[Idea] WA Embargo

[Unibot III]

Some folks may think that the following idea is radical and I ask them to consider the status quo: any founderless UCR can be destroyed top-to-bottom if you're a delegate with over 40-50 invader endorsements. Any region. No one will be able to stop them from griefing. If you have the endorsements you can do anything you like. The status quo as it stands is rather radical.

This creates an obvious imbalance. You need dozens of people online to end a major occupation - and this liberation can be obstructed with dozens of players that don't need to be online.

I've proposed ideas for how the WA Security Council could address piling before but I think I may have one now that has more advantages than past proposals and is easier to explain to new players.

Introducing...

An "Embargo" resolution can be thought of as the opposite of "Liberations." Liberations open regions up, embargoes lock them down.

1. Embargo powers are only applicable to Founderless UCRs. Like with Liberations, they're purely 'symbolic' for GCRs / Founder UCRs.

2. Any nation that had entered the region after the resolution's submission time is instantly relocated to TRR upon the passage of an embargo.

3. Any nation that enters an embargoed region is relocated after a short delay of time (10 seconds, let's say). You click "move," you move into the region, and shortly thereafter you're relocated to TRR and your page refreshes to a nasty little message:

ADDENDUM: After some discussion in this thread, other (I.E., better) possibilities for enforcement were raised. WA-specific enforcement, where only WA member states were removed from the WA or expelled from an embargoed region, have been proposed. In practice, these proposals would affect Military Gameplay in an analogous way. The difference is that if the WA embargo only 'expels' WA member-states from the WA, this enforcement method is more in line with the 'roleplay' expectations of the WA (which typically is regarded as having no jurisdiction over non-WA nations) and a WA embargo would constrict a region's growth less (since it could accumulate new non-WA members.) Non-compliant member-states might for instance recieve a telegram like the following after entering an embargoed region:

4. Obviously, a repeal ends an embargo.

---

An embargo poses new challenges to both invaders and defenders:

Invaders

Defenders

Invaders should pile a region as soon as possible before an "embargo" resolution is submitted. Piling after an embargo resolution is submitted is rendered futile retroactively by the passage of an embargo resolution. After an embargo is in place, invaders can obstruct liberation efforts by having invaders online at the time of update to counter-endorse the invader delegate. Some invaders may make use of previously planted sleeper nations to get around an embargo but a mass attempt to move non-WA accounts into a region before an embargo is in place would be rulebreaking (puppet-flooding).

Defenders should submit an "embargo" resolution with a credible, legal, and original text ASAP. It would be inadvisable for defenders to use a non-resident lead nation since if the nation is post-embargo it'll be removed within seconds. You'd have to keep 're-liberating' the region each update to maintain control and build influence. Liberators are used to facing the prospect of ejection but the small fixed window of time for endorsing a lead nation is an additional constraint. This system values accuracy - if your move-time is more than ten seconds off update, your troops will be locked out. The post-liberation environment would be more fragile and unpredictable than it is now; that is, until an "embargo" resolution is repealed, defenders would be unable to pile a liberated region.

For non-gameplayers, an "Embargo" resolution category raises the possibility of constraining the growth of nefarious regions. In particular, hate and supremacist related regions. We've seen some 'offensive' WA Liberations in the past and I would expect to see some 'offensive' WA Embargoes in the future.

A "WA Embargo" is a relatively intuitive concept, best understood to new players as the counterpart to WA Liberations: a regional lock-down.

[Frisbeeteria]

How widespread is this issue? How many founderless UCRs are there? How many are inaccessible due to unknown passwords? Does anyone have numbers? I'm thinking it's a very limited subset of regions.

Invaders should pile a region as soon as possible before an "embargo" resolution is submitted.

Given the lethargic pace of the SC, I'm not seeing any real "ASAP" time pressure. At minimum, it's going to take a day to reach quorum, and assuming there is nothing in queue ahead of it, another 3.5 days to pass. If anything, submitting an Embargo resolution is nothing more than an invitation to park sleeper puppets (for both sides) in a contested region. This strikes me as a huge advantage to whomever is sitting in the Delegate seat (presumably the raider or raider ally) - they can let in as many friends as they like, while ejecting all other new arrivals.

I'm not seeing this as a balanced event, which is pretty much a requirement for new game features. Educate me and prove me wrong.

[Lord Dominator]

Some folks may think that the following idea is radical and I ask them to consider the status quo: any founderless UCR can be destroyed top-to-bottom if you're a delegate with 40-50 invader endorsements. Any region. No one will be able to stop them from griefing. If you have the endorsements you can do anything you like.

When defenders don't exist, yes.

For non-gameplayers, an "Embargo" resolution category raises the possibility of constraining the growth of nefarious regions. In particular, hate and supremacist related regions. We've seen some 'offensive' WA Liberations in the past and I would expect to see some 'offensive' WA Embargoes in the future.

You've previously indicated that an Embargo is only for founderless regions. Founderless regions of the type here are usually destroyed fairly rapidly, leaving Embargos to only be used on Foundered hate regions.

[Unibot III]

How widespread is this issue? How many founderless UCRs are there? How many are inaccessible due to unknown passwords? Does anyone have numbers? I'm thinking it's a very limited subset of regions.

Invaders should pile a region as soon as possible before an "embargo" resolution is submitted.

Given the lethargic pace of the SC, I'm not seeing any real "ASAP" time pressure. At minimum, it's going to take a day to reach quorum, and assuming there is nothing in queue ahead of it, another 3.5 days to pass. If anything, submitting an Embargo resolution is nothing more than an invitation to park sleeper puppets (for both sides) in a contested region. This strikes me as a huge advantage to whomever is sitting in the Delegate seat (presumably the raider or raider ally) - they can let in as many friends as they like, while ejecting all other new arrivals.

I'm not seeing this as a balanced event, which is pretty much a requirement for new game features. Educate me and prove me wrong.

There are a little over three thousand founderless regions. 1,512 of these founderless regions are not password, but a password is no guaranteed that your region won't be invaded, piled, or griefed. For instance, my own home region, Eastern Islands of Dharma was invaded under the cover of a password (the password prevented some defenders from responding to the invasion!), then piled, and griefed till its near-destruction.

Any region that is invaded can be piled by an invader organization and indeed they regularly are if the invaders intend to occupy/grief the region because piling makes it immensely easier to occupy/grief a region. You will occasionally see invader organizations pro-actively forgo piling but they do so in the spirit of competition - there's no requirement for them to not pile and many pile when the stakes are high.

