and conduct interregional diplomacy in order to ensure that they will have enough players to accomplish that playground policing. Politics. That's the heart and soul of the game for me, but it is only made possible because actual threats exist which I have to work to prevent.

More important numbers would be how many invaders/defenders would end up losing interest in the game if raiding was outlawed, which is basically what this would do seeing as almost every major region would opt out probably...

This. Every major region would absolutely opt-out because no one wants to be invaded.

It's a given that players are permitted to have multiple player positions (nations). If a player places one of those nations in an opt-out region, there is no requirement that he treat ALL of his nations as opted out.

If an opt-out resident runs off to play I/D, it is _that_ nation that would be at fault; NOT the entire region.

No long-term raider or defender conducts raids with their main nation. So raiders and defenders alike would declare their main regions to be opt-out zones, and happily continue raiding and defending with their puppets, as we always have.

None of this addresses the real problem, which is that this would be just as hard to enforce as the griefing rules, but would kill the raider/defender game rather than enabling it to flourish within limits.

[Erastide]

Yeah, a scenario involving moderator judgment calls on whether a raid is taking place isn't likely to happen.

[Fatatatutti]

And then the defenders come in and give the soccer ball back.

So the robbers un-rob the bank and the rapists un-rape their victims. Good to know.

That's the heart and soul of the game for me, but it is only made possible because actual threats exist which I have to work to prevent.

But you create the threats in the first place. Sounds like Münchausen syndrome by proxy.

Every major region would absolutely opt-out because no one wants to be invaded.

If nobody wants it done to them, why do you feel justified in doing it to them?

[Marcuslandia]

Everybody wants the game to be the kind of game _they_ want it to be. It seems that most of the anti arguments boils down to, "What happens if the clear majority don't want there to be an I/D game at all? Where would I go to play the game _I_ want to play?"

Which sort of explains a lot of what has been going on for a long time. "In order for me to get _my_ fun, some, many of you others will just have to grin and bare it!"

I don't believe I've ever heard quite so many or quite so loud of arguments against Majority Rule. Especially for a game so solidly entrenched in the democratic process.

[Erastide]

And then the defenders come in and give the soccer ball back.

So the robbers un-rob the bank and the rapists un-rape their victims. Good to know.

That's the heart and soul of the game for me, but it is only made possible because actual threats exist which I have to work to prevent.

But you create the threats in the first place. Sounds like Münchausen syndrome by proxy.

Every major region would absolutely opt-out because no one wants to be invaded.

If nobody wants it done to them, why do you feel justified in doing it to them?

If you haven't been paying attention, Naivetry is a defender. That means no invasions.

Max has decreed that there will be invasions and defending. That part of the game will not go away. The question and struggle is how much it can impinge on the way other people play the game.

[Fatatatutti]

If you haven't been paying attention, Naivetry is a defender. That means no invasions.

In English, "you" is both singular and plural - i.e. not necessarily intended to single Naivetry out.

Max has decreed that there will be invasions and defending. That part of the game will not go away.

As I said earlier, invading/defending can not be prevented without infringing on a region's right to run its own affairs, so no, it won't "go away". What I'm suggesting is that voluntary good sportsmanship would prevent most of it.

The question and struggle is how much it can impinge on the way other people play the game.

It seems to be the invaders/defenders who are complaining that opting out would ruin their game - i.e. remove their ability to ruin other people's games. If opting out is a non-starter due to the decree of Max, then this thread is a waste of time. If opting out is on the table, then the invaders/defenders might just have to bite the bullet and face the limitations. Boo hoo.

[[violet]]

If you had the option, would you have your region choose to opt out of the Invader/Defender game?

If? That's what Founders are for.

[Ephialtes of Trachis]

If you had the option, would you have your region choose to opt out of the Invader/Defender game?

If? That's what Founders are for.

This is true and refreshingly incisive

[Laderhig]

Ok. Max has decreed that there will always be an invader / defender game. This will not go away. The answer on whether one can opt out is given by Violet "If? What's what founders are for".

The inference is that, aside from using the method of founders, opting out is not in the table, a non starter, whatever you call it. Live and deal that there is always that risk. That said, I'm not averse to making invading etc "harder" to achieve, such that most regions won't have to worry about it. The specifics can be negotiated, but I really think this principle needs to be accepted first.

