NATION

PASSWORD

What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:40 pm

Whamabama wrote:Marcuslandia, when it comes down to it, here is the thing. The game already provides you with the tools to get what you want. However you are unwilling to use them. You see them as too much effort.

I also believe that really isn't your motive anyway. I believe now that your true motive is to ensure that there can be no raiding, no military game at all. Which would ruin alot of people's enjoyment of the game. The whole inter-regional politics of the game would be gone.


Quite understandably, you are not the first to make this accusation. Not by a lllloooonnnnnggggg shot. And I will once again make the same argument I have been making all along:

My desire is that in a game of 10,000+ players with a wide variety of play styles and interests, that everyone gets to play the game style that they want. Accommodation has been made for RPers to effectively remove themselves from the depredations of raiders. Likewise others with other interests. There is at this time ONE group of players whose interests of play style have been seriously infringed -- those players that want to play NS, being able to move about, and to have nations come and go in their regions WITHOUT being invaded.

There's this "significant percentage" of players that actually _want_ to play the I/D game. Good for them! Why is it such a bad idea FOR EVERYONE ELSE to suggest that the I/D players hammer away at each other to their hearts' content and **leave everyone else that does NOT want to play that game alone?**

The RPers don't inflict their play style on others. The WA players don't inflict their play style on everyone else. The nation-builders don't inflict their play style on anyone else. The intra-regional activities players don't inflict their play style on anyone else. Why should it be that the I/D players CAN force others to play the I/D game?

I don't want to eradicate the I/D game. I just would like it that others that don't want to play that game are given the right to NOT play it. Preferably without having to start the game over from scratch.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Romanar
Diplomat
 
Posts: 624
Founded: Feb 15, 2006
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Romanar » Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:04 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:I discount the RP concern because simply having WA membership in no way requires their participation. That is, being a WA member does NOT hurt them in any way. But it _does_ give them the opportunity to help build up the Influence levels of the WA members in their region. I see lots of plus and very little minus. Anyone still dead-set against it is just being bull-headed.

The "mutual level of activity" scenario is of more concern to me. I would have to inquire, "How many of those puppets reside in vulnerable regions?" It still comes back to, which nation does the player feel most committed to?


I don't know how many puppets are in vulnerable regions, but I do of at least one; one of mine. It's not my most active nation, and it had probably been in the WA for maybe two weeks out of the several years of its existence, but it has built up a fair amount of Influence because it's been in the same region since Influence began. Stripping it of Influence, just because it's not in the WA would hurt one of the very regions you claim to want to protect.

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:13 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:
Erastide wrote:People play more than one nation and keep them in more than one region and play both of them equally and with as much effort. But they can only have 1 WA. So one region's nation will be slightly less protected as it stands. Giving them no protection seems way too harsh. Also, RPers and other people don't join the WA because they disagree with its policies. You'd be penalizing them in the event of an invasion.


I discount the RP concern because simply having WA membership in no way requires their participation. That is, being a WA member does NOT hurt them in any way. But it _does_ give them the opportunity to help build up the Influence levels of the WA members in their region. I see lots of plus and very little minus. Anyone still dead-set against it is just being bull-headed.

The "mutual level of activity" scenario is of more concern to me. I would have to inquire, "How many of those puppets reside in vulnerable regions?" It still comes back to, which nation does the player feel most committed to?

Being a WA member can easily go against their views of how their nation should be run. And in NS, that's fine. It's your *choice*. You're heading down a road where you either join the WA or reside in a region with a founder. Otherwise a nation could be kicked out immediately upon raiders gaining control. And that's what influence is there to prevent.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Naivetry » Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:22 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:The RPers don't inflict their play style on others. The WA players don't inflict their play style on everyone else. The nation-builders don't inflict their play style on anyone else. The intra-regional activities players don't inflict their play style on anyone else. Why should it be that the I/D players CAN force others to play the I/D game?