As it stands right now, piling creates an enormous imbalance because for every invader that endorses the lead invader you need to have a liberator who is active online at the time of liberation. If an invasion accumulates over approx. 40 endorsements in the margin, you're screwed - that's checkmate - and there's no way to stop invaders from piling an active occupation.

_______________

In 2009, there was a panic over a few dozen invasions done by a group called Macedon - they were experimenting with a new type of invasion where they activated sleeper accounts, invaded a region, then installed a password. Password raiding was relatively new then. It was a way to shut down competition - an "endgame." We introduced WA Liberations after Belgium was password-raided and was on the verge of being destroyed. The WA Liberation category allowed players to remove the password and open up the state of play to competition.

Piling offers an even better trump-card to invaders than passwords. Piling was used to great effect in Belgium a few years later, when hundreds of invaders converged to pile onto the invader delegate, essentially rendering a liberation impossible. Dozens of proposals to address piling have been proposed over the years - "delegate elects," "endorsement sweeps," "foreign endorsements" - but I don't think any of those proposals is as intuitive, balanced, and as fun as this proposal. It offers a fresh new, competitive experience for both invaders and defenders - they'll have to deploy new skills in an embargo situation - and natives will play an even more vital role in taking back their regions from occupiers (since if you don't have a native lead, it's really difficult to control a post-liberation scenario under an embargo).

Invaders could still pile, but they have only a short period of time to do so (currently pilers respond at a leisurely pace) - probably not more than a few hours while a team of defenders make the call to submit a resolution and draft the text. There is an immense time crunch placed on both sides to pile and submit as soon as possible because nations are relocated retroactively based on whether they joined the region before or after the time that the WA proposal was submitted. Submitted here is key - not passage, submitted. We're only talking about a span of a few hours if defenders react quick and prepare a draft.

I should add that there is already a lot of incentive to park sleeper puppets on both sides, regardless of whether an embargo happens or not - and R/Ders park a lot of sleepers. But if an invader intended to prepare in advance of an invasion by piling a region full of sleeper puppets to distribute to troops under an embargo, the usual activity/traffic would tip off defenders and undermine the whole initiative.

You're correct that there remains an advantage to the invader delegate. While they can't let in any new nations, they can selectively eject new arrivals. This is exactly as the game already works. There is and should be some kind of advantage for incumbents. The challenge under an embargo that makes these situations different is that you can't pile new endorsements onto an incumbent delegate to inoculate the incumbency from upheaval. In that sense it makes the game more fair: invaders who want to help prevent a liberation will have to move in at update just like defenders do. Effectively, this creates a new opportunity for 'counter-liberation strategies' which are unnecessary right now. Under an occupation as it stands, if you occupy a region, the only invaders who need to participate at update are those who are ejecting/banning liberators. Under an embargo, you would want dozens of invaders to be online and move to block a liberation if one appeared. The only invaders who could remain inactive in an occupation would be those who participated in the initial invasion or those who had sleeper accounts in the region prior to the embargo.

Some folks may think that the following idea is radical and I ask them to consider the status quo: any founderless UCR can be destroyed top-to-bottom if you're a delegate with 40-50 invader endorsements. Any region. No one will be able to stop them from griefing. If you have the endorsements you can do anything you like.

When defenders don't exist, yes.

For non-gameplayers, an "Embargo" resolution category raises the possibility of constraining the growth of nefarious regions. In particular, hate and supremacist related regions. We've seen some 'offensive' WA Liberations in the past and I would expect to see some 'offensive' WA Embargoes in the future.

You've previously indicated that an Embargo is only for founderless regions. Founderless regions of the type here are usually destroyed fairly rapidly, leaving Embargos to only be used on Foundered hate regions.

It's not a matter of defenders existing or not. Defenders cannot realistically liberate any region where the margin of endorsements is beyond a reasonable amount (40-ish). It doesn't happen. There's a practical limit to how many people you can get online at the same time due to time zones and real life schedules.

Founderless regions are routinely griefed and destroyed because piling turbo-charges the accumulation of influence. Endorsements are steroids for influence growth. That's why when an invader wants to grief a region quick and dirty without resistance an invader will choose to pile.

[Lord Dominator]

When defenders don't exist, yes.


You've previously indicated that an Embargo is only for founderless regions. Founderless regions of the type here are usually destroyed fairly rapidly, leaving Embargos to only be used on Foundered hate regions.

It's not a matter of defenders existing or not. Defenders cannot realistically liberate any region where the margin of endorsements is beyond a reasonable amount (40-ish). It doesn't happen. There's a practical limit to how many people you can get online at the same time due to time zones and real life schedules.

Founderless regions are routinely griefed and destroyed because piling turbo-charges the accumulation of influence. Endorsements are steroids for influence growth. That's why when an invader wants to grief a region quick and dirty without resistance an invader will choose to pile.

There was recently an invasion of Iran (thanks again for that target btw) by the NPA, with support from TBH and ERN. It was piled to about the 40-50 range (maxed out at 56). In the week that it was running, defenders nearly got it Liberated by the end (thanks to siege tactics), and would have probably finished the job within the next couple of days had it not ended. So no, that range of endorsements can be liberated.

Fun fact, we pile on everything because that's the only way to keep anything. Region destruction is rather rare itself - the two raider instances in the last yearish were more from not being noticed (Politics Amino) early enough, and no one really being willing to do so (Westphalia 2.0), mixed with a bit of non-existent defenders, as both were or at least spent decent time in the 30s or below.

[Lord Dominator]

On a different note, this wouldn't change much of the situation for large founderless regions (since they've gotten influence to last them months we're not willing to take, at minimum), but would helpfully provide us with something that's nearly a password on all the small one, particularly if we just destroy the place, rather than refound (and if we want to do that, removing the natives first certainly lowers the cost.

All we'd need to do is keep the region for 4-6 days with the benefit of pilers, and then just keep out enough defenders on any given update around a repeal of the Embargo, vastly improving our situation.

Edit: So really, I should be supporting this, since it'd certainly make my job easier...

[Unibot III]

There was recently an invasion of Iran (thanks again for that target btw) by the NPA, with support from TBH and ERN. It was piled to about the 40-50 range (maxed out at 56). In the week that it was running, defenders nearly got it Liberated by the end (thanks to siege tactics), and would have probably finished the job within the next couple of days had it not ended. So no, that range of endorsements can be liberated.

