NATION

PASSWORD

Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Erastide » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:01 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Spammers can be reported, that doesn't mean they are deleted; other nuisances can be reported, that doesn't mean they are deleted. They can still come back. The banlist is not only a tool of defenders, you know. Those of us with our own non-raiding/defending regions make good use of it too. You'd be taking away one of our only means of keeping bad apples out.

The arguments have primarily been made already, but this isn't a NS wide removal of ban lists. Something like this would need to have reasoning and promotion to get to vote.

Please don't argue Nazi Europe here, people's OOC views of a subject are not likely to come up when proposing "Open Immigration in ____"
Besides, hasn't the Belgium Liberation debacle already shown you the folly of using the WA to screw with player settings just because we can?

I don't think it's a debacle that defenders were able to gain access to Belgium earlier than anticipated. It's a bit silly now, yes, but not something that worrisome.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9003
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:06 am

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:No, you're just irritated at the people making the argument against it. But we forgive you. :roll:

I'm equally irritated at both! :\

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4022
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Todd McCloud » Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:28 pm

Erastide wrote:I don't think it's bad to have this option to stop refounding of a region that didn't want to be refounded.

I'm sorry, but you played nice by kicking out all the natives?

Raiding is raiding. It isn't really nice - but it's that part of the game. It is legal, and many nations play the game solely for raiding. I don't raid anymore, but I can see how the game needs this. Mark my words as a person who was a member of the raiding/defender war for years: pass this resolution, and it will seriously mar raiding. Anything that harms raiding will harm defending. What is left of the raiding / defending game will be insignificant.

Though we all "hate" raiding around here, you have to admit it raises activity. Coups in feeders. A big raid on a region. The current Chicago fiasco with DEN. It *all* raises activity, good and bad activity. Would The East Pacific be as active as it is today if it weren't for the likes of The Empire? I don't think so; though I didn't like what The Empire eventually did, I have to at least say their actions woke the region up. What if we had this category open during their reign? Simple: we lose a feeder and gain another Lazarus. How terrifyingly destructive that would be. This resolution could effectively kill a feeder. "Ah, that'll never happen." Well, what if it does? What if some feeder delegate goes insane, ejects a lot of people, then that WA resolution passes removing the ability to ban nations in that feeder? They might as well re-name it Lazarus part two. And, nothing against Laz, but it is very *difficult* to keep a regime and a steady government in a place where all one has to do is topple the WA count, not worry about being banned, and set up their own forums and government just like that.

Still very, very much against this.

There are always going to be more regions than would be protected under this resolution. And as Kenny pointed out, I doubt any region would want this resolution in place unless they felt they needed it.


I could see the opposite happening. But I can also see this being abused - look at the recent liberation C&C's. Belarus, while I'd love to see it refounded, has no password, yet this proposal hasn't been kicked. Chicago was a 'fair raid' as far as I'm concerned, but it is still on the liberation table, and will probably be passed despite the fact that it wasn't a password-grab. After all, raiders are the 'bad people' in the game, despite having a lot of talent and strengths themselves.
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Erastide » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:12 pm

And if it was passed on a feeder it could then be repealed on a feeder. And if a more stable government came into existence and was supported by others, I would expect the repeal to pass. Feeders are fairly easy to hold if the people in charge want to keep at it long enough.

I will note that this doesn't get rid of the power of ejection from a region.

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

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Kandarin » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:26 pm

Todd McCloud wrote:This is *why* no one really raids The Rejected Realms or Laz. Just not worth keeping the troop numbers drained on there, and, with defenders and natives combined, their numbers will always trump raider numbers. Just the way it is. So now, if this thing gets passed, raiders can raid a region only to have the WA witch-hunt their raids to attempt to get them to not ban anyone anymore. So it kind of could kill off the defender game too = what's the point of defending if in a few weeks they could mess with the mechanics of the region and essentially kill off the raiding ability in that region?