You continue repeating this point without addressing my rebuttal. viewtopic.php?p=126777#p126777

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:00 pm

Romanar wrote:I don't know how many puppets are in vulnerable regions, but I do of at least one; one of mine. It's not my most active nation, and it had probably been in the WA for maybe two weeks out of the several years of its existence, but it has built up a fair amount of Influence because it's been in the same region since Influence began. Stripping it of Influence, just because it's not in the WA would hurt one of the very regions you claim to want to protect.
[My emphasis/]

I can absolutely guarantee you this: No matter how much _any_ changes improve the game, there will be some nations/players will find that something about the changes actually hurts their position/nation. Similarly, if absolutely nothing is changed, there are still a number of players/nations that find the status quo harmful to their position/nation. Should we change _nothing_ because some people won't like the changes?

The concern about the steady decline of players in NS may very well be because things are NOT changing (fast enough). But the good news is that eventually, as the numbers drop, we will get to a point where all that remain are quite satisfied with the status quo and the attrition will halt. At that point, one can only guess at how many players remain.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Naivetry » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:06 pm

Doesn't this:
Marcuslandia wrote:My desire is that in a game of 10,000+ players with a wide variety of play styles and interests, that everyone gets to play the game style that they want.

...invalidate this?
Marcuslandia wrote:I can absolutely guarantee you this: No matter how much _any_ changes improve the game, there will be some nations/players will find that something about the changes actually hurts their position/nation. Similarly, if absolutely nothing is changed, there are still a number of players/nations that find the status quo harmful to their position/nation. Should we change _nothing_ because some people won't like the changes?

Mandating WA play in order to have any protection (Influence) against invasion is far more detrimental to a nation's play style than asking regions to refound, because it affects one's national stats.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:27 pm

Naivetry wrote:
Marcuslandia wrote:The RPers don't inflict their play style on others. The WA players don't inflict their play style on everyone else. The nation-builders don't inflict their play style on anyone else. The intra-regional activities players don't inflict their play style on anyone else. Why should it be that the I/D players CAN force others to play the I/D game?

You continue repeating this point without addressing my rebuttal. viewtopic.php?p=126777#p126777


In the absence of a specific post or quote, I can only _guess_ the foundation of your argument is this:

"Region crashing/invading was not included in the original design concept of NS. Invasions were an invention of the players, who discovered that by moving their nations from one region to another, they could, in effect, make war on another region. Because other players objected to being invaded, they teamed up in order to retaliate, to defend their home region, or to protect other regions. Over time, this led to the development of many "off-site" regional forums, created and controlled by the players, so that they could better organize their activities. Governments, embassies, and alliances sprang up between these regional forums, and very soon a large portion of the NS world consisted of a far more complicated political simulation than anyone could have anticipated. This is the world referred to as "Gameplay."

"I am speaking as someone with command experience in the NS military as a defender (see definitions below), although it is not my primary focus in the game. I am a proponent of preserving the military element because it was the origin and remains the underlying source for all NationStates power politics - by which I mean the rise and fall and interrelationship of regional communities, not the passage of World Assembly (WA) legislation. These, then, are the basics, and they are absolutely foundational to military and political life in the sphere of Gameplay. I hope that this overview will help to remove some of the fundamental misunderstandings and misleading assumptions about the military game that generally plague people who have not participated in it themselves."

That identifies _you_ and the part of the game that _you_ believe is quintessential. And I can see that to I/D players in general the argument appears sound. But what it literally boils down to is, "I believe that the game should be played _this_ way, and by God, if you are going to play the game, you WILL play it this way too!"

It's a BIG sandbox. You've got your RPers over there, doing their thing. You've got the WAs over that way, doing their own thing. Then there's quite a few others content to just interact within their own regions. Those groups seem be getting by, undisturbed, NOT playing the game the way the I/D players seem to think it should be. Meanwhile, there is a substantial number of players (I think that I can use that phrase just as legitimately as the I/D crowd) that would very much like to play the game, not like the RPers, not like the WAs, not like the intra-regional crowd, and most definitely NOT like the I/D players. Are they somehow less than equal when it comes to players' rights? In particular when it comes to playing the game unmolested?

