Proposal: New category type "Open Immigration"

[Erastide]

I object because it sounds like regions that have little to absolutely no WA interaction - and Want None- could therefore be forced to allow nations in that they have no interest in having in.

My region has a password for a reason. We have no interest in having wandering nations in, much less having uninvited nations in. We have every right to choose who joins our region and to have the WA make it otherwise is unacceptable.

It would be utterly unfair for a WA resolution to force us to let in nations we don't want!

And you would still have a password. Unless of course, someone passed a Liberation resolution on you, which we already have going on.

[The Emmerian Unions]

I object because it sounds like regions that have little to absolutely no WA interaction - and Want None- could therefore be forced to allow nations in that they have no interest in having in.

My region has a password for a reason. We have no interest in having wandering nations in, much less having uninvited nations in. We have every right to choose who joins our region and to have the WA make it otherwise is unacceptable.

It would be utterly unfair for a WA resolution to force us to let in nations we don't want!

And you would still have a password. Unless of course, someone passed a Liberation resolution on you, which we already have going on.

But we in the Fatal Terrain region don't have a WA delegate, so wouldn't Liberation resolutions not work as we have an active founder?

[Erastide]

Liberation wipes your ability to have a password. Don't believe it discriminates if a region has a founder or not.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2556#p67627

This would allow a nominated region to be "liberated:" if passed as a WA resolution, the region's password (if any) is removed, and the region cannot activate password protection so long as the resolution stands.

[Naivetry]

Liberation wipes your ability to have a password. Don't believe it discriminates if a region has a founder or not.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2556#p67627

This would allow a nominated region to be "liberated:" if passed as a WA resolution, the region's password (if any) is removed, and the region cannot activate password protection so long as the resolution stands.

Wait, what? I was under the impression we had settled that.

viewtopic.php?p=72294#p72294

[Sirocco]

Hey, if there are people who think Liberation tips things too much into the way of defenders, we could always have some sort of resolution that raiders would find useful (and perhaps defenders in certain circumstances). Something like resetting a region's influence to 0 or something. Or maybe we should have a resolution that allows members to elect a nation to have the power to delete crappy proposals?

The only limit's your imagination, guys. I'm not saying these ideas are good, but they're possibly doable. We could do with a re-think of GA categories, too, see what's wanted/needed/etc.

[Ardchoille]

The Liberation category says this:

A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region

If the region has a Founder, and the Founder has imposed barriers (eg, passworded the region), the password is outside the ambit of the category. It deals only with Delegate-imposed barriers. The game mechanism hasn't been told to "see" anything but a Delegate-imposed password.

Look unto the words of the Category, my children, for all Truth is contained therein.

(If the Founder is also the Delegate, I'm guessing the game mechanism treats him as a Founder. If he is the Founder as a puppet, and the Delegate as a WA nation, I'm guessing the mechanism treats him as whichever one he's logged into when he imposes the password. However, these are guesses. I need a tech admin to make sure, so I'll go ask one.)

EDIT: Pythagosaurus has just confirmed those guesses are correct. So there you go.

[Bears Armed]

Hey, if there are people who think Liberation tips things too much into the way of defenders, we could always have some sort of resolution that raiders would find useful

To hell with that! Raiders do too much damage as it is, giving them any more tools would be criminally irresponsible...
Surely the reason for 'Liberation' proposals wasn't specifically to help defenders, it was to fix a side-effect of the switch from Mod intervention to automated 'Influence' and thus to help everybody -- including the MANY players who aren't part of the 'Gameplay' community -- who disapproves of regions being seized & quite possibly wrecked by raiders?

[Starblaydia]

Hey, if there are people who think Liberation tips things too much into the way of defenders, we could always have some sort of resolution that raiders would find useful

To hell with that! Raiders do too much damage as it is, giving them any more tools would be criminally irresponsible...
Surely the reason for 'Liberation' proposals wasn't specifically to help defenders, it was to fix a side-effect of the switch from Mod intervention to automated 'Influence' and thus to help everybody -- including the MANY players who aren't part of the 'Gameplay' community -- who disapproves of regions being seized & quite possibly wrecked by raiders?

Exactly, Bears. Influence has given us griefing via the back door and Liberation can bring that to a halt. Coming up with a tit-for-tat aid for more griefing just because raiders can finally be chucked out of a region they've taken and sealed off is ludicrous, imo.

[Sirocco]

It was only an example, folks, no need to rip me to shreds here.

[Starblaydia]

It was only an example, folks, no need to rip me to shreds here.

It's you lot that drop these sort of things unannounced into our laps and say "make something of that, guys!". I'm not ever expecting universal approval/disapproval of any new feature or mechanism, but sometimes it seems like you're taking a stick and poking at our collective beehive with features like C&Cs and Liberations just to see what happens.

We're all some damn social experiment to you people, aren't we?!

[Sirocco]

It was only an example, folks, no need to rip me to shreds here.