Actually, the RR and Laz have been and at times continue to be significant targets for raiders. Let me put it this way, Todd: Remember the opposition you got from locals in the RR when you showed up and did your thing? That was because of the sheer number of invasion attempts we'd had previous (that looked like, but weren't, what you were doing). We've had the whole invader and defender communities over for tea at various times, and they scuffed the carpets and drank all the good beer. Lazarus has had similar situations, albeit on a smaller scale. The catch that many gameplay-war people on both sides don't realize is that politics, propaganda and willpower are bigger factors in such a struggle than who can muster the most troops and the ability to log on at the most meticulously calculated time to push a ban button a lot. Thus, pure minmaxed military groups have avoided ejectionless regions (or failed epically if they didn't) but they have still been the target of groups and operations with a political bent. Lazarus has been a raider prize several times, and while the ones that have been actually carried out have failed, I can say that there have been raider plans to take the RR that would have worked.

Again, a counter-ejection category isn't slanted against invaders as much as it sounds. Sure, it would be effective against the sorts of region-wiping empire builders you so abhor, but not so much against conventional raiders. A defender-submitted resolution of this type targeted against a region without sufficient native presence (Read: any situation where the usual raider 'the natives were negligent and thus deserved what they got' mantra is even remotely true) would epically backfire upon the defenders who created it. It would deny them the ability to truly liberate the region and eject the invaders, leaving them with a choice between costly stalemate and retreat.

That said, I am curious what the rationale is for a counter-ban proposal that is not a counter-ejection proposal, given the fairly obvious password loophole.
Last edited by Kandarin on Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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.

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Erastide » Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:40 pm

Kandarin wrote:That said, I am curious what the rationale is for a counter-ban proposal that is not a counter-ejection proposal, given the fairly obvious password loophole.

I'm not at all tied to not including ejections. I will admit I wrote this quite late at night, so my thinking on why bans and not ejections may be slightly faulty. >_>

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4022
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Todd McCloud » Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:51 pm

Kandarin wrote:
Todd McCloud wrote:This is *why* no one really raids The Rejected Realms or Laz. Just not worth keeping the troop numbers drained on there, and, with defenders and natives combined, their numbers will always trump raider numbers. Just the way it is. So now, if this thing gets passed, raiders can raid a region only to have the WA witch-hunt their raids to attempt to get them to not ban anyone anymore. So it kind of could kill off the defender game too = what's the point of defending if in a few weeks they could mess with the mechanics of the region and essentially kill off the raiding ability in that region?


Actually, the RR and Laz have been and at times continue to be significant targets for raiders. Let me put it this way, Todd: Remember the opposition you got from locals in the RR when you showed up and did your thing? That was because of the sheer number of invasion attempts we'd had previous (that looked like, but weren't, what you were doing). We've had the whole invader and defender communities over for tea at various times, and they scuffed the carpets and drank all the good beer. Lazarus has had similar situations, albeit on a smaller scale. The catch that many gameplay-war people on both sides don't realize is that politics, propaganda and willpower are bigger factors in such a struggle than who can muster the most troops and the ability to log on at the most meticulously calculated time to push a ban button a lot. Thus, pure minmaxed military groups have avoided ejectionless regions (or failed epically if they didn't) but they have still been the target of groups and operations with a political bent. Lazarus has been a raider prize several times, and while the ones that have been actually carried out have failed, I can say that there have been raider plans to take the RR that would have worked.

That may be. But how about the governments of those respective regions? What is the government of The Rejected Realms? And in Laz, all it would take is someone to topple VGS and they can put up their own forum, keep their troops in, etc. It worked with Brom a year ago, I think. No ban button, no stable government. And one of the main reasons TRR is difficult to work on is because the delegate of that region is respected and the region is used to countless disturbances. Outside of maybe in recent memory TNP and maybe TEP, I don't really know of any feeder that is *used* to those types of actions. It would literally be chaos, and would essentially kill off a government there. Players would leave. Anarchy in the streets. People's heads on spikes. It would be bad.

Again, a counter-ejection category isn't slanted against invaders as much as it sounds. Sure, it would be effective against the sorts of region-wiping empire builders you so abhor, but not so much against conventional raiders. A defender-submitted resolution of this type targeted against a region without sufficient native presence (Read: any situation where the usual raider 'the natives were negligent and thus deserved what they got' mantra is even remotely true) would epically backfire upon the defenders who created it. It would deny them the ability to truly liberate the region and eject the invaders, leaving them with a choice between costly stalemate and retreat.

That said, I am curious what the rationale is for a counter-ban proposal that is not a counter-ejection proposal, given the fairly obvious password loophole.

