Poll: Opting out of the invader/defender game

[Whamabama]

Can one of you just once explain how it is, when there are literally thousands of invader/defender nations, that ANY change will "get rid of an entire aspect of the game" and "eliminate" the game you play?

My God! They tweaked my game! It's all over! Doom and gloom! I've been cut, and now I'm going to die!

If you can brag that your section of the game is a "substantial percentage", any change like this doesn't reduce that "substantial percentage" AT ALL. The _only_ portion of the game that you would lose access to are those players that do NOT want to play your game.

Jeez. It's starting to (has been) sound like vampires: Well, it's not the same if we have to feed on our own!

The fact of the matter is there is a way to opt out of the military game. What you want is God mode that leaves any region just stagnant even after the region long since falls silent, and unused. Raiders don't exist in regions that can be attacked, and neither do defenders. Rregions that do these things are active, and thus have a founder. This is not going to change. These are not the regions battle happens in.

[Erastide]

The first hurdle is: "What is the definition and characteristics of an invasion?" What _is_ the current definition of an invasion? [The defense is sort of the resistance to an invasion, employing similar tactics.] I honestly have never seen such a definition posted anywhere. It would be helpful if someone could point me in the right direction. Having such a definition becomes important so that one can differentiate between a democratic change of management versus a hostile takeover. (Believe it or not, I'm inclined to think that many "invasions" are actually the former management crying "We wuz robbed!" when they lose power in a legitimate election. The main indicator of an actual invasion seems to be when the "Under New Ownership" telltales start to appear.)

Congratulations, you have hit upon the major hurdle that honestly can't really be solved. For awhile moderators were in charge of determining who was invading, who was just moving, and so on. And that led to constant complaints to Sal, [violet], and Max after having gone through the Mod appeal process. Regions go through internal upheavals too where one resident decides to takeover and kick out those who disagree. I think that's a healthy thing. As annoying as it is to have it happen to you several times.

I could define invasion as the intention of moving into a region with the goal of kicking people/changing the WFE but with no intent to remain once that goal is complete. The problem is, noone can know the intent of another.


I think your other hurdles would be answerable if you could deal with #1.

[Marcuslandia]

I could define invasion as the intention of moving into a region with the goal of kicking people/changing the WFE but with no intent to remain once that goal is complete. The problem is, noone can know the intent of another.

I think your other hurdles would be answerable if you could deal with #1.

Ah, I sense that we're closing in on something we can agree on.

I'm guessing that someone yells, "We've been invaded!" when they note a "significant number" of new faces in the region, just before a change of Delegate. BUT, what if the influx is indeed friends of the new Delegate, but their intention is to stay and run the place? Not invasion; regime change. So, regime change, but the new Delegate starts to banject the Old Guard? Hmm. Sort of like an invasion along the lines of William the Conqueror taking over Saxon England. (BTW, I will be pulling out historical analogies like crazy. Sorry in advance if anyone finds that annoying. Just too many years of studying Military History.) Anyway, do we want to consider foreign incursion with intent to retain and operate as a full-fledged "invasion"?

Hmm. Possible telltale: New Delegate restricts in and out traffic so that only _his_ people may enter. If he leaves the borders wide open and his banjects are actually nominal, it's NOT an invasion. Invasion and unfettered democracy generally don't mix well for the invader.

Another indicator: look at the new Delegate's endorsements. If he has as much support from obvious natives as he does newcomers, and he does NOT become an instant control freak, it probably means it's just a change of management to "young blood".

Somewhere downthread or in an entirely different thread, I mentioned the US history of Texas, California, and Hawaii. The thumbnail sketch is that American settlers move into what is another nation's territory. They actually become citizens of those territories. They agitate for a rebellion and break away from those foreign nations. A new nation -- but comparatively weak, is formed. After a short period of independence, they petition to become part of the US. (HI isn't precisely the same case as the other two, but it fits the overall pattern.) So the question is, did those events constitute "invasions"? The general consensus will determine whether or not something similar in NS terms will be considered an "invasion".

Ha! It just struck me: famous quote -- "I'm not sure exactly how to define 'pornography' -- but I know it when I see it!"

Let's start with these and then muddle through some more.

[Valipac]

The problem is, it leads to too many judgement calls - calls that then lead to calls of bias and other such escapades that the moderators would rather not deal with. For a good example, see Hogsweat. He was deleted for "griefing", despite the fact that he was simply the new UN delegate for his region and they had decided to refound the region. In the process of kicking some of the old members, however, complaints were lodged, and he was deleted, despite adamant protests from his supporters.

