Regional 'opt-out' for R/D? [Gameplay/Proposal]

[Esternial]

And what about my solution of a separate aspect (I guess close to the Associations thing Uni brought up earlier) of the game that gives RP all the functions we like in regions, but immune to R/D, while allowing us to join regions and participate in R/D if we so choose?

Don't see the point for it at the time. You would demand new work as opposed to using the changes that are schedule to happen that also allow us to do the exact same thing?

It's still being debated, so if there are parts that you don't like you can discuss them.

For example, the only issue I can imagine so far is the fact Custodians require involvement in the SC, which means we should discuss the mechanics on Custodians and not ignore everything and work out something entirely different that requires a bundle of coding as opposed to some minor changes which have a chance at being implemented if you bothered discussing it in the relevant thread.

Can you realistically imagine something else that will allow us to "opt-out" and won't be vehemently opposed by the raiders? Like it or not, their opinion also carries weight, so you can't just make demands or ask that you punish them for doing something that's legal. It's not "me, me, me, me", we have to think of more than just an ideal situation for ourselves.

[The Fanboyists]

Alright, Evil Wolf, since you're obviously not going to drop the whole "you guys are objecting from safe regions so protection is obviously possible" line of argument despite its clear irrelevance (RP'er solidarity should be a good enough answer, considering how often "Raider Solidarity" is heard from the other side) and "do you want to run things smoothly OR enjoy the game, which is, they're not necessarily mutually inclusive".

As for the first, here's my experience. Tyrrhenia is a fairly secure region. We have a sporadically-active Founder and a password, and in light of recent events, we're considering removing WAD powers. Secure, yes?

But let's take a closer look. Many of our members (including, importantly, the Founder) are only sporadically active. Thus, removing WAD powers essentially we lose an admin any time our Founder is busy with, you know, real life stuff like working and such that doesn't always leave them time for NS. So in case we actually need that extra admin, now, if we were to go through that extra security, well, guess what, we're S.O.L. And we've already had to refound our region once to accomodate for a CTE'd Founder, and let me tell you, it was a two-week long, pain in the arse process and we still ended up leaving folks behind and we had to spend another week or so getting them caught up and into the new region.

The password? Besides the fact that a sufficiently-determined group of Raiders can get around that, the fact remains that it's made our region way more insular and stagnant than we'd like. I know it's hard for Raiders to wrap their minds around since they're accustomed to an entirely different dynamic, but yes, password protection does, in fact, make most RP-based recruiting at least a little more difficult (some modes more than others). So the cost of password protection is that we have a smaller active membership than we'd like, and have more than a little difficulty replacing departing members. Apart from that, password protection is seen as uninviting. Speaking from personal experience, it does actually make some possible recruits uneasy about joining up.

WA Endorsements? Less than a third of our region are WA members, and, again, with many members only sporadically active, the best endorsement count we've ever managed was three or four on our delegate. And if any of us were to, say take up Defending as something like a civic duty (as I briefly did), guess what, we could lose some of those meager endorsements.

What this amounts to is a region that is safe, but forced to fall far short of its potential and what its members want for it, because we've been forced to choose between inconveniencing ourselves or being disrupted to a greater extent by outsiders. What Raiders don't get is that while even the best workable solution will leave us inconveniencing ourselves in the name of security anyway, Raiders don't have to inconvenience themselves for security from RP'ers or Generalites or anyone else, and there's really no good reason we should have to be the ones bending over backwards to stay safe from a legitimized gameplay exploit, whose legitimacy our community as a whole is older than.


TL;DR? In short, our ability to smoothly run our regions does, despite whatever you may think, impact our ability to enjoy the subgame, and the existing security measures in their current forms do exactly that. For practical reasons, we can't completely escape inconvenience to stay safe from Raiding, but in an ideal world, we straight-up shouldn't even have to begin to deal with the pile of crap that Raiding saddles us with. Even then, numerous ideas have been proposed that don't act as a blanket opt-out to R/D, but significantly reduce the obtrusiveness of the protections we find necessary. R/D's right to exist in NationStates is no greater than RP's or anyone else's, so while for practical reasons we can't entirely escape inconvenience, you all have no right to try and continue to inconvenience us more than the minimal necessary level. So start acting like it.