You said it yourself: "Region crashing/invading was not included in the original design concept of NS." Yet, here they are, running amok over any region they can get a toehold. And the irony of it? They do it in a manner that guarantees that the same thing cannot happen to them. The invaders want to stomp on others because, literally, "They deserve it because they played so stupid."

Accommodation has been made for all these other groups that don't want to play the other groups' ideas of "proper" gameplay. Why is it that such a large chunk of players are NOT being allowed the same accommodation? Says the I/D players: "Because it would ruin _our_ game. It might even kill it."

Sounds like being just plain selfish to me. It's a BIG sandbox; how about giving some of us a little room?
Last edited by Marcuslandia on Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:39 pm

Naivetry wrote:Mandating WA play in order to have any protection (Influence) against invasion is far more detrimental to a nation's play style than asking regions to refound, because it affects one's national stats.


Jeez. Who was it that came up with the idea that the ONLY players that could vote for the regional leader _must_ belong to the WA? For that matter, who insisted that the non-Founder regional leader _must_ be the WA Delegate? That combination is the root of the whole mess. Non-WA nations are pointedly second-class citizens with little or no rights.

The ONLY saving grace in the situation is that it is soooooo easy to get a WA membership. And it is patently obvious that once gotten, there is absolutely no compulsion to do _anything_ with it outside of your region.

The next question then is: Who decided that a player could have ANY number of nations under his control? And then that the player could only have ONE of those nations could have a WA membership.

Talk about a guaranteed disaster from the get-go. It's ironic to recognize that in trying to give the players more freedom, it ends up requiring harsh limits on that freedom.

But there it is: You can have as many nations as you like. HOWEVER, only _one_ can be a WA. Choose wisely -- and accept that to some degree, those other nations will NOT have as many rights as the one with WA membership.

Or else, maybe it's time for the rules to have a major overhaul.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Naivetry » Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:40 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:In the absence of a specific post or quote

Image

Marcuslandia wrote:Jeez. Who was it that came up with the idea that the ONLY players that could vote for the regional leader _must_ belong to the WA? For that matter, who insisted that the non-Founder regional leader _must_ be the WA Delegate? That combination is the root of the whole mess. Non-WA nations are pointedly second-class citizens with little or no rights.

That would be Max and the admins, because otherwise non-WA nations can stack the deck in voting.

The next question then is: Who decided that a player could have ANY number of nations under his control? And then that the player could only have ONE of those nations could have a WA membership.

That would be Max and the admins again, for the reasons cited above.

Choose wisely -- and accept that to some degree, those other nations will NOT have as many rights as the one with WA membership.

You are recommending a reduction in the rights that non-WA nations currently have. Why?

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 368
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Whamabama » Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:01 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:
I also believe that really isn't your motive anyway. I believe now that your true motive is to ensure that there can be no raiding, no military game at all. Which would ruin alot of people's enjoyment of the game. The whole inter-regional politics of the game would be gone.

Quite understandably, you are not the first to make this accusation. Not by a lllloooonnnnnggggg shot. And I will once again make the same argument I have been making all along:

My desire is that in a game of 10,000+ players with a wide variety of play styles and interests, that everyone gets to play the game style that they want. Accommodation has been made for RPers to effectively remove themselves from the depredations of raiders. Likewise others with other interests. There is at this time ONE group of players whose interests of play style have been seriously infringed -- those players that want to play NS, being able to move about, and to have nations come and go in their regions WITHOUT being invaded.

There's this "significant percentage" of players that actually _want_ to play the I/D game. Good for them! Why is it such a bad idea FOR EVERYONE ELSE to suggest that the I/D players hammer away at each other to their hearts' content and **leave everyone else that does NOT want to play that game alone?**

The RPers don't inflict their play style on others. The WA players don't inflict their play style on everyone else. The nation-builders don't inflict their play style on anyone else. The intra-regional activities players don't inflict their play style on anyone else. Why should it be that the I/D players CAN force others to play the I/D game?

I don't want to eradicate the I/D game. I just would like it that others that don't want to play that game are given the right to NOT play it. Preferably without having to start the game over from scratch.