[Bears Armed]

If all of the people can't agree to move to another region or refound together then they don't *really* have their safety as their paramount concern. And that's fine, people can stay together without the absolute safety of a founder.

But with the Influence rules as they are a few "old" or heavily-endorsed nations can refuse to move (or simply be so inactive that their players don't look at requests to move), and can thus prevent a region from being re-founded, unless its Delegate has a LOT of influence... and simply founding a new region with a different name won't be satisfactory for those people who have security as a major concern but are also attached to the old region's name for any reason (such as RL affinity, or in-game history)... so a few incoinsiderate players can force the rest of their region's inhabitants to have to choose between their security and their 'heritage'...

The first hurdle is: "What is the definition and characteristics of an invasion?" What _is_ the current definition of an invasion? [The defense is sort of the resistance to an invasion, employing similar tactics.] I honestly have never seen such a definition posted anywhere. It would be helpful if someone could point me in the right direction. Having such a definition becomes important so that one can differentiate between a democratic change of management versus a hostile takeover. (Believe it or not, I'm inclined to think that many "invasions" are actually the former management crying "We wuz robbed!" when they lose power in a legitimate election. The main indicator of an actual invasion seems to be when the "Under New Ownership" telltales start to appear.)

Congratulations, you have hit upon the major hurdle that honestly can't really be solved. For awhile moderators were in charge of determining who was invading, who was just moving, and so on. And that led to constant complaints to Sal, [violet], and Max after having gone through the Mod appeal process. Regions go through internal upheavals too where one resident decides to takeover and kick out those who disagree. I think that's a healthy thing. As annoying as it is to have it happen to you several times.

I could define invasion as the intention of moving into a region with the goal of kicking people/changing the WFE but with no intent to remain once that goal is complete. The problem is, noone can know the intent of another.

And in one or another of the threads about these potential changes, I saw a statement that the current 'official' definition of "Griefing" involves acts along these lines with the intention of annoying other players.
Now, although there are of course many cases where intent cannot be proven, isn't the fact that acting as the 'Macedonians' (for an obvious example) do is highly annoying to most previous natives of the regions that they seize obvious? And shouldn't that be clear to the empire-builders themselves, unless they're a bunch of half-wits? And doesn't that mean that, by continuing to act in that way, they are "griefing" under the current official definition?
Perhaps if the Mods were to intervene and make examples of a few of the most blatant griefing groups -- for example, by placing Mod-run founders in all of the significant regions that those have seized, and then using regional controls to open those regions up to 'liberation' attempts -- that might help to discourage such obnoxious behaviour?

[Martyrdoom]

I've just got to say that 'griefing' is not necessarily region-crashing/empire-building and region-crashing/empire-building is not necessarily 'griefing'. 'Griefing' in its new format ("Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said") is quite different to the old 'invasion-griefing'.

The INTENTION of the GSU specifically is not to annoy others; the expansion of our polity or 'empire' is our aim because we can do it and because so can everyone else if they so choose (its our way of enjoying the game - empire-builders vs. empire-builders if you like). Essentially this style is as legitimate as any other way of playing NS; the majority might well disagree on whether its their vision of what's 'worthwhile'. But there it is.

However, I understand that these two 'griefings' so to speak can still readily be amalgamated and applied today. Obviously I can't and won't speak for the 'Macedonians' but we are not the Macedonians. And that's my point.

It is not right to essentialise all empire-builders as 'griefers' who "harass a nation or region because of what they did or said"; we specifically have NEVER picked our target regions (never nations) on the basis of some grudge or to get back at them for a comment/act etc: indeed, we've only been branded 'rapists' and 'child-molesters' after a takeover and even then we've felt it necessary to take that on the chin.

I can appreciate the cuteness inherent in getting a quite legitimate way of playing NS outlawed by essentiallising everyone who 'empire-builds' is prima facie doing so illegally under the current 'griefing' definitions. On the flipside though such machinations if they were to occur could very well be tantamount to "harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said."

[Valipac]

I've just got to say that 'griefing' is not necessarily region-crashing/empire-building and region-crashing/empire-building is not necessarily 'griefing'. 'Griefing' in its new format ("Harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said") is quite different to the old 'invasion-griefing'.

The INTENTION of the GSU specifically is not to annoy others; the expansion of our polity or 'empire' is our aim because we can do it and because so can everyone else if they so choose (its our way of enjoying the game - empire-builders vs. empire-builders if you like). Essentially this style is as legitimate as any other way of playing NS; the majority might well disagree on whether its their vision of what's 'worthwhile'. But there it is.