[Evil Wolf]

But let's take a closer look. Many of our members (including, importantly, the Founder) are only sporadically active. Thus, removing WAD powers essentially we lose an admin any time our Founder is busy with, you know, real life stuff like working and such that doesn't always leave them time for NS. So in case we actually need that extra admin, now, if we were to go through that extra security, well, guess what, we're S.O.L. And we've already had to refound our region once to accomodate for a CTE'd Founder, and let me tell you, it was a two-week long, pain in the arse process and we still ended up leaving folks behind and we had to spend another week or so getting them caught up and into the new region.

This seems to be the main complaint, that turning off the Delegate Controls, the one true way to Opt-Out in NS, results in an unfavorable RP experience simply for the fact that if the Founder goes inactive, no one is around to update or amend the WFE. However, it's been pointed out several times in this thread that Regional Officers would be an easy fix for that issue, and that Regional Officers are coming in the near future to the game. So I consider this issue to be moot until Regional Officers have been field tested and we can determine their merit. I'm not going to back you up on refounding, however. Every player in NS is subject to that difficulty, even Raiders, and RP should get no special treatment.

R/D's right to exist in NationStates is no greater than RP's or anyone else's, so while for practical reasons we can't entirely escape inconvenience, you all have no right to try and continue to inconvenience us more than the minimal necessary level. So start acting like it.

And right there I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you.

I have every right to raid, within my abilities, whatever region I see fit. As does any other player in Nationstates, should they so choose. Who gave us that right? Well, Max Barry did when he allowed us to do what we do. I agree that if regions want to opt-out, they should; I should not have the right to attack everything in the game, there should be some fool-proof way to stop that, just as there is with Class Regions. However, regions already have a way to opt-out, and the Regional Officer change will likely solve the "administration problem" facing RP regions that do opt-out.

If you don't want to take those measures, you're fair game, as are all regions in Nationstates that choose not to opt-out, RP or not. So, don't say I have no right to hit targets that don't opt-out, when I have every right granted to me by the Game Creator himself.

[Whamabama]

Not your kind of recruiting.

We recruit by opening our doors and training and welcoming roleplayers who actually want to roleplay. The WFE and the RMB are used as tools to do so. We do not want the WFE to be changed, and nor do we want grafitti on our RMB.

This style of recruiting will definitely make sure your RMB is free of posts. So grafitti shouldn't be an issue. Your worried over nothing, Well except maybe wondering why nobody is showing up perhaps.

[Anemos Major]

f you don't want to take those measures, you're fair game, as are all regions in Nationstates that choose not to opt-out, RP or not. So, don't say I have no right to hit targets that don't opt-out, when I have every right granted to me by the Game Creator himself.

The right granted to you by the game creator was over the debate as to whether raiding constituted a legitimate form of gameplay or something more akin to cyber-bullying - not whether raiding in its current form with the current countermeasures available to players was legitimate. As has been laboured already, we're not calling for an end to raiding by a long shot; what Max Barry said, as such, doesn't go anywhere near refuting the need for this debate.

In fact, I don't believe that what we're calling for suggests that you have 'no right' to hit targets that don't opt out (notwithstanding the fact that, as stressed previously, existing opt-out mechanisms are fairly poor as it is). What we're looking for are changes to the conduct of raiders and the resources available to active regions that will ensure that, in the face of the threat posed by raiding, they will still be able to utilise their region as they see fit without making significant concessions simply to ensure that they aren't needlessly affected by a form of gameplay that they're not here to play, and that, in the event of a successful raid, the disruption and offence caused by the raiders will be held down to a minimal level.

[Anemos Major]

This style of recruiting will definitely make sure your RMB is free of posts. So grafitti shouldn't be an issue. Your worried over nothing, Well except maybe wondering why nobody is showing up perhaps.

And yet, for the record, Dienstad is one of the most prolific and active RPing regions out there - the evidence doesn't back up your claims.

Different players and regions have different ways of doing things - it just so happens that maintaining an open door policy and communicating the nature of the region via the WFE is a legitimate and proven manner in which RPing regions have added to their numbers in the past.