There is already a system in place for this. It's called founders. We have been over this. Raiders don't raid regions with founders. It doesn't get any more simple than that.
Last edited by Whamabama on Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:37 pm

Naivetry wrote:
Marcuslandia wrote:In the absence of a specific post or quote

Image


Your answer does not answer my specific question: Why do the I/D players have the _right_ to force others to play their game? People that do NOT want to play that game, have NEVER wanted to play that game, and frequently quit the game entirely when Invaders start trashing the place. RPers get left alone. WAs get left alone. Closed communities get left alone. Everybody else: you play it this way or no way.

What you keep on offering up is _your_ rationale for What It Is That We Defenders Do. That does NOT explain why a segment of players that weren't even in the original game design have come to be able to dictate that, "Unless you shut yourself from the rest of the world, you are _our_ fair targets."

Accommodations were made for the RPers -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the WAs -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the closed communities -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Why is it _impossible_ to accommodate players in regions that would like to allow unhindered movement of immigrants and emigrants? Why can't those regions say, "We do NOT want to play that game" and have their desires fulfilled, just like the RPers, the WAs, and the closed communities?

"Then you should Re-Found the region...." yada, yada, yada. That is a lame argument. You had a region, with a Founder. Everyone there did NOT want to play the I/D game. The Founder leaves because of RL -- BUT THOSE THAT REMAIN ARE _STILL_ THE SAME ONES THAT DID _NOT_ WANT TO PLAY THE I/D GAME. Your "solutions" are "Jump through these hoops, every single one of you, and don't slip up or it won't work. Do it _exactly_ that way or you become Invader Chow."

Why does everybody else get what they want, except for that one class of NS player?
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20832
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:26 am

Marcuslandia wrote:I discount the RP concern because simply having WA membership in no way requires their participation. That is, being a WA member does NOT hurt them in any way.
It affects the nation's stats, which can change its 'category' in ways that might be hard to explain given how the nation has been RPed...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
[violet]
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15649
Founded: Antiquity

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby [violet] » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:12 am

Marcuslandia wrote:Accommodations were made for the RPers -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the WAs -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the closed communities -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Why is it _impossible_ to accommodate players in regions that would like to allow unhindered movement of immigrants and emigrants? Why can't those regions say, "We do NOT want to play that game" and have their desires fulfilled, just like the RPers, the WAs, and the closed communities?

You're asking an impossible question: "How can I create a region that allows unfettered movement of nations, but still allows me to keep out people I don't like?" There is no answer to that.

As you said earlier, if you want complete control over your region, then create one and make yourself Founder. If, however, you want to exist in a region run by other people, you have to accept it might be, well, run by other people.

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:56 am

Marcuslandia wrote:Accommodations were made for the RPers -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the WAs -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the closed communities -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Why is it _impossible_ to accommodate players in regions that would like to allow unhindered movement of immigrants and emigrants? Why can't those regions say, "We do NOT want to play that game" and have their desires fulfilled, just like the RPers, the WAs, and the closed communities?

"Then you should Re-Found the region...." yada, yada, yada. That is a lame argument. You had a region, with a Founder. Everyone there did NOT want to play the I/D game. The Founder leaves because of RL -- BUT THOSE THAT REMAIN ARE _STILL_ THE SAME ONES THAT DID _NOT_ WANT TO PLAY THE I/D GAME. Your "solutions" are "Jump through these hoops, every single one of you, and don't slip up or it won't work. Do it _exactly_ that way or you become Invader Chow."

There haven't been any special accommodations for the RPers, WA players, or closed communities aside from they get themselves a founder. And if they lose their founder, they too need to refound their region and agree on a new person to be the founder. There already exists a way to be safe. Just because you don't take it doesn't mean the option isn't there to be safe. And frankly, I don't care why you don't refound or form a new region, you make a choice. You may have based your choice on other people, but then they made a choice counter to you. Because if the entire region really did agree on something like safety, they could refound their region easily. If they can't refound, then there really wasn't unity in that quest. And maybe it's time the region split up. So deal with it.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:24 am

[violet] wrote:
Marcuslandia wrote:Accommodations were made for the RPers -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the WAs -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Accommodation was made for the closed communities -- because they did NOT want to play the I/D game. Why is it _impossible_ to accommodate players in regions that would like to allow unhindered movement of immigrants and emigrants? Why can't those regions say, "We do NOT want to play that game" and have their desires fulfilled, just like the RPers, the WAs, and the closed communities?