However, I understand that these two 'griefings' so to speak can still readily be amalgamated and applied today. Obviously I can't and won't speak for the 'Macedonians' but we are not the Macedonians. And that's my point.

It is not right to essentialise all empire-builders as 'griefers' who "harass a nation or region because of what they did or said"; we specifically have NEVER picked our target regions (never nations) on the basis of some grudge or to get back at them for a comment/act etc: indeed, we've only been branded 'rapists' and 'child-molesters' after a takeover and even then we've felt it necessary to take that on the chin.

I can appreciate the cuteness inherent in getting a quite legitimate way of playing NS outlawed by essentiallising everyone who 'empire-builds' is prima facie doing so illegally under the current 'griefing' definitions. On the flipside though such machinations if they were to occur could very well be tantamount to "harassing a nation or region because of what they did or said."

We are speaking of griefing in its sense before regional influence was announced, not in its current format.

[Martyrdoom]

Yeah I know thanks.

Bears Armed's last post clearly seemed to be mixing the two together, signifying to me that the current definition of 'griefing' can/should somehow act as a proxy for the former definition in all cases of 'empire-building' or 'region-crashing'. Which just ain't right in my book.

[Bears Armed]

Yeah I know thanks.

Bears Armed's last post clearly seemed to be mixing the two together, signifying to me that the current definition of 'griefing' can/should somehow act as a proxy for the former definition in all cases of 'empire-building' or 'region-crashing'. Which just ain't right in my book.

Evidently I needed to be more careful about the wording: Sorry, but I was feeling a bit sleepy at the time...
What I actually meant to say there was that some empire-builders' actions, such as the extensive "ethnic cleansing" of which 'Macedon' is demonstrably guilty, would seem to contravene even what I'd been told was the current definition of "griefing", so I don't see why official action can't be taken against those players anyway.

Having said which, speaking as somebody who has never been participated in 'invasions', the whole business of invaders trying to insist on a "right" to attack regions that aren't interested in that side of the game strikes me as nothing but bullying & vandalism which "aint right" in my book.

[Martyrdoom]

Fair enough.

I just wanted to make sure that a distinction was being drawn in this thread between Macedon, whose alleged primarily reason for their activities is to 'grief' in the recent sense of the term, and us - the GSU - whose operations are not compatible with this new definition of 'griefing' but could be defined and categorised under the old 'invasion-griefing' term.

If you are indirectly refering to us in the second paragraph, yeah of course we don't have 'right' but we have reason; the opt-out is already implicitly there while the 'invasion-griefing' rule has been explicitly revoked and removed. We have the tools to do what we do while there also tools there to prevent it. I respect that you think its bullying and vandalism, but given my last sentence, I think of it as a game.

[Marcuslandia]

I started a new thread specifically for defining "invasion". If the Mods are kind, they'll drag about the last ten posts over there as a starter for the discussion.

[Fatatatutti]

I respect that you think its bullying and vandalism, but given my last sentence, I think of it as a game.

A three-year-old can think of knocking over the chessboard as a "game" too.

The difference between the invader game and thr RP game is that in the RP game, nobody can RP an invasion of my nation without my cooperation. We RP with each other, which I think is part of the distinction between a game and a perversion.

[Martyrdoom]

Throw in a person to try and prevent the three year-old knocking over the chess-board and there's a game! (Obviously I'm being facetious)

No in all seriousness, we specifically don't mess with or target RP regions at all: never have and never will, as I have stated in (an)other thread(s), only regions we can pretty clearly discern as game-playing regions will suffice.

The regions we've annexed so far have been brought to our attention primarily because they've been fought over by raiders and defenders previously. (If this was not our MO, could not RP regions use a password or founder in anycase to prevent us three year-olds?)

If want to reply of course it's your right Fatatatutti but it'll be the final word, as I am making way for Marcus' introduction of defining invasions!

My final word on this thread: there is essentially already an opt-out in place via having a founder; the ability to re-found a region; and even the ability to create one's own region.

Anything else, and the RP and game-playing will become two separate games, indeed there is room for one or two more derivatives.

[Marcuslandia]

The regions we've annexed so far have been brought to our attention primarily because they've been fought over by raiders and defenders previously.

Funny (as in "odd"). I don't recollect the SPHere _ever_ being invaded or fought over, prior to the arrival of the GSU. And I can say that definitively, having been there and only there since the SPHere's Day One.