That's at the bare minimum level of piling. When I say piling I'm thinking above that threshold of 40-50 I cited. 60, 70.. 80... 100... 120... We've seen loads of examples of these kinds of insurmountable piles.

Fun fact, we pile on everything because that's the only way to keep anything. Region destruction is rather rare itself - the two raider instances in the last yearish were more from not being noticed (Politics Amino) early enough, and no one really being willing to do so (Westphalia 2.0), mixed with a bit of non-existent defenders, as both were or at least spent decent time in the 30s or below.

Piling is used extensively to make occupations easy to maintain, it's not because extraneous piling is necessary. You don't need 100 endorsements on a lead delegate to keep a region (which happens), these kinds of piles are a demonstration of invincibility and an efficient vehicle for regional griefing.

But this touches on a subject I wanted to bring up too: total regional destruction is rare because WA Liberations make a clean destruction difficult/risky.

The original intention of WA Liberations was to open up password raids to competition. This wasn't because it was 'impossible' to liberate a password raid per se (for instance, Belgium, the case that gave way to WA Liberations in the first place, was liberated before the WA Liberation passed because the password leaked!) but rather because liberating password raids was almost surely unlikely to happen. Nowadays WA Liberations are rarely used as they were originally intended: such 'stealth raids' and password raiding is rare. WA Liberations are now what defenders turn to when a regional pile gets out of control and the prospect of liberation is impossible - it's a last resort that insulates a region from a controlled refounding. What we get is a poor game experience for everyone: natives watch their regions burn to the ground without recourse, invaders rot away idly in an occupation whose conclusion is basically foregone, and defenders are of little practical use.

I would expect that if WA Embargoes were introduced, they would be used in lieu of many WA Liberations (which nowadays are about preventing refounds rather than canceling passwords - it doesn't matter if there's a password or not if there's a 70 endorsement margin on the invader delegate). I also believe the number of WA Embargoes would rise above the current level of WA Liberations because both invaders and defenders would frankly enjoy the game experience that they would have over conventional pile occupations -- occupations would be more fluid and competitive, reprisals would be common, liberations would be just as difficult to pull off after taking the delegacy as it would be to take the delegacy.

So, this helps us predict how often we'd see Embargoes. WA Liberations are passed 4.45* times a year on average (ranging from 2-9). I think you'd see a similar number, maybe higher - it, like WA Liberations, would be dependent on R/D activity.

*(2009: 5, 2010: 4, 2011: 2, 2012: 6, 2013: 2, 2014: 7, 2015: 2, 2016: 8, 2017: 2, 2018: 9, 2019: 2)

On a different note, this wouldn't change much of the situation for large founderless regions (since they've gotten influence to last them months we're not willing to take, at minimum), but would helpfully provide us with something that's nearly a password on all the small one, particularly if we just destroy the place, rather than refound (and if we want to do that, removing the natives first certainly lowers the cost.

All we'd need to do is keep the region for 4-6 days with the benefit of pilers, and then just keep out enough defenders on any given update around a repeal of the Embargo, vastly improving our situation.

Edit: So really, I should be supporting this, since it'd certainly make my job easier...

In large founderless regions and in small founderless regions, the change would be in the exposure to liberation, the means of defending an occupation would become more participation-based, and the exposure of liberations to reprisal would be greater too. This applies equally to large and small founderless regions.

An embargo is not a password. The difference between a password and an embargo is a password selectively blocks movement, an embargo repels all movement. The ten second window between moving into the embargoed region and being relocated forcibly is for all intended purposes analogous to the window of time that liberators already must squeeze into. It's important to note here that you can update in a region without residing in a region after the beginning of update in a region.

This isn't to say however that invaders shouldn't support this proposal. It changes what an invader is expected to do to hold a region, but it also changes what a defender must do to liberate a region. I think an embargo would offer a better game experience for all players: more active participation, more competition, and more opportunity to innovate and develop new strategies.

I should add that what I find especially interesting about this proposal is how defenders and invaders would adapt to embargo scenarios...

• I think invaders would learn to stall on piling until defenders go to bed / disregard the possibility of pile -- and they might try to obfuscate which region(s) they intend to pile by piling a decoy occupation or multiple occupations in one update. The more time they can gain before a WA Embargo is submitted, the more time they have to move pilers in.
• I see invaders also learning to adopt defender tactics to defending occupations: using updaters to boost their delegate's influence and ruin liberation attempts, while cross-endorsing non-leads to build influence in the event of a post-liberation scenario. But invader leads would have to learn through muscle memory to differentiate between their own team and incoming liberators when they're ejecting or they run the risk of friendly fire (and wasted time). One strategy that I could foresee would be to tell updaters in the last minute which solid colour flag (randomized) to wear before update.
• The post-liberation environment would be open for reprisal if/when the native delegate doesn't have enough influence to eject enough invaders. Invaders would have to learn the best way to take advantage of slow and weak de-occupations - and maybe even dupe defenders into pursuing a repeal of an embargo before the region is truly secure.
• Defenders would have a long night ahead of them after an active update, you would want to learn to delegate tasks into two teams - one organizing and recruiting for the next update's liberation, and one team drafting a WA Resolution to submit ASAP.
• That window of time does not allow much sloppiness - old tactics ('bash the net' plays where you over-recruit and enter preemptively) would have to give way to precision over quantity for liberators.
• Defender-native cooperation would be important for a successful liberation which poses challenges to defenders. Natives are often unreliable, inactive, and don't follow instructions. Substantive communication between both parties would probably be just as vital as influence in determining whether they're going to be able to execute a safe exit strategy and stabilization.

[Frisbeeteria]

[Reserved]

[SherpDaWerp]

Strongly against, at least until the SC gets its shit together.

In theory, the WA Embargo would be another useful tool for the defending community. In practice, there are many reasons why this is a horrible idea.

No longer do regions require this tool. R/D in this day and age is limited to minor UCRs where the founder CTEs. There will never be another major siege like that of Belgium or France, because regions of that stature invariably either

• Have a Founder,
• Have a password, or
• Have been liberated already.

The SC doesn't deign itself to Liberate minor regions that TBH or Macedon or whoever decides to colonise, and giving it more tools won't change that situation. So there's almost no case for adding a new SC resolution type because it won't end up being used.