You're asking an impossible question: "How can I create a region that allows unfettered movement of nations, but still allows me to keep out people I don't like?" There is no answer to that.


Your solutions are "locks" to keep out invaders -- and incidentally lock out everybody else. Some locks work better than others. But the thing of it is, a lock is not a solution, it's a symptom. The real problem are players that insist on going where they are NOT wanted. Which, quite pointedly is a sign of a lack of respect. "My right to go where I want supersedes your right to privacy."

In point of fact, it _should_ be possible to simply put up a "No Trespassing" sign and have it respected. In this case, the sign would read, "If your intention is to come here, force the current Powers That Be out of office, then install a secret password, then banject all of the original inhabitants, DO NOT ENTER." What does that say about the people that would read the sign and then just go ahead and do exactly what was proscribed? If it was a game rule that such havens could be set up, then instead of respecting everybody else's wishes those people would start scheming at how they could pull off the heist in such a way that it sidesteps the implicit directive. Just so they could brag to themselves, "We pulled it off!"

Why enable and empower those people and not those others that simply want to enjoy playing the game in peace, unmolested?

If you want to make a guess as to what has been driving people away from the game, I'd look at how many players quit after their regions were invaded. There's something about the fact that you could be figuratively raped at any moment that makes people uncomfortable. And when they see it happening time and again, they get to thinking "Time to move to a healthier environment."
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Martyrdoom
Diplomat
 
Posts: 504
Founded: Apr 14, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Martyrdoom » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:13 am

But there is already a 'no trespassing sign': a region with a founder as some people have (repeatedly) said.

As for any decline in NS numbers, there's many possible reasons for it: it is not necessarily all due to invaders turning people away from the game.

Indeed, have you seen the two nations from the 'Sphere of Peace N Harmony', our very own region, who have actually come back to the game via re-founding? One has moved to Lazarus, while the other has created their own safe-haven by founding a region from which said nation has made it clear to our delegate that they aim to re-claim the Sphere from there. Or are these your puppets?
Last edited by Martyrdoom on Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Smelled a Spring on the Salford wind

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20832
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:17 am

[violet] wrote:As you said earlier, if you want complete control over your region, then create one and make yourself Founder. If, however, you want to exist in a region run by other people, you have to accept it might be, well, run by other people.

Don't you see any difference between being willing to live in a constitutional democracy, where those other people will come to power via agreed rules & respect your rights, and being willing to live in a situation where mobs of strangers can come along, seize power, and evict you at their will?!?
Last edited by Bears Armed on Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Naivetry » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:29 pm

Bears Armed wrote:
[violet] wrote:As you said earlier, if you want complete control over your region, then create one and make yourself Founder. If, however, you want to exist in a region run by other people, you have to accept it might be, well, run by other people.

Don't you see any difference between being willing to live in a constitutional democracy, where those other people will come to power via agreed rules & respect your rights, and being willing to live in a situation where mobs of strangers can come along, seize power, and evict you at their will?!?

How does living in a Founded region prevent you from creating a constitutional democracy?

Granted that all democracy is granted by the Founder, likewise all continuation of democracy is granted by the Delegate. The success of any democracy depends upon the willingness of citizens to respect the rules. It can't be coded. You can only dictate who is allowed to become a citizen in your democracy, by restricting admittance via the WA Delegate, the Founder, or a password.

User avatar
Naivetry
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1285
Founded: Aug 02, 2006
Left-wing Utopia

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Naivetry » Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:11 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:Your answer does not answer my specific question: Why do the I/D players have the _right_ to force others to play their game?

You did not originally ask what gave raiders the right to raid (the answer to that is, Max said so, and it's his game...), but the following (several times), which my post addressed:
Marcuslandia wrote:What is it about the I/D game that it simply can NOT exist unless there are plenty of unwilling victims to be raped and pillaged?