It's you lot that drop these sort of things unannounced into our laps and say "make something of that, guys!". I'm not ever expecting universal approval/disapproval of any new feature or mechanism, but sometimes it seems like you're taking a stick and poking at our collective beehive with features like C&Cs and Liberations just to see what happens.

We're all some damn social experiment to you people, aren't we?!

No one plays NationStates the way I do.

[Starblaydia]

It was only an example, folks, no need to rip me to shreds here.

It's you lot that drop these sort of things unannounced into our laps and say "make something of that, guys!". I'm not ever expecting universal approval/disapproval of any new feature or mechanism, but sometimes it seems like you're taking a stick and poking at our collective beehive with features like C&Cs and Liberations just to see what happens.

We're all some damn social experiment to you people, aren't we?!

No one plays NationStates the way I do.

OK, now I'm scared.

[Martyrdoom]

You can put in all the new pro-raiders features you want in attempting to even out the effect of Liberation, but because they'll be within the realm of the WA and Security Council pro-raider/invader resolutions up for vote will always be nullifed by the defender-dominated voting bloc. Just remove Liberation - its abuse in the case of Belgium was staggering. Plus, with the mechanisms in place there was no need for it anyway, unless to it was designed to reward failure.

We should get back to focusing on real gameplay and not gameplay via legislation, and then legislation to cover over the cracks in the previous legislation. We're gonna end up with a ritual and no game.

[Starblaydia]

Just remove Liberation - its abuse in the case of Belgium was staggering.

We should get back to focusing on real gameplay and not gameplay via legislation.

Using Liberation as it (appears) was intended is abuse of it?

Quick, don't vote on WA resolutions, that's abooz of the WA system!

[Urgench]

Just remove Liberation - its abuse in the case of Belgium was staggering.

We should get back to focusing on real gameplay and not gameplay via legislation.

Using Liberation as it (appears) was intended is abuse of it?

Quick, don't vote on WA resolutions, that's abooz of the WA system!

Where in the category description does it say "Libration resolutions should be used as coercion by defenders to obviate the removal of passwords by liberating the region in question before the resolution has been passed" ?

[Starblaydia]

Probably just under the section where it says raiding griefers are now allowed to ruin the game experience for founderless regions.

[Martyrdoom]

Just remove Liberation - its abuse in the case of Belgium was staggering.

We should get back to focusing on real gameplay and not gameplay via legislation.

Using Liberation as it (appears) was intended is abuse of it?

Quick, don't vote on WA resolutions, that's abooz of the WA system!

Where in the category description does it say "Libration resolutions should be used as coercion by defenders to obviate the removal of passwords by liberating the region in question before the resolution has been passed" ?

Exactly! Urgench, have you heard of the term 'folie a deux'? Because we certainly exhibit the same "madness" around here?!

[Urgench]

Probably just under the section where it says raiding griefers are now allowed to ruin the game experience for founderless regions.

Do you understand that at this stage the whole "griefers are evil" formula has become a form of propaganda by which defenders or their supporters justify using the WA to persecute a player group they hate ?

[Urgench]

Exactly! Urgench, have you heard of the term 'folie a deux'? Because we certainly exhibit the same "madness" around here?!

I could forgive folie as involuntary and an affliction, what's going on here is completely calculated and purposeful.

[Martyrdoom]

True that.

[Starblaydia]

Probably just under the section where it says raiding griefers are now allowed to ruin the game experience for founderless regions.

Do you understand that at this stage the whole "griefers are evil" formula has become a form of propaganda by which defenders or their supporters justify using the WA to persecute a player group they hate ?

I don't particularly care how the Defenders use the word 'griefing', nor the idea that it is a bad thing, as I'm not one. I'm a player and an RPer, and if the Belgium scenario happened to my region it would ruin my game experience.

Raid, by all means. Raid your heart out with founderless regions. Go in to a region, take the Delegacy, scrawl graffiti on the walls and leave again with a job well done and another notch on the bedpost. That's fine, I accept that it is part of the game if you haven't got an ever-wary eye on incoming WA nations and such. I don't like it, but I accept it.

What ruins the experience for people who are very attached to their regions is coming in, passwording the region and ejecting natives. Regions, communities, have vanished because of it. Belgium is lucky in that they got a campaign going on the forums and in the WA to get their region back. Some call it 'Empire Building', some call it 'Griefing', some call it 'Man Up You Pussies, That's Gameplay!'.

I call it Being A Prick (or rather a collective of pricks, whatever the term for that is), because it ruins everyone else's entire experience of the site and game and there's practically nothing they can do about it.

Open Immigration is a thinly-veiled attempt to stir up the raiding/defending game yet again, one which I don't think is needed as it will only cause more arguments and whining. As I said, in jest, above: we're a social experiment. It's like Big Brother only without the cameras and prizes, but keeping all the grief and shouting.

[Martyrdoom]

Personally I would'nt touch an RP region, even if they did'nt have 'gameplay' defences up.