Except, that's not quite the case. It will be used, but it will be used to destroy regional communities that the SC and indeed, the international community at large, deems to be "a threat". I don't know the exact timeframes, but I do know that inbetween 2009 and now, the Liberation has changed from a tool defenders use to save innocent regions to a tool the SC uses to threaten regions whose ideologies are deemed "bad". This dispatch was written almost 6 years ago, but it seems to only have become more relevant:

Every faction and nation strives to fulfill a vision, many rooted in the advocacy of a specific government model or ethical position. We do not feel that the game demands this depth, though it is certainly fun it is not necessary. ACTIVITY is the lifeblood of NationStates.

The CCD is a prime example of this misuse of SC resolutions. They are an active, foundered region under no threat of being raided. But the SC gave them a liberation. This liberation is offensive in nature, serving only to punish these players for "choosing the wrong region". They've put that liberation there under the ideal end goal of raiding and destroying that region, and it's this misuse of power that is my main opposition to a new "WA Embargo" resolution type.

How long after the WA Embargo is introduced before some bright SC player decides to embargo the CCD? I can think of no quicker way to destroy a foundered regional community than to stop new players from ever joining them, and that's what will almost certainly happen if this resolution type is ever introduced. Just because regions don't agree with the international communities' ideological concepts doesn't mean they should be destroyed. People forget that this is a game, and people shouldn't be blocked out of playing this game.

Personally, I think there's something seriously wrong with a game if it willfully allows the destruction of longtime player communities in favor of kids whose sole purpose is to enjoy ruining the game for others.

What's so different between this and the CCD? It's just people, playing a game, and they can do so however they want without facing unnecessary animosity from the entire community. The CCD is almost more hated than actual raiders, for crying out loud.

I digress. The point I'm trying to make here is that I can't see anything popping up in the future where this resolution will be used to benefit the international community. Every major region vulnerable to raids has been liberated or passworded already, which leaves only one conceivable use for such a resolution: destruction of longstanding and active player communities.

[Unibot III]

No longer do regions require this tool. R/D in this day and age is limited to minor UCRs where the founder CTEs.

Piling can and is applied to a variety of regional targets, not just the "significant" raids.

Except, that's not quite the case. It will be used, but it will be used to destroy regional communities that the SC and indeed, the international community at large, deems to be "a threat". [...] But the SC gave them a liberation. This liberation is offensive in nature, serving only to punish these players for "choosing the wrong region". They've put that liberation there under the ideal end goal of raiding and destroying that region, and it's this misuse of power that is my main opposition to a new "WA Embargo" resolution type.

Everyone understood in 2009 that WA Liberations were a "double-edged sword" and could be used to free regions or undermine them. This was not an innovation but a part of the design - despite the fact that the Belgium occupation was the case that sparked the backlash against password raiding.

WA Embargoes, like WA Liberations, are a "double-edged sword" - they can be used to free regions or undermine them. The symmetry is important here. Embargoes are the flip side of Liberations.

I do think it's also important to note that WA Liberations are often used nowadays just as a means of stopping a region from being refounded when the region is badly piled and a liberation is impossible. A WA Embargo would be a more meaningful alternative to a WA Liberation in these situations because you could use it to contain an occupation from growing in size, raising the possibility of a liberation instead.

How long after the WA Embargo is introduced before some bright SC player decides to embargo the CCD? I can think of no quicker way to destroy a foundered regional community than to stop new players from ever joining them, and that's what will almost certainly happen if this resolution type is ever introduced. Just because regions don't agree with the international communities' ideological concepts doesn't mean they should be destroyed. People forget that this is a game, and people shouldn't be blocked out of playing this game.

Personally, I think there's something seriously wrong with a game if it willfully allows the destruction of longtime player communities in favor of kids whose sole purpose is to enjoy ruining the game for others.

What's so different between this and the CCD? It's just people, playing a game, and they can do so however they want without facing unnecessary animosity from the entire community. The CCD is almost more hated than actual raiders, for crying out loud.

At this point in time there's nothing stopping an occupation once it takes hold from piling an excessive number of troops onto the delegacy and blasting the region to smithereens without even the slightest hope of recourse beyond stopping the refound. This has happened to tiny little "unimportant" UCRs and can certainly happen to regions that are ideologically unpopular.

This change to the status quo gives more hope of recourse, defense, and liberation to invaded regions including unpopular regions. Even, that is, if it offers somewhat of a trade-off in that embargoes themselves can be used against them too. I would also expect regions to make a passionate and probably persuasive plea on the grounds of free speech and regional sovereignty to delegates to not endorse such an embargo.

I digress. The point I'm trying to make here is that I can't see anything popping up in the future where this resolution will be used to benefit the international community. Every major region vulnerable to raids has been liberated or passworded already, which leaves only one conceivable use for such a resolution: destruction of longstanding and active player communities.

"Major" founderless regions haven't been the most common target of invasions in a decade, perhaps never.

I expect this resolution category to help small regions first and foremost - for whom have been the biggest beneficiary of WA Liberations in the past too.

[SherpDaWerp]

-snip-

Ok. I'll concede that you've answered most of my points, and given you're a lot more into GP than I, I'll take your word for it.

But the main (albeit very ambiguous) point of my post was to disagree on entirely regional sovereignty grounds. And the ability for that to happen is a key part of your proposal.

Everyone understood in 2009 that WA Liberations were a "double-edged sword" and could be used to free regions or undermine them. This was not an innovation but a part of the design - despite the fact that the Belgium occupation was the case that sparked the backlash against password raiding.

WA Embargoes, like WA Liberations, are a "double-edged sword" - they can be used to free regions or undermine them. The symmetry is important here. Embargoes are the flip side of Liberations.

I do think it's also important to note that WA Liberations are often used nowadays just as a means of stopping a region from being refounded when the region is badly piled and a liberation is impossible. A WA Embargo would be a more meaningful alternative to a WA Liberation in these situations because you could use it to contain an occupation from growing in size, raising the possibility of a liberation instead.

A WA Embargo is significantly more undermining than a liberation. Long-term, a WA Embargo essentially functions as a no-effort delete button for problematic regions. No argument on regional sovereignty grounds has helped the SC repeal their liberation of the CCD, so why am I supposed to believe that arguments of regional sovereignty will keep this new proposal in check? It's essentially handing out a free pass to remove any region from the game, without any R/D efforts whatsoever, and that's the part I object to.

For this proposal to have my support (not that it means much), I would need to see some form of reasoning as to how this resolution won't end up being used to just completely remove any "bad guy" regions from the game. Something I would support is a clause wherein Embargoes cannot under any circumstance work on Foundered regions, similar to how Founders can put passwords on Liberated regions. This would allow regions with passwords, currently immune to liberations and indeed, the entire R/D game (minus tagging), from being doomed to a slow death.