[Anemos Major]

I'm not going to back you up on refounding, however. Every player in NS is subject to that difficulty, even Raiders, and RP should get no special treatment.

And we're not asking for special treatment - a founder succession system, naturally, would be applied to the entirety of NS.

[Delmonte]

Holy contiguous posts, Batman!

This style of recruiting will definitely make sure your RMB is free of posts. So grafitti shouldn't be an issue. Your worried over nothing, Well except maybe wondering why nobody is showing up perhaps.

And yet, for the record, Dienstad is one of the most prolific and active RPing regions out there - the evidence doesn't back up your claims.

Different players and regions have different ways of doing things - it just so happens that maintaining an open door policy and communicating the nature of the region via the WFE is a legitimate and proven manner in which RPing regions have added to their numbers in the past.

True. It's valuable for RPing regions to be able to be open to new members. My Inbox is chock full of Telegrams, all of which were sent and received with the express purpose of guaranteeing the ability of RPing regions to be open if they wish to be.

f you don't want to take those measures, you're fair game, as are all regions in Nationstates that choose not to opt-out, RP or not. So, don't say I have no right to hit targets that don't opt-out, when I have every right granted to me by the Game Creator himself.

The right granted to you by the game creator was over the debate as to whether raiding constituted a legitimate form of gameplay or something more akin to cyber-bullying - not whether raiding in its current form with the current countermeasures available to players was legitimate. As has been laboured already, we're not calling for an end to raiding by a long shot; what Max Barry said, as such, doesn't go anywhere near refuting the need for this debate.

In fact, I don't believe that what we're calling for suggests that you have 'no right' to hit targets that don't opt out (notwithstanding the fact that, as stressed previously, existing opt-out mechanisms are fairly poor as it is). What we're looking for are changes to the conduct of raiders and the resources available to active regions that will ensure that, in the face of the threat posed by raiding, they will still be able to utilise their region as they see fit without making significant concessions simply to ensure that they aren't needlessly affected by a form of gameplay that they're not here to play, and that, in the event of a successful raid, the disruption and offence caused by the raiders will be held down to a minimal level.

No. For reasons that we're all aware of, I've been looking into Gameplay and Raiding and what-have-you, and they are correct. Max Barry stamped approval on the R/D game as a thing. They have the right to raid as per the Influence update. Not the right to "debate" it. Before Influence, raiding was against the rules.

I'm not going to back you up on refounding, however. Every player in NS is subject to that difficulty, even Raiders, and RP should get no special treatment.

And we're not asking for special treatment - a founder succession system, naturally, would be applied to the entirety of NS.

And such a system would make raiding more or less impossible, to be fair.

[Anemos Major]

No. For reasons that we're all aware of, I've been looking into Gameplay and Raiding and what-have-you, and they are correct. Max Barry stamped approval on the R/D game as a thing. They have the right to raid as per the Influence update. Not the right to "debate" it. Before Influence, raiding was against the rules.

The right granted to you by the game creator was over the debate as to whether raiding constituted a legitimate form of gameplay or something more akin to cyber-bullying - not whether raiding in its current form with the current countermeasures available to players was legitimate. As has been laboured already, we're not calling for an end to raiding by a long shot; what Max Barry said, as such, doesn't go anywhere near refuting the need for this debate.

You've misread my post.

And such a system would make raiding more or less impossible, to be fair.

It really wouldn't, though. Greater Dienstad had a founder, incidentally, though it took him a while to get on it. I need an explanation as to why having an active founder 'makes raiding impossible' in any way.

[Delmonte]

No. For reasons that we're all aware of, I've been looking into Gameplay and Raiding and what-have-you, and they are correct. Max Barry stamped approval on the R/D game as a thing. They have the right to raid as per the Influence update. Not the right to "debate" it. Before Influence, raiding was against the rules.

The right granted to you by the game creator was over the debate as to whether raiding constituted a legitimate form of gameplay or something more akin to cyber-bullying - not whether raiding in its current form with the current countermeasures available to players was legitimate. As has been laboured already, we're not calling for an end to raiding by a long shot; what Max Barry said, as such, doesn't go anywhere near refuting the need for this debate.

You've misread my post.