[Marcuslandia]

People keep on saying, "Max has decreed" like he stood at the podium and issued a mandate. They also seem to be trying to give the impression that it was Max's intention all along. The image presented isn't precisely accurate:
http://www.nationstates.net/pages/MaxChat2.html

<RepProdtheGameMod> <PopeHope> Max, how do you feel about the user created game within your game that we call invading and defending?
<Max> Hmm, tough question!
<PopeHope>
<Max> First, I should admit that when I created NationStates, it never even occurred to me that people would play the invasion game
<Max> It seems obvious now, but then keep in mind I thought NS would be an obscure little site that nobody much would visit
<PopeHope> It does add a nice spin to the game.
<Max> In a way, invasions are simply an extension of regional politics... or at least, they are when done right
<Max> It does, and I definitely approve of invasions when done right
<PopeHope> Agreed, and agreed. Thanks.
<Max> The issue we had -- and which emerged pretty early -- was people who would crash into an old, established region, and trash it
<Karmabaijan> Unfortunatley, it is the "done right" bit that makes so much work for us poor mods...
<Neutered_Sputniks> indeed
<Max> I got all these anguished e-mails from people who had played the game for months, who had set up regional hierarchies, etc, and were watching it get spammed out by griefers
<Neutered_Sputniks> Most players aren't as concerned with the lasting effects of their actions
<Max> Clearly, I want to protect long-term players from griefers
<Max> And so we got Regional Control
<Max> ...which, of course, added a whole new layer to the invasion game, since you could eject people now
<PopeHope> that option has come in handy!
<RepProdtheGameMod> (A blessing and a curse =p)
<Max> It's been tough to find the right balance between allowing invasions as a legitimate political tool, and preventing griefing
<Max> But that's my aim
******************

The I/D game was NOT an integral part of the game from the get-go. It was something that developed pretty much on its own. When Max noted that it was taking shape, he found it "charming". Nothing at all like, "This is GREAT! Fantastic! This has _got_ to be a foundation block of the game!" (Which seems to be the impression some people want to project.) Note how many times Max is saying, "or at least, they are when done right".

When it's done _right_

Quick survey: Any of you people who have had your regions invaded: how many of you feel that the invaders did it "right"? Don't everyone speak at once.

Everyone arguing against this idea are doing so because they feel it "would kill the I/D game." How would it do that? There would still be all those players that _want_ to play the I/D game. In a game with over 10,000 players, that should amount to several hundreds, if not several thousand. If those that want to play the I/D game refrain from opting out themselves, then there would be plenty of people to play it with.

What they wouldn't have are all of the EASY targets, the players that specifically do NOT want to play NS that way.

Besides, it's not nearly as much fun when the target DOESN'T get all upset about being invaded. Where's the fun when the player says, "Got me good there! Never saw it coming. Good job!"

[Naivetry]

And then the defenders come in and give the soccer ball back.

So the robbers un-rob the bank and the rapists un-rape their victims. Good to know.

Defenders are not raiders. You're talking about two different sets of players. At the risk of being obnoxious... there's a helpful link in my sig.

Every major region would absolutely opt-out because no one wants to be invaded.

If nobody wants it done to them, why do you feel justified in doing it to them?

Defenders don't.

In a game with over 10,000 players, that should amount to several hundreds, if not several thousand. If those that want to play the I/D game refrain from opting out themselves, then there would be plenty of people to play it with.

I keep having to explain this. No one wants to be invaded. We (gameplay at large, not just raiders and defenders) are not going to leave our regions vulnerable and ask to be destroyed, any more than the US would invite its enemies to test its missile defense system with live nuclear warheads. The only reason defenders are in this at all is to help other people who aren't as well-protected (by Founders) as we are.

[Fatatatutti]

Defenders are not raiders. You're talking about two different sets of players. At the risk of being obnoxious... there's a helpful link in my sig.

I have read your link and I do understand the difference between raiders and defenders. As I said above, the "you" was not intended for you personally or for the defender but for the whole invader/defender game.

My concern is that what you consider "helping the defenseless" is actually giving the raiders exactly what they want - attention. It's like feeding a troll when he should just be ignored.

[Erastide]

My concern is that what you consider "helping the defenseless" is actually giving the raiders exactly what they want - attention. It's like feeding a troll when he should just be ignored.

But it's not as though invaders would stop without defenders. You ignore an invader, they'll just empty more regions because there's noone there to stop them. And we don't ignore trolls. You report them in moderation and they get taken care of.

[Fatatatutti]

But it's not as though invaders would stop without defenders. You ignore an invader, they'll just empty more regions because there's noone there to stop them.

So why not defend proactively? Why not help founderless regions to set up in new regions with a new founder so they can defend themselves?