[Unibot III]

-snip-

Ok. I'll concede that you've answered most of my points, and given you're a lot more into GP than I, I'll take your word for it.

But the main (albeit very ambiguous) point of my post was to disagree on entirely regional sovereignty grounds. And the ability for that to happen is a key part of your proposal.

Everyone understood in 2009 that WA Liberations were a "double-edged sword" and could be used to free regions or undermine them. This was not an innovation but a part of the design - despite the fact that the Belgium occupation was the case that sparked the backlash against password raiding.

WA Embargoes, like WA Liberations, are a "double-edged sword" - they can be used to free regions or undermine them. The symmetry is important here. Embargoes are the flip side of Liberations.

I do think it's also important to note that WA Liberations are often used nowadays just as a means of stopping a region from being refounded when the region is badly piled and a liberation is impossible. A WA Embargo would be a more meaningful alternative to a WA Liberation in these situations because you could use it to contain an occupation from growing in size, raising the possibility of a liberation instead.

A WA Embargo is significantly more undermining than a liberation. Long-term, a WA Embargo essentially functions as a no-effort delete button for problematic regions. No argument on regional sovereignty grounds has helped the SC repeal their liberation of the CCD, so why am I supposed to believe that arguments of regional sovereignty will keep this new proposal in check? It's essentially handing out a free pass to remove any region from the game, without any R/D efforts whatsoever, and that's the part I object to.

For this proposal to have my support (not that it means much), I would need to see some form of reasoning as to how this resolution won't end up being used to just completely remove any "bad guy" regions from the game. Something I would support is a clause wherein Embargoes cannot under any circumstance work on Foundered regions, similar to how Founders can put passwords on Liberated regions. This would allow regions with passwords, currently immune to liberations and indeed, the entire R/D game (minus tagging), from being doomed to a slow death.

The nature of the Security Council is that it offers a “double-edged sword” for regional sovereignty; this is a balance that was essential to the category being implemented in the first place.

A “WA Embargo” would have to be a “double edged sword” too or it otherwise would not offer a balance to players - positives and negatives, offensive and defensive implications etc.

I also think we may be on the same page: my proposal in the OP states that a region with a founder cannot effectively be embargoed (similar to WA Liberations, the badge would be symbolic.)

We’ve seen in the past that controversial regions who are condemned or liberated often found a second UCR to use as a new base of operations and I would expect that controversial embargoed regions would do the same. As for Confederation of Corrupt Dictators - if the founder CTE’s, your WA Delegate will become an executive WA Delegate, and because you’ve been liberated, your only defense will be your WA Endorsement margin and your accumulated influence. We’ve seen this story before in Nazi Europe before — the region struggles to lock down endorsement tarting and before long it is invaded by an immense international coalition.

An embargo does not really serve the interests of the international coalition in this instance because it would hinder their ability to pile players onto their lead delegate and accumulate influence / inoculate the occupation from reprisals. An international coalition would really want to choose between an embargo or a liberation because the combination of these powers undermines the goals of each other.

Coalitions that liberate a targeted region are gunning to burn the region to the ground and hold it indefinitely (like Nazi Europe), coalitions that pursue an embargo against a targeted region would be electing to bleed/obstruct a region’s growth long term (and complicate their security situation) rather than charter a direct path to regional destruction. This is a decision that coalitions of the willing would have to make - what do they value more? If the 'trophy' and the 'spectacle' of an international demonstration of force is important to you, you're going to want to liberate a target region; if your preference is to quietly constrict and challenge these regions' growth and day-to-day operations, essentially quarantining them ( "not a bang but a whisper"), then you would prefer an embargo. I think this would be a matter of intense debate between coalition partners, especially in terms of what they specifically want to accomplish in antagonizing these regions.

[The Church of Satan]

The concept is interesting and I think it has merit. It could be viable with some fine tuning. What if in addition to the current concept it limited the amount of influence that could be spent, to a certain percentage of a nation's influence, based on a range of influence rather than a nation's total influence despite how much it has? Like, nations with large amounts of influence would have as much as half of its influence cut off from it for usage? At the same time nation's with small amounts of influence would have most or all of its influence available to use? This would require anyone, raider or defender, to really think about how to best use their influence as well as necessitate strategic switching of the delegacy and strategic appointment of RO's. Ideally this suggestion is aimed at large piles and I understand it isn't perfect but I believe this whole "WA Embargo" concept could prove fruitful if we explore it adequately.

[A Bloodred Moon]

If I'm understanding this right, this means raiders only need to banject liberations for the first 10 seconds of the jump. By the time such a proposal would pass any raider operation should be over 50 endorsements if you're looking to be there long term.

EDIT: It would appear I misread it. In that case, I am extremely opposed - recent liberations and occupations have succeeded or come close to succeeding already using siege tactics. Your exaggeration of "the pile" is a load of nonsense. This proposal would, essentially, undo the entire raid if it was to pass, giving defenders a rather cheap advantage. It would also, essentially, make refounds impossible.

[Custadia]

Some folks may think that the following idea is radical and I ask them to consider the status quo: any founderless UCR can be destroyed top-to-bottom if you're a delegate with over 40-50 invader endorsements. Any region. No one will be able to stop them from griefing. If you have the endorsements you can do anything you like. The status quo as it stands is rather radical.

Even disregarding the "defenders can't beat raider operations" fallacy, you have ignored the existence of passwords. An embargo feature already exists in the game and any region that wants this manner of defence can emplace it themselves.

Your proposal includes the ability for the SC to mass-eject some fraction (dependent on how quickly defenders can submit an embargo proposal) of the pile, making raider refounds or passwords impractical bordering on impossible.

Even more distressingly, it would also be possible for defenders to spam submissions on possible targets whenever they notice raider build-up, allowing them to entirely undo a raid after the raiders jump by passing the relevant one.

The offensive utility allows the SC to kill a founderless region stone dead. This makes liberations and the raids they enable obsolete so that also takes away from military gameplay.


You've always wanted to kill R/D and this proposal could just about do it.