[Martyrdoom]

No offense but you must have been oblivious to it. We were had good and proper Marcus; after initally seeing 10,000Islands members residing in the sphere we went for round 2 after Olympia. Remember all those nations I unbanned from Salford?!! They were the original infiltrators!!! Which 10K Islands initally banjected. Why would I have unbanned them? Why would our current delegate be called 'Turned Tables' ?!! Come now. We were'nt fighting over the Sphere per se like.

[Marcuslandia]

No offense but you must have been oblivious to it. We were had good and proper Marcus; after initally seeing 10,000Islands members residing in the sphere we went for round 2 after Olympia. Remember all those nations I unbanned from Salford?!! They were the original infiltrators!!! Which 10K Islands initally banjected. Why would I have unbanned them? Why would our current delegate be called 'Turned Tables' ?!! Come now. We were'nt fighting over the Sphere per se like.

So you were infiltrating the region when the current Delegate banjected your infiltrators? Sounds like he was just doing a good job is all. Unlike the GSU, the nations you refer to did NOT come bashing their way in. They did NOT post gloating messages on the RMB. They did NOT eject the original tenants (rather they banned known invader nations). They did NOT rewrite the WFE to reflect that they were assuming ownership. That is, they didn't do any of the things that the GSU _has_ done. What they were doing was a peaceful co-existence with the original inhabitants. Almost as drastic a difference as there is between "lovemaking" and "rape".

[Martyrdoom]

What I'm saying is that because we had a previous how-to with them in another region and subsequently saw a few of them residing in the Sphere (we had now way of knowing the real context of why they were there in the first place, had to assume the Sphere was going-back and forth) so we targeted it for infilitration; we were uncovered and banjected. Then we subsequently came back, and here we are. Yeah he did do a good job, enough for YOU to gloat about mind it's easily done is it not - two-way streets and all?

I would'nt expect them to do anything that we've done because they are defenders and we aren't. You can spare me the 'lovemaking' 'rape' effort, its putrid.

[Marcuslandia]

What I'm saying is that because we had a previous how-to with them in another region and subsequently saw a few of them residing in the Sphere (we had now way of knowing the real context of why they were there in the first place, had to assume the Sphere was going-back and forth) so we targeted it for infilitration; we were uncovered and banjected. Then we subsequently came back, and here we are. Yeah he did do a good job, enough for YOU to gloat about mind it's easily done is it not - two-way streets and all?

I would'nt expect them to do anything that we've done because they are defenders and we aren't. You can spare me the 'lovemaking' 'rape' effort, its putrid.

So because of a grudge you held with another group _elsewhere_, you've trashed the SPHere, including the original inhabitants that had previously done you no harm? I suppose it would be too much to expect you to directly confront the people you disdain in _their_ region. THAT probably would be too much of a challenge for the GSU to deal with.

[Martyrdoom]

'Grudge' and 'disdain' are way too strong words and completely inappropriate and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth; it was 'competitive' yes, but thats the defending/raiding dynamic/spirit for you. These battles have to happen somewhere. At the end of the day there were defenders present in the Sphere and given that we were new at that point, they were the only defenders we could identify. So it was a natural aim given the mechanics.

We haven't trashed the Sphere, we're re-constituting it. And you know fully well we can't march into their 'home' region: its not a challenge because it'd be futile with a founder.

[Marcuslandia]

We haven't trashed the Sphere, we're re-constituting it. And you know fully well we can't march into their 'home' region: its not a challenge because it'd be futile with a founder.

From the SPHere WFE:

World Factbook Entry

Salford Run Tingz now.

[Pity the taunts scrolled off the RMB awhile back. They would have accented the WFE decor so well.]
*********************
So, you saw it, folks: Because his actual opponent is safeguarded, and _his_ region is safeguarded, the two forces deliberately use what had been neutral "we just want to get along" regions for their arenas.

[Note: This is the first I've ever heard that some of our residents had been retired Defenders. Truth be told, most of us had never heard of the I/D game until the GSU showed up. Got real educated real quick though.]

[Glen Belt]

its a pity your ridiculous crying isnt still on the rmb kid,i can tell you that much.
comedy gold

[Tanaara]

Glen Belt, your post adds nothing to the discussion.

I still think that there needs to be an Opt Out option Other than having a founder, but I don't see anything proposed that is going to satisfy every one - there fore I think we needs to look at whats going to make founderless regions the happiest.