Well, I'm more against password-grabbing than empire builders, but there are times to refound a region and times to move on. But that's the thing - natives and defenders, if they are passionate and remotely organized, will outnumber raiders in pretty much any area. Why? When a raider raids, he has to stay in that region to keep the region together. Same with anyone else who is endorsing him. That is a huge drain. Now say there are 20 raiders there - a large number in this day and age - with fifteen natives, five of which are WA. In about a week, depending on the region, 1-2 of the non WA's become WA, but they're canceled out by the ejections performed by the rogue delegate. Essentially, in order to win, defenders will have to send over about 17 or so nations - one extra just in case another raider group is watching and decides to try and send over a few to help (natually, only one will answer the call, of course). Defenders have the upper hand in the numbers, for two reasons. For one, raiding groups like to do their own thing so, for instance, if I was leader of a group and asked for troops from different regions, I could get anywhere from no response to the other leader explaining they are in a campaign of their own. Defenders don't need to do that - if their only job is to stop raiders, it is of their best interest to work together. And, because of having WA-ready nations, they can work on 2-3 regions a night if they're good. And, they can switch out puppets any time they like, so while I may ban a defender, he may come back in 24 hours as a different WA nation, and the fight happens all over again.

Furthermore, if the outcome of such resolutions is to turn the raiding / defending game into a series of stalemates, that is only more convincing to leave this proposal.
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Urgench » Sun Jul 26, 2009 7:59 pm

Erastide wrote:

Please don't argue Nazi Europe here, people's OOC views of a subject are not likely to come up when proposing "Open Immigration in ____"


Presumably that boils down entirely to what one considers OOC and IC and I'm not sure any of us want to run down that filthy alleyway of dispair again. :eyebrow:
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Georgetpwn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 664
Founded: Sep 18, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Georgetpwn » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:05 pm

maybe we should get rid of raiding and unDEAT all the nations that sent abusive TGs to raiders.
just a suggestion.

*raiders: do not flame or troll because i posted this*
The Republic of Hobbes City (exiled), exists within Georgetpwn
DEFCON 5 4 3 2 1
Defense Minister of Novus Licentia Terra
The Republic of Hobbes City, composed of:
The Hobbes City Holding State of Georgetpwn
The People's Republic of M1 Helmet
The Protectorate of The Republic of Lanos
The Colony of Suvree
The Pacific Territory of Ferdinando Marcos

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Ardchoille » Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:40 pm

I'm opposed. My region had to refound to keep ourselves clear of raider/defender play. We're not passworded because we like newcomers and we like our delegate gaining more voting power in the WA (even when I disagree with his votes, dammit).

We don't have anyone on the banlist at the moment, but if some idiot decides to wander in and harass us, we will. If said idiot then launched an "Open Immigration" resolution, it might not get enough approvals to make it to vote -- but it might. It might not then succeed -- but it might. In theory, the SC would decide solely on the purity and necessity of the proposal. In practice -- yeah, ri-i-ght.

EDIT: Opposed to the proposed proposal, not to Georgetpwn's post above this -- though I'm opposed to that, too.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Georgetpwn
Diplomat
 
Posts: 664
Founded: Sep 18, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Georgetpwn » Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:43 pm

still, banning raiding would make more sense than constantly restarting regions
The Republic of Hobbes City (exiled), exists within Georgetpwn
DEFCON 5 4 3 2 1
Defense Minister of Novus Licentia Terra
The Republic of Hobbes City, composed of:
The Hobbes City Holding State of Georgetpwn
The People's Republic of M1 Helmet
The Protectorate of The Republic of Lanos
The Colony of Suvree
The Pacific Territory of Ferdinando Marcos

User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Erastide » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:26 pm

Ardchoille wrote:I'm opposed. My region had to refound to keep ourselves clear of raider/defender play. We're not passworded because we like newcomers and we like our delegate gaining more voting power in the WA (even when I disagree with his votes, dammit).

We don't have anyone on the banlist at the moment, but if some idiot decides to wander in and harass us, we will. If said idiot then launched an "Open Immigration" resolution, it might not get enough approvals to make it to vote -- but it might. It might not then succeed -- but it might. In theory, the SC would decide solely on the purity and necessity of the proposal. In practice -- yeah, ri-i-ght.