[Unibot III]

The concept is interesting and I think it has merit. It could be viable with some fine tuning. What if in addition to the current concept it limited the amount of influence that could be spent, to a certain percentage of a nation's influence, based on a range of influence rather than a nation's total influence despite how much it has? Like, nations with large amounts of influence would have as much as half of its influence cut off from it for usage? At the same time nation's with small amounts of influence would have most or all of its influence available to use? This would require anyone, raider or defender, to really think about how to best use their influence as well as necessitate strategic switching of the delegacy and strategic appointment of RO's. Ideally this suggestion is aimed at large piles and I understand it isn't perfect but I believe this whole "WA Embargo" concept could prove fruitful if we explore it adequately.

I think that the accumulation of regional influence is already being limited by an embargo in that new endorsements are constricted. The way that invaders turbo-charge their influence growth today is through mass piling, every endorsement contributes to their influence exponentially.

• Invaders would gain influence at the level consistent with the endorsements they continue to recieve from the first few hour(s) of an occupation, except for additional endorsements they recieve from updaters.
  
• Defenders would have almost zero influence at all in embargo situations barring any sleeper nation(s) they have in the region. Because new arrivals cannot reside in the embargoed region, defenders are mostly reliant on native residents to eject/ban invaders in the post-liberation situation.

As for whether the proposal is focused on large piles. I would assume so. I don't think it would be politically sustainable to embargo non-piled raids and "overuse" embargoes. We saw the same conversation occur in the WA Security Council: authors face backlash if there's an impression that the WA Liberations are being applied wantonly and unnecessarily. One practical reason I think you would see defenders not use an embargo against a smaller scale invasion is that an embargo makes it more difficult to liberate a region if the piling is surmountable. If a team can liberate a region without an embargo, a commander is probably going to prefer that the region not be embargoed. You're able to clear out the invaders more quickly and more easily without an embargo.

Some folks may think that the following idea is radical and I ask them to consider the status quo: any founderless UCR can be destroyed top-to-bottom if you're a delegate with over 40-50 invader endorsements. Any region. No one will be able to stop them from griefing. If you have the endorsements you can do anything you like. The status quo as it stands is rather radical.

Even disregarding the "defenders can't beat raider operations" fallacy, you have ignored the existence of passwords. An embargo feature already exists in the game and any region that wants this manner of defence can already emplace it themselves. That in mind, the only utility this proposal offers is offensive: it allows the SC to kill a founderless region stone dead.

A password and an embargo do not serve an equivalent function. A password allows anyone to enter who knows the password, an embargo repels any new arrivals indiscriminately after a few seconds. An embargo would allow the SC to intervene in military crises by restricting the movement of troops into the region; putting a password on an occupation only serves invaders hoping to grief the region (because it stops defenders from intervening and natives from returning to the region), placing an embargo restricts the accumulation of mass troops and designates a definitive window of time that liberators must squeeze into to achieve operational success. There's nothing like an embargo feature in the game today: if an invader takes the delegacy there is no way to stop a mass pile from forming and preempting the possibility of liberation.

I also do not believe that the SC could use an embargo to kill a founderless region 'stone dead' any more effectively than the means that already exist. You would be placing the region into a lock-down situation. We see the same thing occur with targeted regions like Nazi Europe that are liberated -- the region has to immediately go into a functional martial law situation to cull sleeper accounts and control the tarting of endorsements. Nazi Europe was eventually reduced to rubble by an international coalition who exploited the WA Liberation category in much the same way as a WA Embargo category would be used. The real exploit that exists to obliterate founderless regions is the use of piling; this proposal restricts piling (the most common way that regions are destroyed) but with a trade-off that it can also be used against founderless regions.

If I'm understanding this right, this means raiders only need to banject liberations for the first 10 seconds of the jump. By the time such a proposal would pass any raider operation should be over 50 endorsements if you're looking to be there long term.

EDIT: It would appear I misread it. In that case, I am extremely opposed - recent liberations and occupations have succeeded or come close to succeeding already using siege tactics. Your exaggeration of "the pile" is a load of nonsense. This proposal would, essentially, undo the entire raid if it was to pass, giving defenders a rather cheap advantage. It would also, essentially, make refounds impossible.

I'm well aware of siege tactics, I pioneered them as a way to respond to piling - but they're limited in their effectiveness. Past about 40-50 endorsements on the lead delegate, siege tactics are titling at windmills because the invader lead's influence growth outpaces the impact of the recursive sieges.

As I said above to Church: if a defender believes that they can feasibly liberate a region without an embargo, they will avoid an embargo at all costs because it would make the liberation and post-liberation stage more challenging for defenders to (a) get your men in the region within the right frame of time, (b) clear the region of invaders. Effectively this means defenders will only pursue embargoes when they're sure that they won't be able to liberate a region due to the piling that's imminent (generally that's above a 40-50 endorsement threshold.)

I think that WA Liberations currently make refounds very difficult, a "controlled refound" is almost impossible. A WA Embargo would have a more neutral or indeterminable impact on the level of difficulty of refounding a region because although it limits the use of piling to stabilize an occupation, you could also get away with ejecting (rather than banning) native residents to remove them from the region (and without having to pay for a password). The key thing is you'd have to hold the region without a super-sized pile; you'd want some fast trigger-fingers and invader updaters supporting the delegate update-to-update.

The invasion would also not be 'undone', the invader delegate would still have full advantage as an incumbent: ban tools, regional officers, and external and internal support.

Even more distressingly, it would also be possible for defenders to spam submissions on possible targets whenever they notice raider build-up, allowing them to entirely undo a raid after the raiders jump by passing the relevant one.

I think this is implausible. If a raid is forming, you've got seconds to react. You don't have time to write/submit a WA resolution.

And bear in mind, an embargo would be disruptive to a region. You're literally restricting their growth. Submitting and passing an embargo before an occupation occurs would be undesirable and risky. It comes at great cost to the region. That's not a decision that defenders can make for natives on the fly without evidence / consultation.

[Custadia]

I also do not believe that the SC could use an embargo to kill a founderless region 'stone dead' any more effectively than the means that already exist. You would be placing the region into a lock-down situation. We see the same thing occur with targeted regions like Nazi Europe that are liberated -- the region has to immediately go into a functional martial law situation to cull sleeper accounts and control the tarting of endorsements. Nazi Europe was eventually reduced to rubble by an international coalition who exploited the WA Liberation category in much the same way as a WA Embargo category would be used. The real exploit that exists to obliterate founderless regions is the use of piling; this proposal restricts piling (the most common way that regions are destroyed) but with a trade-off that it can also be used against founderless regions.

A region that cannot recruit or gain new nations is doomed to inactivity.

The embargo would be a mechanism by which players could avoid military gameplay, using SC proposals instead. That will always reduce and cheapen military gameplay.