[Naivetry]

I still think that there needs to be an Opt Out option Other than having a founder,

Why? What is so hard about having/getting a Founder?

but I don't see anything proposed that is going to satisfy every one - there fore I think we needs to look at whats going to make founderless regions the happiest.

Why should we consider what is going to make Founderless regions the happiest, more than we consider the survival of a large and dedicated portion of the playerbase? Privileging Founderless regions because they don't want to take advantage of the solutions already offered simply rewards an apathetic approach to the game.

[Marcuslandia]

I had something of an epiphany this morning. I realized just why it is that this whole invasion thing irritates me so much.

How many of you have every purchased a car? Signed a rental agreement? Had to sign off on any kind of contract? How many of you can _honestly_ say that you read every word of every paragraph on every page before you took the plunge and signed on the dotted line? Or were you content with the salesman's verbal synopsis and skipped most of that reading? Thereafter, when the car turned out to have been a lemon, the apartment was riddled with termites, or something broke and you discovered that the item was NOT warrantied and you'd have to pay the repairs out of your own pocket, did you get upset? Did you get **more** upset when you were told, "You should have read the contract"?

You see, the vast majority of players in NS were conned. The game is a monumental bait-and-switch. Players think they're getting into one kind of game, but eventually they find out the hard way that it's another.

Now that you're all outraged, look at the game's "Front Door", the NS homepage at http://www.nationstates.net/
(You can't see it unless you're logged out.)

"NationStates is a free nation simulation game. Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them. Join the World Assembly or remain a rogue state. It's up to you."

Well, that's sort of "What it's all about?" _How_ do I play the game? Oh, look: a link that says "How to Play".

Hmm. "Frequently Asked Questions"; not exactly a rulebook, but it's more info. "General", that's an overview. "Gameplay", yeah, that's the ticket! And what does it say about warfare right here in the center?

"How do I go to war against another nation? Or trade?

"In one sense, you can't. NationStates doesn't include these things -- because it's a simple game, and because they would bias things in favor of militaristic and capitalist nations. One of the nice things about NationStates is that you can craft a nation into your idea of Utopia without having to worry about such pragmatic concerns as national defence.

"Into the breach, however, steps the NationStates community, which has independently devised an entire system covering war, trade, and just about anything else you can think of. This takes place entirely on the forums (mostly in "International Incidents"), and is role-played.

"Many people have asked about the possibility of a more sophisticated version of NationStates, with trade, military conflicts, and more. This does sound cool, but I haven't decided yet if I want to do that. It would be a lot of work, and I'd have to charge people to play it. But it's possible."

So, if you want to do warfare, you go to the forums and roleplay it out. Eh? I think I'll skip that.

Better read the "Terms & Conditions". Ah, about what I expected, it's all the legalese.

"Politics", got it. "Technical", that's the boring, "if it doesn't work, do this" stuff. "World Assembly" sounds useful. Hmm. Maybe. And last is "Etiquette" which is, yeah, the "be nice -- or else" cautions.

Okay! Let's start this game! Can't argue with the price!
*********************

Oops! Really shoulda oughta have read those last two bits at the end of "Etiquette".

Well, gee, fella, it was your own fault for not having read the FAQ _thoroughly_. Nice region you **had** here. We'll be sure to take real good care of it now that we've booted you out. Ya know, you _really_ should have re-Founded the region when your Founder quit the game. What's that? Why, how to re-Found a region is spelled out right --

Where, exactly is a new player supposed to find _that_ rule? There's this link to the "One-Stop Rules Shop", but it looks like pretty much ALL of that talks about interactions on the forum. AND even after a quick skim, I didn't see _anything_ about re-Founding. Besides, if you don't know that something exists, how do you know to look for it?
*******************************

It's been suggested that there are over 10,000 players in this game. How many of them bother to access the forums even once? And odds heavily favor that the vast majority didn't read every single word of the FAQ and attached related documents. That combination clearly explains WHY there are so many regions are Founderless and unpassworded.

As to why so many players are NOT being protected from their own ignorance, can you think of an easier way to assure that the raiders have a well-stocked larder of munchable regions that they can use to keep the Invader/Defender game going?

[Erastide]

Nothing that happens in gameplay aside from the GA resolutions affects what happens within your region. So that nation simulation side still works just fine.

Aside from that, if you choose to follow the regional recruitment TGs or messages on the HQ of the feeders, then you've chosen to get involved in the game. What do you want, a "Here be dragons!!" sign?