EDIT: Opposed to the proposed proposal, not to Georgetpwn's post above this -- though I'm opposed to that, too.

And I would say that if someone is harassing a region, it would be a problem for moderation. But I also doubt that these kind of proposals will ever get enough votes of delegates to reach a general vote. If they did, I would :bow: to the political genius of the idiot (in your scenario) that managed to accomplish it, because they would have been truly persuasive that you guys were evil dictators.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Ardchoille » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:14 pm

Well, yeah, a problem for moderation. But, as Kenny says, they might come back -- look at the thick-headed persistence of our board spammers. Plus, they wouldn't have to persuade people that we were evil dictators. They could just persuade enough people to approve it because it would be fun to tinker with a mod's region; or fun to annoy (player who has a puppet there) because of his/her activities elswhere, unrelated to the rest of us; or do it for the lulz, because our region name is hard to spell. The official reason they give on the forums might be their virtuous outrage at our misdeeds, but the damage could easily be done by less virtuous rumour.

I agree with Kandarin's point, that numbers don't always decide a gameplay action; I know from experience in the WA that number blocs can occasionally be broken up by persistence and persuasion; I know sometimes ideals do win out, so a proposal in this category against an uninvolved nation might not ever make it to vote. And I know that even if it did against my region, without justification, my regionmates and I could probably argue enough (and call in enough markers) to kill it At Vote. Fine for us; not so fine for some new region where a group of people haven't been playing long enough to build up friends, but have inadvertently created for themslves three enemies (one to write, two to endorse).

In any case, getting back to my own region: I just don't see why I should have to gamble our peacefulness on it, or spend my time politicking and organising to stop it happening. If I don't want to play raider/defender, I don't see why I -- or the hundreds of other regions full of happy little roleplayers, issue-answerers and argumentative Generalites -- should have to take time off our part of the game to play someone else's part of the game. Obviously I don't agree with the raider justification that "if you're careless, you deserve it", but I accept that that was going on when I joined, so I do what needs to be done to stay out of it.

This wouldn't let us stay out of it.

EDIT: I guess this boils down to what Hack said: leave Founders alone.
Last edited by Ardchoille on Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

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

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Kandarin » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:31 pm

This wouldn't let us stay out of it.


I'm afraid nothing short of what Georgetpwn just suggested ever will.

Fine for us; not so fine for some new region where a group of people haven't been playing long enough to build up friends, but have inadvertently created for themslves three enemies (one to write, two to endorse).


I don't see how this obscure little region (or any of the obscure little regions being used as examples) would ever be the target of a passed Open Immigration resolution. I'm not claiming that the Gameplay community has absolute willful power over the vote, simply that the power over the vote rests in the hands of people who are reasonably well-connected and would know when a resolution is full of lies. I feel like I need to keep repeating this, because the idea keeps floating around that the electorate is either A) Gullible rabble or B) Highly organized and also malicious. The truth is quite different and less abusable than most think. From outside of the Gameplay community it's easy to underestimate the sheer level of infamy you'd need to get successfully targeted with one of these things. The sheer amount of power, influence and political acumen someone would need to successfully use this to attack some wee RP region is awe-inspiring, and one must wonder what this hypothetical cabal of all-powerful masterminds would be doing screwing around with wee RP regions instead of more obvious goals.

I can tell that someone is going to pop out and say "But Nazi Europe passed, so the electorate is totally gullible! All of these will be easily abused." To that I can only say: "Max Barry Day." Shall we abolish the GA as well, then? Just as there are GA arguments that sound too good to fail, there are Gameplay groups that make up for lack of infamy with sheer tactlessness. Both are rarities.
Last edited by Kandarin on Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Ardchoille » Mon Jul 27, 2009 12:46 am

Aww, c'mon, Kandarin, reductio ad absurdum? Quit pinchin' my best tactic! :D

Technically, a lovely delivery, but it doesn't follow that, because I don't like the idea of bringing this particular proposed category within the SC's ambit, I am therefore arguing for the abolition of the SC (or for no more categories to be created in the SC, or for any diminution of its current powers.) Not for one goof, or even for many goofs. If the admins want to involve the players more in ingame/game mechanism proposals, then the SC's the best place for it to happen, precisely because players like yourself and Eras, and others who've been through the mill, can give their advice to those delegates who bother to read the debate, who may then persuade those who don't.