Moreover, there's plenty to prevent what happened to Belgium.

So am I prick or you just throwing that out indirectly? Because at the end of the day what I do is well within the rules of the game. You and the majority may not like it, but it does'nt justify that shit - you roleplay, I roleplay to an extent in my gameplay in that I try and build-empires!

[Starblaydia]

Personally I would'nt touch an RP region, even if they did'nt have 'gameplay' defences up.

For this I am, genuinely, very grateful.

Moreover, there's plenty to prevent what happened to Belgium.

Yes: a re-found, or an eternally watchful delegate, or some defenders ready to spring into action within 24 hours or one updates' notice.

So am I prick or you just throwing that out indirectly? Because at the end of the day what I do is well within the rules of the game. You and the majority may not like it, but it does'nt justify that shit - you roleplay, I roleplay to an extent in my gameplay in that I try and build-empires!

I was throwing that out generally to describe that type of behaviour, akin to pushing other people over in the playground just 'because'.

It is only within the rules now because of the addition of Influence, as before it was illegal, correct?

[Urgench]

Probably just under the section where it says raiding griefers are now allowed to ruin the game experience for founderless regions.

Do you understand that at this stage the whole "griefers are evil" formula has become a form of propaganda by which defenders or their supporters justify using the WA to persecute a player group they hate ?

I don't particularly care how the Defenders use the word 'griefing', nor the idea that it is a bad thing, as I'm not one. I'm a player and an RPer, and if the Belgium scenario happened to my region it would ruin my game experience.

Raid, by all means. Raid your heart out with founderless regions. Go in to a region, take the Delegacy, scrawl graffiti on the walls and leave again with a job well done and another notch on the bedpost. That's fine, I accept that it is part of the game if you haven't got an ever-wary eye on incoming WA nations and such. I don't like it, but I accept it.

What ruins the experience for people who are very attached to their regions is coming in, passwording the region and ejecting natives. Regions, communities, have vanished because of it. Belgium is lucky in that they got a campaign going on the forums and in the WA to get their region back. Some call it 'Empire Building', some call it 'Griefing', some call it 'Man Up You Pussies, That's Gameplay!'.

I call it Being A Prick (or rather a collective of pricks, whatever the term for that is), because it ruins everyone else's entire experience of the site and game and there's practically nothing they can do about it.

Open Immigration is a thinly-veiled attempt to stir up the raiding/defending game yet again, one which I don't think is needed as it will only cause more arguments and whining. As I said, in jest, above: we're a social experiment. It's like Big Brother only without the cameras and prizes, but keeping all the grief and shouting.

I'm not sure if your reading my posts properly, but no matter. So far griefing has had absolutely no effect on my region, it's effect on other regions has been to motivate a group of players to start using the WA in an extremely questionable way and so far that's the only effect griefing has had on me, so that whole "[griefing] ruins everyone else's entire experience of the site and game" is only true if you include the way it has motivated enough animosity to start a WA campaign against griefers, otherwise your assertion is false.

Regions vanish for hundreds of reasons, explain to me why I should be comfortable with the WA losing all impartiality to marginalise a groupof players in order to stop this particular form of region death ?


My major problem with this new suggestion is that it once again presumes that a simple majority of those who choose to vote is authoritative enough to justify interfering and controling how people play the game. Change the game rules by all means, that at least is fair, but a WA vote to allow free immigration in to a region sounds like mob rule being dressed up as democracy to me.

[Starblaydia]

I'm not sure if your reading my posts properly, but no matter. So far griefing has had absolutely no effect on my region, it's effect on other regions has been to motivate a group of players to start using the WA in an extremely questionable way and so far that's the only effect griefing has had on me, so that whole "[griefing] ruins everyone else's entire experience of the site and game" is only true if you include the way it has motivated enough animosity to start a WA campaign against griefers, otherwise your assertion is false.

So, let me get this straight: has your WA puppet's region been invaded, with a new password installed, and then been kicked out just because it's a native WA nation? If not, or if you're not worried by that prospect (for whatever reason) then the griefing won't bother you.

By 'everyone else', I meant the nations in a region that is the target of invasion and that griefing behaviour - the direct victims, if you will.

Regions vanish for hundreds of reasons, explain to me why I should be comfortable with the WA losing all impartiality to marginalise a groupof players in order to stop this particular form of region death ?

Players leaving the game for their own reasons is one thing, players leaving the game because of other players ruining their game is quite another. Seems to me that the ruination of the experience should be prevented in the first place.

My major problem with this new suggestion is that it once again presumes that a simple majority of those who choose to vote is authoritative enough to justify interfering and controling how people play the game. Change the game rules by all means, that at least is fair, but a WA vote to allow free immigration in to a region sounds like mob rule being dressed up as democracy to me.

I don't like this Open Immigration suggestion either, so I'm with you on that one. A region's banlist should be down to whoever controls it - be it natives or temporary raiders.