Can we at least agree that the offending phrase was incredibly poorly worded with a bizarre form of delayed syntax that made it very easy to confuse the subject and direct object?

As for the second part, I'm sure a raider would be able to explain it better than I, but as I understand it raids upon regions with founders are oddities; flukes. Because they cannot oust a founder so the hope of the results of the raid being maintainable are nonexistent.

[Anemos Major]

Can we at least agree that the offending phrase was incredibly poorly worded with a bizarre form of delayed syntax that made it very easy to confuse the subject and direct object?

Others haven't had trouble reading what I've written over the course of this thread's fifty pages. Read before you respond - I do it, there's no reason you shouldn't have to do it either.

[Anemos Major]

As for the second part, I'm sure a raider would be able to explain it better than I, but as I understand it raids upon regions with founders are oddities; flukes. Because they cannot oust a founder so the hope of the results of the raid being maintainable are nonexistent.

Founders don't sit at their computers 24/7 - the notion that their mere presence would make it impossible to raid a region is beyond me. For the record, it took Dienstad's founder the best part of a day and a bit before he came back to check his region, and by that time the raiders had more than enough time to tag the WFE, deface the RMB, suppress all posts from a three-odd day period and to grief the RMB a few times before they were kicked out. Having an active founder doesn't preclude the ability to raid, it just ensures that the raid doesn't develop into a full-blown occupation of an active region that, frankly, needs their page back.

If anything, it should be a favourable alternative to having a bunch of password-protected regions sitting around like islands, which can't be raided at all.

[Delmonte]

Can we at least agree that the offending phrase was incredibly poorly worded with a bizarre form of delayed syntax that made it very easy to confuse the subject and direct object?

Others haven't had trouble reading what I've written over the course of this thread's fifty pages. Read before you respond - I do it, there's no reason you shouldn't have to do it either.

Well, excuse me! I just don't know how else to respond to you except with huff because I'm not angry or offended, just... en-huffened by what you said.

[Anemos Major]

Well, excuse me! I just don't know how else to respond to you except with huff because I'm not angry or offended, just... en-huffened by what you said.

RPers get a bit prickly when you point fingers at their writing, and I'm no exception.

Looking back at that sentence though, it wasn't really that confusing (certainly not by my standards) - it was a harmless misreading, and we can leave it at that.

[The Fanboyists]

R/D's right to exist in NationStates is no greater than RP's or anyone else's, so while for practical reasons we can't entirely escape inconvenience, you all have no right to try and continue to inconvenience us more than the minimal necessary level. So start acting like it.

And right there I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you.

I have every right to raid, within my abilities, whatever region I see fit. As does any other player in Nationstates, should they so choose. Who gave us that right? Well, Max Barry did when he allowed us to do what we do. I agree that if regions want to opt-out, they should; I should not have the right to attack everything in the game, there should be some fool-proof way to stop that, just as there is with Class Regions. However, regions already have a way to opt-out, and the Regional Officer change will likely solve the "administration problem" facing RP regions that do opt-out.

If you don't want to take those measures, you're fair game, as are all regions in Nationstates that choose not to opt-out, RP or not. So, don't say I have no right to hit targets that don't opt-out, when I have every right granted to me by the Game Creator himself.

Oh, I was actually referring to pushing to keep anti-raiding countermeasures as inconvenient as they currently are. I wasn't disputing the right to play R/D. It was more directed against the people who still, after we've explained that we get that a blanket opt-out isn't doable and that we're just looking for improved countermeasures, still acted like we were trying to end raiding. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

[Evil Wolf]

It really wouldn't, though. Greater Dienstad had a founder, incidentally, though it took him a while to get on it. I need an explanation as to why having an active founder 'makes raiding impossible' in any way.

That's Tag raiding. Not every raider region tags, in fact, the majority do not. So tag raiding might survive, but every other raider group in the game would die off.

Defending would probably die off entirely, since most Defender groups don't even bother trying to stop tag raids anymore.

[Mad Jack]

Before Influence, raiding was against the rules.

Before influence certain kinds of 'griefing' were against the rules, and caused all sorts of trouble between the mods and raiders with large numbers of... dubious deletions and warnings. Raiding has always been legal (class regions being the exception of course).

[Delmonte]

Before Influence, raiding was against the rules.

Before influence certain kinds of 'griefing' were against the rules, and caused all sorts of trouble between the mods and raiders with large numbers of... dubious deletions and warnings. Raiding has always been legal (class regions being the exception of course).

Sure, sorry, when I said "Raiding" I actually meant "certain kinds of 'griefing'"

[Esternial]

Before influence certain kinds of 'griefing' were against the rules, and caused all sorts of trouble between the mods and raiders with large numbers of... dubious deletions and warnings. Raiding has always been legal (class regions being the exception of course).

Sure, sorry, when I said "Raiding" I actually meant "certain kinds of 'griefing'"

Which doesn't include editing the WFE, by the way.

Deleted: A distinction was drawn between "invaders" and "natives," and different rules applied to each.
Deleted: "Invader Delegates" were prohibited from ejecting more than a certain number (usually 10%) of residents, and required to unban them immediately afterward.
Deleted: If an "invader Delegate" password-protected the region, she was required to distribute that password to residents via telegram.
Deleted: Delegates were prohibited from ejecting residents in order to re-Found a region.

[Mad Jack]

Before influence certain kinds of 'griefing' were against the rules, and caused all sorts of trouble between the mods and raiders with large numbers of... dubious deletions and warnings. Raiding has always been legal (class regions being the exception of course).

Sure, sorry, when I said "Raiding" I actually meant "certain kinds of 'griefing'"

I'm not sure why that needed an eyeroll, but whatever.

Before influence there were groups that are much, much worse behaved than the ones we have now.

[Delmonte]

Sure, sorry, when I said "Raiding" I actually meant "certain kinds of 'griefing'"

Which doesn't include editing the WFE, by the way.

Deleted: A distinction was drawn between "invaders" and "natives," and different rules applied to each.
Deleted: "Invader Delegates" were prohibited from ejecting more than a certain number (usually 10%) of residents, and required to unban them immediately afterward.
Deleted: If an "invader Delegate" password-protected the region, she was required to distribute that password to residents via telegram.
Deleted: Delegates were prohibited from ejecting residents in order to re-Found a region.

Why "She"? Did delegates have to operate the controls with their bosoms pre-Influence update or something? And yeah, I was aware of three of these four.

[Rephesus]

I'm not sure why that needed an eyeroll, but whatever.

Irrelevant.

Before influence there were groups that are much, much worse behaved than the ones we have now.

That doesn't justify the actions of today's raiders.

[Mad Jack]

Before influence there were groups that are much, much worse behaved than the ones we have now.

That doesn't justify the actions of today's raiders.

Which would be why I didn't try to, right?

As it is, raiders don't need justification to raid.

[Esternial]

Which doesn't include editing the WFE, by the way.

Why "She"? Did delegates have to operate the controls with their bosoms pre-Influence update or something? And yeah, I was aware of three of these four.

Dunno, I just copied it here from http://www.nationstates.net/page=influence

You can send a GHR to get it edited if it's really that important.

[Evil Wolf]

Before influence certain kinds of 'griefing' were against the rules, and caused all sorts of trouble between the mods and raiders with large numbers of... dubious deletions and warnings. Raiding has always been legal (class regions being the exception of course).

What Madjack said. Before Influence there were invasion rules you had to follow, and if you didn't your puppet got deleted at a minimum. Depended on the offense.

The general rules were: No banning natives, natives are defined as any nation that arrived before the first raider in your raid team did. If you do ban a native, you must immedately unban them (we didn't have the "eject" button back then, just "eject and ban"). You can do this only for a few natives, so don't push your luck (that number was always disputed and never really clear, but I think it was something around 10-20% of the natives in region). If you password a region, you must tell every single resident the password (there was no "display password to residents" back then either) via telegram, even if you know for a solid fact one of those "natives" is a defender puppet.

Failure to do any one of those things could, and most likely would, result in the offending puppet being deleted. If it was a repeat offense or if you really screwed up a region badly by banning too many natives, the MODS could go after every nation you owned, even DoS you.

Good times, those were, good times. I should note that messing up the WFE was not against the Invasion rules. That's always been legal.