Indeed, we've got a thread just finished in Moderation affirming that the obligation is on SC delegates to weigh the truth or falsehood of C&Cs and, by implication, extending that obligation to Liberation proposals, so I would expect it to apply to any subsequent proposals as well. The fact that I am very doubtful that all delegates will observe due diligence doesn't mean that I want the SC closed down, any more than the fact that I know some delegates don't apply it to GA proposals means that I want the GA closed down.

I dislike this particular category mainly because it cuts into a Founder's powers. The "Liberation" category stops short at Delegate-imposed passwords. Fine, the Delegacy is at the heart of raiding/defending. This goes further. Founders are an element of protection to non-playing regions. I still wouldn't like it if it left Founders' powers alone, because of its effect on those "obscure little regions" (I've been in some, dammit! They do exist!), but it would be more livable.

(I do think that any Founderless regions that haven't refounded should try to do so, pronto, and hope like crazy they really are so obscure that someone hasn't been targetting them and gazumps the name at the update.)
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

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

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Kandarin » Mon Jul 27, 2009 1:32 am

I am not suggesting that you believe that the SC should be abolished, and I'm sorry if I wound up sounding that way. The point I am trying to make is that it is not easy for those outside of Gameplay spheres to learn how the nations and Delegates that make it up (and that make up the greatest bulk of the WA electorate) decide things. This has led to a number of posters expressing concerns over the possibility of tactics being employed that Gameplay regulars know are not realistic possibilities. It has also led to a number of far more extreme opinions, held by people who aren't you.

The reason I bring up Max Barry Day as an example is that the concerns people are addressing (about Liberation/Open Immigration abuse) deal with the possibility of rare flukes rather than the expectation of systematic problems. The latter expectation can't be taken seriously without reverting to the aforementioned extreme opinions. Obviously there will be a lot of attempts to abuse the system, as years of gunk cleaned out of the now-GA list have proven, but genuinely problematic and successful resolutions tend to occur very rarely and usually have some hard-to-repeat problem that pushed them along ("Hey, this region is named Nazi Europe!" "Hey, this resolution is named Max Barry Day!"). Obviously we're never going to be entirely rid of those, but the regular practice of the category is more important.
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.

User avatar
Urgench
Minister
 
Posts: 2345
Founded: May 21, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Urgench » Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:06 am

Kandarin wrote:I am not suggesting that you believe that the SC should be abolished, and I'm sorry if I wound up sounding that way. The point I am trying to make is that it is not easy for those outside of Gameplay spheres to learn how the nations and Delegates that make it up (and that make up the greatest bulk of the WA electorate) decide things. This has led to a number of posters expressing concerns over the possibility of tactics being employed that Gameplay regulars know are not realistic possibilities. It has also led to a number of far more extreme opinions, held by people who aren't you.

The reason I bring up Max Barry Day as an example is that the concerns people are addressing (about Liberation/Open Immigration abuse) deal with the possibility of rare flukes rather than the expectation of systematic problems. The latter expectation can't be taken seriously without reverting to the aforementioned extreme opinions. Obviously there will be a lot of attempts to abuse the system, as years of gunk cleaned out of the now-GA list have proven, but genuinely problematic and successful resolutions tend to occur very rarely and usually have some hard-to-repeat problem that pushed them along ("Hey, this region is named Nazi Europe!" "Hey, this resolution is named Max Barry Day!"). Obviously we're never going to be entirely rid of those, but the regular practice of the category is more important.




Actually crappy resolutions which need repealing because of some glaringly stupid problem they create aren't that uncommon, Max Barry Day is oft quoted but it's hardly isolated.

Really though the risk-reward analysis of this idea isn't terribly convincing. By your own admission they would be used legitimately only infrequently ( after the C&C/Liberation style initial flood presumably ) therefore it would seem that this kind of resolution isn't tremendously needful, so for a minimal benefit these resolutions would introduce a substantial element of jeopardy in to parts of the game which have no reason to welcome such jeopardy.
Last edited by Urgench on Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
- Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador in Plenipotentiary to the World Assembly for the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench -

Exchange Embassies with the CSKU here - viewtopic.php?f=5&t=67

Learn more about Urgench here- http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
The Most Glorious Hack
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Founded: Mar 11, 2003
Ex-Nation

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby The Most Glorious Hack » Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:20 am

Kandarin wrote:The reason I bring up Max Barry Day as an example is that the concerns people are addressing (about Liberation/Open Immigration abuse) deal with the possibility of rare flukes rather than the expectation of systematic problems.
I'm pretty sure that Max Barry Day didn't fuck with Founder controls over their region.