You have been challenged to come up with a definition of invasion, which, as you may recall, is why we now have yet another thread on this topic. You have not been able to do that, which is why I assume we are back to this "opt-out" thing. But I have already explained at length in the other thread why your "no trespassing" sign is simply unenforceable.

Marcuslandia wrote:Why does everybody else get what they want, except for that one class of NS player?

First, as Eras noted, there are no special provisions made for anyone else, either. In fact, raiders and defenders have had their game negatively impacted by Influence, rather than having special accommodations made for us (until recently <3 ). Second, what you are saying is, "But I don't want to lock my front door. I should be able not to lock my front door and not worry about robbers!"

And we're saying, "Lock your front door (get a Founder) and then you can (democratically, if you like!) decide who gets in or stays in." How hard is that to do?
Last edited by Naivetry on Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:57 pm

The Number One solution tendered as to what to do if you lose your Founder, if you want to be sure that you don't get raided, is to become a Founder. What does that actually tell the players in the newly Founder-less region? If you had 50 members in that region at that time, and each of them followed that advice, the result would be 50 one-nation regions being Founded.

That would most definitely mean, "When your Founder died (literally), so did your region. Too bad for you; deal with it."

The Number Two suggestion is, re-Found the region with a new Founder. With 50 nations, what are the odds that all 50 would make the migration? What are the odds that only ONE of them would want to be the new Founder? The probable result is that from ONE would come several, smaller regions.

That would most definitely mean, "When your Founder died (literally), so did your region. Too bad for you; deal with it."

The Number Three suggestion is, elect a WA Delegate and have him install a password. Well that requires that there be nations with WA membership. BUT elsewhere in these threads it has been repeatedly argued that WA membership should not be required of anyone. So if the region is a bunch of RPers that want absolutely nothing to do with the WA -- a position oft argued to be quite valid -- some of them will simply have to back off, compromise their principles and do as suggested. (Which, when I suggest anything of the sort, the idea is ridiculed as being unjustly tyrannical.) Furthermore, the enforcement of immigration control became several times more severe over what it was like when the Founder was still alive. (For fear that a new immigrant is actually an invader infiltrator.)

That would most definitely mean, "When your Founder died (literally), so did your region. Too bad for you; deal with it."

When you have a vibrant active region, one tends to not want to change anything. But every "viable solution" tendered by the champions of the status quo pretty much guarantees upheaval for the regional members that did NOT die in a car crash.

"When your Founder died (literally), so did your region. Too bad for you; deal with it."
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:29 pm

Yes, if you can't agree on 1 person to be founder of the new region or can't all agree to refound, then you get to have smaller regions or go join a different one. If you bond together as a region and take action then you can have regional action and protection. If your region isn't able to get its act together and form a new region, then frankly, tough shit. You don't really agree enough to be together in one region.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:18 pm

Erastide wrote:Yes, if you can't agree on 1 person to be founder of the new region or can't all agree to refound, then you get to have smaller regions or go join a different one. If you bond together as a region and take action then you can have regional action and protection. If your region isn't able to get its act together and form a new region, then frankly, tough shit. You don't really agree enough to be together in one region.


Ah, but they _had_! The single solitary difference is that has happened is that the Founder died. IF those people were given the option to remain in place with the region remaining as it was, its operation would be as it had been.

But they're not being allowed that option. It is the limitation of choices that destroys the region. If they could elect themselves a new Founder, they would do so. (And how does that really differ from re-Founding anyway?) But _that_ is not being allowed as an option. If they want their region to continue as it has, they are _required_ to become Invader Chow.

No wonder so many quit the game. The level of empathy is incredible.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1299
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Erastide » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:24 pm

Marcuslandia wrote:The Number Two suggestion is, re-Found the region with a new Founder. With 50 nations, what are the odds that all 50 would make the migration? What are the odds that only ONE of them would want to be the new Founder? The probable result is that from ONE would come several, smaller regions.