I think this is implausible. If a raid is forming, you've got seconds to react. You don't have time to write/submit a WA resolution.

And bear in mind, an embargo would be disruptive to a region. You're literally restricting their growth. Submitting and passing an embargo before an occupation occurs would be undesirable and risky. It comes at great cost to the region. That's not a decision that defenders can make for natives on the fly without evidence / consultation.

Signs that an operation is going to occur are visible far in advance of "a few seconds". Large numbers of puppets move into jump points, notice is given in discord servers. Details may not be so clear, but there are a limited number of worthwhile, feasible, founderless targets and defenders would be foolhardy not to maintain embargo proposals for each of them, much as they maintain sleeper nations in them.

The resolution doesn't have to be passed before the invasion, it only has to be submitted beforehand for its passing to eject not only the pile but also the raider delegate and all the updaters. It can be submitted before the target is known and passed after, posing no risk to the other potential targets.

[Unibot III]

I also do not believe that the SC could use an embargo to kill a founderless region 'stone dead' any more effectively than the means that already exist. You would be placing the region into a lock-down situation. We see the same thing occur with targeted regions like Nazi Europe that are liberated -- the region has to immediately go into a functional martial law situation to cull sleeper accounts and control the tarting of endorsements. Nazi Europe was eventually reduced to rubble by an international coalition who exploited the WA Liberation category in much the same way as a WA Embargo category would be used. The real exploit that exists to obliterate founderless regions is the use of piling; this proposal restricts piling (the most common way that regions are destroyed) but with a trade-off that it can also be used against founderless regions.

A region that cannot recruit or gain new nations is doomed to inactivity.

The embargo would be a mechanism by which players could avoid military gameplay, using SC proposals instead. That will always reduce and cheapen military gameplay.

I think this is implausible. If a raid is forming, you've got seconds to react. You don't have time to write/submit a WA resolution.

And bear in mind, an embargo would be disruptive to a region. You're literally restricting their growth. Submitting and passing an embargo before an occupation occurs would be undesirable and risky. It comes at great cost to the region. That's not a decision that defenders can make for natives on the fly without evidence / consultation.

Signs that an operation is going to occur are available far in advance of "a few seconds". Large numbers of puppets move into jump points, notice is given in discord servers. Details may not be so clear, but there are a limited number of worthwhile, feasible, founderless targets and defenders would be foolhardy not to maintain embargo proposals for each of them, much as they maintain sleeper nations in them.

You cannot liberate a region through an embargo alone, in fact embargoing a region without a plan to liberate would possibly (depending on the influence breakdown) expedite the region's destruction. There is also no incentive to embargo a region for defenders without piling because the embargo would make the liberation and post-liberation process more difficult for them needlessly.

If there are signs that an operation will take place far in advance, you would want to use this foreknowledge to prevent the invasion altogether in cooperation with the native delegate. If you submit an embargo proposal in advance you're tipping your hand to invaders that you know about the invasion plans. Embargoing a region that is in the process of clearing itself of invaders would also complicate the process of preventing an invasion because you'd be isolating the region from defenders and external support. A preventative embargo carries great risks and costs to a region, it's not a "slam dunk." I certainly wouldn't advise it.

You've always wanted to kill R/D and this proposal could just about do it.

This is unfair, I think. In the past there have been Technical proposals that would have killed or greatly marred military gameplay in my opinion. Some have proposed to limit the number of switchers during update, how many regions you can invade/defend in a single update; others have proposed that delegate changes should take twelve hours to take effect, or that the Daily Dumps should be scrambled, or update randomized. I have consistently opposed all of these proposals for over a decade. I believe that game mechanics should resolve to make military gameplay more competitive, innovative, fun, and participation-based.

My opposition to piling is that it is anti-gameplay, it's anti-R/D. It's a trump card that is used to block all reasonable chance of reprisal. Invaders and defenders make use of piling for the same reason: to secure an incumbency beyond recourse. And I think if players have to "voluntarily" not pile out of a spirit of "sportsmanship," you've got a game that is broken - players shouldn't have to feel the need to handicap themselves to balance a competition or establish the basis of a competition at all. Both sides should feel free to be as competitive as they can be - and the result should be something fun and dynamic.

[Custadia]

You cannot liberate a region through an embargo alone, in fact embargoing a region without a plan to liberate would possibly (depending on the influence breakdown) expedite the region's destruction.

My point is that you wouldn't need to liberate the region. Once it is embargoed all you need to do is wait for it to meet the inevitable fate of all regions that cannot obtain new members.

There is also no incentive to embargo a region for defenders without piling because the embargo would make the liberation and post-liberation process more difficult for them needlessly.

If there are signs that an operation will take place far in advance, you would want to use this foreknowledge to prevent the invasion altogether in cooperation with the native delegate. If you submit an embargo proposal in advance you're tipping your hand to invaders that you know about the invasion plans. Embargoing a region that is in the process of clearing itself of invaders would also complicate the process of preventing an invasion because you'd be isolating the region from defenders and external support. A preventative embargo carries great risks and costs to a region, it's not a "slam dunk." I certainly wouldn't advise it.

In order to put a password in place before the raid occurs, you need to know the target. Furthermore, native delegates are often reticent to do so.

On the other hand, presubmission of embargoes would not require knowledge of the target. It doesn't matter that you isolate the target by passing the proposal after the initial update because all of the raiders have been ejected. It's over at that point, the defenders have won.

My opposition to piling is that it is anti-gameplay, it's anti-R/D. It's a trump card that is used to block all reasonable chance of reprisal. Invaders and defenders make use of piling for the same reason: to secure an incumbency beyond recourse. And I think if players have to "voluntarily" not pile out of a spirit of "sportsmanship," you've got a game that is broken - players shouldn't have to feel the need to handicap themselves to balance a competition or establish the basis of a competition at all. Both sides should feel free to be as competitive as they can be - and the result should be something fun and dynamic.

Piling is essential for raiders to password or refound regions in a reasonable timeframe. Without it, the influence just isn't available.

Whether or not raider piles are undefeatable is not a foregone argument and isn't a solid basis for technical proposals.

[The Church of Satan]

I think it's worth noting that SC liberations are used almost exclusively by defenders. Raiders have little use for them, except for groups like Antifa. This WA Embargo proposal could be the raider equivalent.

[Lord Dominator]

I think it's worth noting that SC liberations are used almost exclusively by defenders. Raiders have little use for them, except for groups like Antifa. This WA Embargo proposal could be the raider equivalent.