I mean, I might be wrong, but I don't remember it having the power to alter regional controls.
Now the stars they are all angled wrong,
And the sun and the moon refuse to burn.
But I remember a message,
In a demon's hand:
"Dread the passage of Jesus, for he does not return."

-Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, "Time Jesum Transeuntum Et Non Riverentum"



User avatar
Erastide
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 1298
Founded: Antiquity
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Erastide » Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:38 am

So, I understand the worry about founders, but I also don't see this legitimately getting through on a region with a founder. Even if it did, the founder would still have the power to a) set a regional password immediately and/or b) remove delegate access to regional controls. Aside from campaigning, those two things would still keep the region safe if some screwball targeted a region and managed to get this through.

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

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Martyrdoom » Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:42 am

Indeed, messing with delegate powers is one thing, but I believe the founder should be sacrosanct. Massively opposed, and not just because of my affiliations but for some of the technical reasons above. Although saying that, with liberation in conjunction with open immigration, you may as well just ban raiding and invalidate defending, cripple gameplay, neuter interregional politics...
Smelled a Spring on the Salford wind

User avatar
Ardchoille
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9842
Founded: Apr 18, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Ardchoille » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:31 am

Urgench wrote:Actually crappy resolutions which need repealing because of some glaringly stupid problem they create aren't that uncommon, Max Barry Day is oft quoted but it's hardly isolated.


Ssshhh, stop giving away GA secrets! :D

There're two differences, though: a stupid GA proposal doesn't affect my region, or my relationship with my regionmates. It affects my nation and their nations, and all other WA nations, but we can see it coming and even back out so it can't affect us (though that's frowned on). A targeted region can't back out of an SC resolution by resigning from the SC (not saying it should be able to, just pointing out the difference).

Second, if a stupid GA resolution is repealed, things go back the way they were. The stats change back, the RPs get retrofitted, no other proposals are affected (because of the House of Cards rule) and everything in the garden is lovely.

That's true of C&Cs, too. But repealing a Liberation proposal couldn't put things back exactly the way they were, because player action could occur while the proposal repeal was being debated. (If, indeed, repeals are even really possible for this sort of proposal -- you can wipe away the words, but what's the point, when the action has occurred, players are acting on it, and it can't be undone until the repeal passes?)

So there's really no room for mistakes. And "Open Immigration" looks like another of the same.

Kandarin, I readily agree that those outside the gameplay part of the game don't know what's going on inside it, and also that sometimes not all those inside know either. If you and Eras, among others, hadn't accepted WA players' assurances about WA IC and the question of metagaming, we probably wouldn't have the compromise of two councils, an outcome much better than what originally seemed likely. So I'll accept your assurance about the extreme unlikelihood of a false "Open Immigration" proposal getting through.

Besides, given the Moderation thread I referred to earlier, I guess it's consistent to take the same players'-due-diligence approach with any further categories.

But that still leaves me with this problem: however justified, however necessary, it may be, this category would hit the Founder of a raided nation; the most prominent native member of the region, already punished by being raided, is further punished by the WA for the crime of being raided?

Why must the Founder's ability to ban be removed?

Perhaps it's not physically possible to separate the banlist into Delegate bans and Founder bans. I dunno, I'm no techie.

But I can't see why, to get at a raider delegate, you'd want to remove one of the ways a (back from hoildays? recovered from sudden illness? instead of just "careless") raided region's Founder could begin cleaning up his region.

For us non-(consciously)-gameplaying regions, Founders are special. A non-gameplay Founder helps protect a region more than a non-gameplaying Delegate can -- not in foreseeing or preventing a raid, but at least in getting rid of the raiders before they do too much damage.