Previous statement by you.
Marcuslandia wrote:Ah, but they _had_! The single solitary difference is that has happened is that the Founder died. IF those people were given the option to remain in place with the region remaining as it was, its operation would be as it had been.

But they're not being allowed that option. It is the limitation of choices that destroys the region. If they could elect themselves a new Founder, they would do so. (And how does that really differ from re-Founding anyway?) But _that_ is not being allowed as an option. If they want their region to continue as it has, they are _required_ to become Invader Chow.

No wonder so many quit the game. The level of empathy is incredible.

Emphasis added.

You said in the post above that they would fail to pick one of their own to be founder. So what good would an election option be? They can elect one of themselves, and go refound in a new region with that new founder. All on their own.
Last edited by Erastide on Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Marcuslandia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1082
Founded: Aug 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Marcuslandia » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:15 am

It's that _go_ which is the killer. If they stay put, they put their heads together and essentially have an election, the winner becomes the new Founder, Replacement Founder, whatever. NOT AN OPTION.

Instead, one of them is _first_ to create a new region and says, "Guys, here's a replacement region where we can all be safe!" To which 3 or 4 others say, "Who decided that _you_ would be the new Founder?" And what was once a recognizable region fragments into several.

It might have been a different story had they _known_ the Founder was going to get himself killed in an auto accident. Instead, all they knew was that the Founder hadn't been making an appearance for awhile and not responding to TGs. At first you think he's being inconsiderate. Then you start thinking maybe he went off on vacation or something. Then one day you notice that his nation "ceased to exist" and you wonder wtf? Do you pounce on that news item? Then a few days later someone passes you the word that he's died. So naturally, we should honor his memory by busting up the region that he established.

There _are_ instances where people simply do not want to make their region over into something else. But if you put them into motion, they _will_ drift apart. And the larger the region, the more certain that outcome becomes.

**************
But back to that earlier point that sort of snuck up on me. What is a re-Founding if NOT an election for a Replacement Founder? The whole re-Founding business boils down to, "One amongst you needs to be designated Founder of the re-Founded region." Instead of just casting ballots, drawing straws, playing rock-paper-scissors, they are REQUIRED to go through the move process -- to essentially (if everything works out in the precise correct fashion) end up right where they started, but with a new Founder. It's just that along the way you give them every opportunity and motivation to break up into several groups.
"If you don't know what is worth dying for, your life isn't worth living."

"Choose wisely."

User avatar
Kandarin
Diplomat
 
Posts: 869
Founded: Antiquity
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Re: What _should_ be the definition of "invasion"?

Postby Kandarin » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:34 am

Marcuslandia wrote:It's that _go_ which is the killer. If they stay put, they put their heads together and essentially have an election, the winner becomes the new Founder, Replacement Founder, whatever. NOT AN OPTION.

Instead, one of them is _first_ to create a new region and says, "Guys, here's a replacement region where we can all be safe!" To which 3 or 4 others say, "Who decided that _you_ would be the new Founder?" And what was once a recognizable region fragments into several.

It might have been a different story had they _known_ the Founder was going to get himself killed in an auto accident. Instead, all they knew was that the Founder hadn't been making an appearance for awhile and not responding to TGs. At first you think he's being inconsiderate. Then you start thinking maybe he went off on vacation or something. Then one day you notice that his nation "ceased to exist" and you wonder wtf? Do you pounce on that news item? Then a few days later someone passes you the word that he's died. So naturally, we should honor his memory by busting up the region that he established.

There _are_ instances where people simply do not want to make their region over into something else. But if you put them into motion, they _will_ drift apart. And the larger the region, the more certain that outcome becomes.


Sounds like what you've got there is a schism within your regional community. It's the regional community's responsibility to prevent that sort of thing from happening, not the responsibility of the game code. If you can stick together in these situations, no invader can get to you. If you can't, that's a problem within your group that no coded countermeasure can fix.
I wish I remember who wrote:Games like Nationstates are like a big cardboard box, and there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind who look at the empty void inside the box and ask "Where the hell is it?" and the kind who jump into the box with their friends and make it into a fort, or a spaceship.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Sea Of Hate

Advertisement

Remove ads