We have plenty of use for them, but no Liberation we propose would pass.

Would this really be any different?

Edit: I'm further unsure how this would be a raider equivalent - I can't think of any preemptive uses for us (that would pass) and defenders would presumably have it covered on actual operations (again, assuming it'd actually pass a decent chunk of the time).

[Christian Confederation]

The idea is nice but given all the BS and red tape in the WA it won't do anything to help.

To my understanding the best raiders can take a region in less than a day so by the time a Embargo is proposed it wouldn't do anything useful.

[Unibot III]

Piling is essential for raiders to password or refound regions in a reasonable timeframe. Without it, the influence just isn't available.

Whether or not raider piles are undefeatable is not a foregone argument and isn't a solid basis for technical proposals.

This has been the argument against taking piling seriously for a decade now... and it's misleading. Just because technically you can always defeat a raider pile if you have enough troops doesn't mean that there is not a practical limit to how many troops can be raised during one update - we've been doing this game for years, it's pretty clear that there is indeed a practical limit.

When we introduced WA Liberations, we did so because password raiding had made the possibility of recourse improbable. It wasn't that it wasn't impossible, you could still get a hold of a password via espionage (a la Belgium) but it was very improbable. There was good reason to believe that these passwords were in effect a trump card in most cases, piling has the same consequences.

Piling is used to expedite the destruction of some regions, but the use of piling is rather indiscriminate between regions of small and medium influence levels. This is because piling serves a dual purpose: it doesn't just expedite the timeline for a region's destruction, it also inoculates the entire occupation from the possibility of liberation (making it attractive.)

An invader occupation under an embargo would only have to eject (not ban) natives, similar to a password raid, and the embargo could not be lifted via a WA Liberation like a password can and it comes with no influence cost for an invader delegate like a password does. The trade-off of course is that your endorsement level would be less, but you could supplement this with updaters just as defenders do with siege operations.

You cannot liberate a region through an embargo alone, in fact embargoing a region without a plan to liberate would possibly (depending on the influence breakdown) expedite the region's destruction.

My point is that you wouldn't need to liberate the region. Once it is embargoed all you need to do is wait for it to meet the inevitable fate of all regions that cannot obtain new members.

If you apply a WA Embargo to an occupation, you still need to liberate it or the occupation will only intensify. The invaders are still there and active.

On the other hand, presubmission of embargoes would not require knowledge of the target. It doesn't matter that you isolate the target by passing the proposal after the initial update because all of the raiders have been ejected. It's over at that point, the defenders have won.

You really can't and shouldn't flood a WA Queue with "preemptive" embargoes: (1) SC Resolutions have to be original, the text can't be reused. (2) Embargoes carry risks to a region, you're not going to go through this process and run the risk of inadvertently setting a region's security backwards. (3) It is easier to take care of an invasion with foreknowledge without factoring an embargo into the equation.

And yes you would need to know and identify the target region to submit an embargo. The name of the target region is in the title of the resolution.

What you're suggesting ranges from unfeasible to undesirable; it would be a major invitation to tease/embarrass defenders and natives.

Edit: I'm further unsure how this would be a raider equivalent - I can't think of any preemptive uses for us (that would pass) and defenders would presumably have it covered on actual operations (again, assuming it'd actually pass a decent chunk of the time).

Your best bet would be to:

(1) Target unpopular or controversial regions. Enemies of major regions with deep reserves of votes.

(2) Confuse the public with a set of false flag natives who seemingly want to lock down their region.

But I think invaders would get the biggest kick from using embargoes against defenders. (A) Tricking defenders into embargoing regions then taking advantage of the embargo. (B) Taking regions back from liberators before an embargo can be repealed successfully. False flag natives are also very good at making the disingenuous case for premature repeals of embargoes / liberations.

[Unibot III]

To my understanding the best raiders can take a region in less than a day so by the time a Embargo is proposed it wouldn't do anything useful.

Invaders take a region in a matter of seconds but they consolidate their troops and their grip on power over a period of a few hours - about a day. The time it would take to submit a WA Resolution would vary wildly depending on the update, the defenders online, and the decisiveness of the decision.

It's important for me to say here that invaders would probably keep piling a region anyways even if a WA Resolution is submitted because it amounts to 4+ days of extra influence, perhaps a lot of extra influence. The invaders only lose those endorsements when the resolution is passed and the embargo retroactively removes the pilers who were to late entering the region. The culling of these piles however offers an opportunity to liberate the region that would otherwise not exist.

[Lord Dominator]

You really can't and shouldn't flood a WA Queue with "preemptive" embargoes: (1) SC Resolutions have to be original, the text can't be reused. (2) Embargoes carry risks to a region, you're not going to go through this process and run the risk of inadvertently setting a region's security backwards. (3) It is easier to take care of an invasion with foreknowledge without factoring an embargo into the equation.

And yes you would need to know and identify the target region to submit an embargo. The name of the target region is in the title of the resolution.

What you're suggesting ranges from unfeasible to undesirable; it would be a major invitation to tease/embarrass defenders and natives.

You absolutely can form submit a Liberation or Embargo, nothing in the rules prohibits such (arguments must be relevant to the region, uniqueness is a factor in having multiple with the same target. Further, several of Kuriko's liberations are nearly form submitted, and strict for submission isn't possible there's plenty of opportunity to make a wide array of legal variances. Damage to the region is minimal (most founderless don't recruit much) and certainly less than the damage of the occasional extreme pile). The relevant target intel is somewhat easy to get, and certainly worth it for the possibility of being able to liberate a region with 0 updaters.

Your best bet would be to:

(1) Target unpopular or controversial regions. Enemies of major regions with deep reserves of votes.

Very few of these exist (as they tend to get destroyed) that are actually Founderless.

(2) Confuse the public with a set of false flag natives who seemingly want to lock down their region.

I'm unclear what benefit we derive from doing this to random regions.

But I think invaders would get the biggest kick from using embargoes against defenders. (A) Tricking defenders into embargoing regions then taking advantage of the embargo.

The default you mean, if defenders can't do the above.

(B) Taking regions back from liberators before an embargo can be repealed successfully.

Again, likely the default and trivially easy to boot.

False flag natives are also very good at making the disingenuous case for premature repeals of embargoes / liberations.

Perhaps, but to what actual benefit would a premature repeal be? It'd pass at the beginning of update, at which point it'd return to being a re-run of a regular liberation attempt.