This proposed category takes away one of the powers of the Founder. This, if accepted, would be the first SC category that suggests doing that. I'm opposed to it for that reason. Even accepting that the possibility of it being applied unfairly is vanishingly small, I'm still opposed to it. If the admins were able to create some way to distinguish between Founder bans and Delegate bans, and forbid only Delegate bans, it might be acceptable. (I get the impression, though, that it wouldn't do what Eras wants it to do if only the Delegate's ban-power was removed; is that how it's supposed to work?)

Glen-Rhodes, sorry, but I just don't get your argument. As I understand it, this category would be applied to a region that had been taken over by a raider. So if Atlantic Oasis were taken over by a raider, it could then be made subject to an Open Immigration order. Why wouldn't it be taken over (apart from the obvious -- that its Founder is alarmingly active, and that it would have many non-raid/defend nations who would try, in our bumbling way, to help)? Of my four active nations, three have been in quiet, non-raid/defending regions, and those three have all been raided. When did raiders start leaving obscure or easy targets alone?
Ideological Bulwark #35
The more scandalous charges were suppressed; the vicar of Christ was accused only of piracy, rape, sodomy, murder and incest. -- Edward Gibbon on the schismatic Pope John XXIII (1410–1415).

User avatar
Cocodian
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Cocodian » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:37 am

But that still leaves me with this problem: however justified, however necessary, it may be, this category would hit the Founder of a raided nation; the most prominent native member of the region, already punished by being raided, is further punished by the WA for the crime of being raided?


Is it not usually true though that the vast majority of regions raided are founderless, because the very nature of a founder and of raiding means that invading a region with an active founder would be suicide.

This therefore means that I cannot see this resolution being used on a region with an active founder, meaning I can't really see how it effects their power.
Former Arch Chancellor of the Founderless Region Alliance

User avatar
The Palentine
Diplomat
 
Posts: 588
Founded: May 18, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby The Palentine » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:13 am

The Lady with the Blue Hat wrote:Of my four active nations, three have been in quiet, non-raid/defending regions, and those three have all been raided. When did raiders start leaving obscure or easy targets alone?


I must say you are dead on, dear lady. I too have had nations in regions that I'd figure were obscure(Malibu Islands, and Monkey Islands). Both regions became founderless, or had been founderless for a long time, and both were rather innoffensive, and were not involved with raiding. However that didn't stop raiders from pissing in the native's Fruit Loops(TM), and taking over. Eventually both regions were liberated, and subsequently refounded. I still feel that the only defense against being raided is having a active founder, who can bounce and ban the troublemakers.

Cocodian wrote:This therefore means that I cannot see this resolution being used on a region with an active founder....

I can, simply to piss someone off, or for shits and giggles. Of course I always expect the worse out of people.
Last edited by The Palentine on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:19 am, edited 4 times in total.
"There aren't quite as many irredeemable folks as everyone thinks."
-The Dourian Embassy

"Yeah, but some (like Sen. Sulla) have to count for, like 20 or 30 all by themselves."
-Hack

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4022
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Todd McCloud » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:21 am

I still believe this will really harm the raiding / defending game. I mean, part of raiding, as much as people don't like to admit it, is refounding regions. It's just what happens - raiders have their enemies, and they have their wars, both of which are totally legal. I could easily see any stalingrad-like raider occupation going to the WA and having the ban button removed, mainly because of the stigma with raiding. Plus, with the concerns about feeder coups, which are an integral part of the game, and other shifts in power, I would believe this could curtail a lot of action in NS. The real (ahem...) "WA" doesn't even have this power. They can't disrupt coups or shifts in power, and I wouldn't hesitate to say this is pushing the WA to the brink of being used for combat purposes. If the WA is to have no army, then they should remain out of affairs which require an army.

Of course, if this gets passed, I can easily see another category which grants a region to change founders, or gain a founder. Makes about as much sense as this one. I mean, it too would manipulate the mechanics of founder / delegate powers.
I wrote a book, and another one is on the way!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Cocodian
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 42
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Ex-Nation

Re: Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

Postby Cocodian » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:28 am

The only real concern I see is the ending of the Feeder coups and "shifts of power". In terms of a Stalingrad raiding scenario I can't see this type of resolution having much point; not only will it take a relatively large amount of time to propose and then pass, but also it offers little or nothing different to having a large amount of switchers.

If it dealt with ejections, now that would be a different matter
Last edited by Cocodian on Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
Former Arch Chancellor of the Founderless Region Alliance

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads