Misleading wording on Liberations?

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Hi,

Just saw a comment (below) suggesting that the wording on Liberations is misleading.

The Liberation states that it applies to "Delegate-imposed barriers". So assuming that's true, this Liberation would be toothless.

No, it applies to ROs also. Only the Founder is immune to it.

Is Jar Wattinree correct?
If so, can we either get the wording on the Liberations clarified so that it's inclusive of RO imposed passwords, or the mechanics changed so that it only applies to Delegate passwords.
I'm indifferent as to which, but I'd prefer the text to accurately reflect what it does.

If conversations had gone differently in this case, this technicality would have had a significant impact on our region.

[Refuge Isle]

It might be relevant for me to link Sedgistan's clarification the last time this came up.

[Trotterdam]

From what I understand, it's not quite a matter of who put up the barrier, but rather whether the region has a founder. So long as the region has an executive founder, it's immune to liberations, even if the password is imposed by someone other than the founder (though it would presumably have been done with that founder's approval). If a region had a founder but it ceases to exist, then any password imposed by the founder (or regional officers appointed by the founder) before it vanished will be subject to liberations until the founder returns.

So usually a liberation will apply to a password imposed by either a delegate or a regional officer appointed by a delegate (which is still ultimately the delegate's responsibility, in a sense), but not always.

[Sedgistan]

Trotterdam is correct.

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Trotterdam is correct.

Thanks all for the clarification.

Can we get the wording changed to match the reality please?

I was quite ready to see my founderless region Liberated, while under the false impression that it was safe because it was passworded by an RO and not a delegate.

I appreciate that this type of incident isn't a regular occurrence, but the impact of that would have been huge.

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Bump.

Can we get the wording updated to reflect what actually happens?

Maybe "Removes barriers imposed on founderless regions", or something like that.

Better suggestions are welcomed.

[Aurum Raider]

I kind of think it's a technicality so specific it doesn't really warrant a change to the wording itself - it's worded quite well.
There should definitely be elaboration for concerned parties in the pinned threads in technical/gameplay/WASC - the Gameplay Guide should definitely cover this - but it is a really niche 'ruling.'

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Bump again.
Looking for a change of text, which I would hope is easier than a change of code.

The current wording for Liberations reads:
"A resolution to strike down Delegate-imposed barriers to free entry in a region."
Whereas it only strikes down Delegate-imposed barriers if the region is founderless. So it's misleading.
It also fails to mention that RO or Founder imposed barriers also get struck down by a Liberation if the region is founderless. So it's incomplete.

Wording such as:
"Removes barriers imposed on founderless regions" would describe exactly what it does.

It would mean that the leading Gameplayers in NS wouldn't be misunderstanding what Liberations do.
It would mean that Sedgistan wouldn't need to keep clarifying the same misunderstandings.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue, so I feel that clear text would help.

On the 'Liberate The Embassy' thread, Jakker, Jar Wattinree, and Wayneactia appeared to think that founder imposed passwords would not be affected by a Liberation. I thought that our password would not be affected because it was added by an RO, not a delegate. Awesomeland012345 thought that if we unendorsed the delegate, we'd no longer have a delegate, making the Liberation ineffective.

Refuge Isle kindly points out that Sedgistan had to clarify this as recently as Feb 2020 on the 'Liberate Opstan' thread, where Tinhampton and Ransium thought founder passwords would be unaffected, Kuriko seemed unsure, and Lord Dominator asks for clarification.

I'd hope it was an easy change to make, and would save much confusion. Thanks!

[Sedgistan]

A Liberation takes effect when the Founder is ceased to exist, and thus the Delegate position is Executive. In that situation any passoword is considered to be imposed upon the region by the Delegate position, which is the ultimate Executive authority, regardless of who instituted it.

[Trotterdam]

In that situation any passoword is considered to be imposed upon the region by the Delegate position, which is the ultimate Executive authority, regardless of who instituted it.

That is not a vocabulary distinction most speakers of English would recognize.

It is also not how the game factually works, since the functioning of passwords is fully automatic and is does not have to be actively enforced by any player, delegate or otherwise.

[The Ambassadors Reception]

In that situation any passoword is considered to be imposed upon the region by the Delegate position, which is the ultimate Executive authority, regardless of who instituted it.

That is not a vocabulary distinction most speakers of English would recognize.

It is also not how the game factually works, since the functioning of passwords is fully automatic and is does not have to be actively enforced by any player, delegate or otherwise.

^^
This

Trotterdam is obviously cleverer than me, because they understood what you said. It sounds to me like some subtlety that is relevant to those who graduated in Contract Law, but is just meaningless nonsense to the rest of us.

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Bump

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Bumpity-bump

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Bumpity-bumpity-bump

[Weed]

I would agree this is not-so-clear. Especially since we were originally told years ago this was not the case. Sedge is probably going to say I’m wrong, and make me dig through threads from a decade ago, but I seem to recall that specifically because of my personal affinity for non-exec founder regions.

I think of regions I own like Bahamas, which I always wanted to launch as a non-exec but never got around to, being able to be Liberated. That’s a region that has never ever had a delegate in the 9 years I’ve resided there. I don’t think it is remarkably clear that the password on Bahamas is “delegate imposed”. It seems “A resolution to strike down barriers to free entry in a region with an executive delegate” is simple enough and adds clarity.

Maybe I know what my next project should be if I ever feel the itch to not be dead.

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Bumpity-bump-bump-bump!

I lost sight of that for a while there. Still would like to get the wording changed to match the reality. Cheers!

[Refuge Isle]

Bumpity-bump-bump-bump!

I lost sight of that for a while there. Still would like to get the wording changed to match the reality. Cheers!

I would suspect that after 3-4 months of bumping this, it likely lacks the support necessary to get a change made. The question of mechanics comes up every so often and gets a quick explainer when it does. Nothing is harmed by changing the wording to "officer-imposed bariers", but I think largley everyone understands what's happening with a liberation after hearing about how it works for the first time.

[The Ambassadors Reception]

Bumpity-bump-bump-bump!

I lost sight of that for a while there. Still would like to get the wording changed to match the reality. Cheers!

I would suspect that after 3-4 months of bumping this, it likely lacks the support necessary to get a change made. The question of mechanics comes up every so often and gets a quick explainer when it does. Nothing is harmed by changing the wording to "officer-imposed bariers", but I think largley everyone understands what's happening with a liberation after hearing about how it works for the first time.

... or maybe the sentence could be changed to say what it means, instead of being misleading?

Yes, I understand it after having had it been explained to me. But there are new players joining all the time, and unless it gets explained to them too, they aren't going to know. And they aren't going to know if they don't ask. And they won't ask if they think they already know. And they'll think that they already know, because the sentence clearly states that it only applies to delegate passwords.

Why do you have such a problem with making a game mechanic transparent?

[Refuge Isle]

Why do you have such a problem with making a game mechanic transparent?

Didn't say I had a problem, just making an observation after seven bumps. I think a change is unnecessary, but I don't have a strong opinion on the subject one way or the other, personally.

[The Ambassadors Reception]

While I remember to bump!

[All Wild Things]

Apologies for the grave dig on my puppet's thread, but this is still outstanding.

I'd like to note that Cormac (who caused Christmas to be Liberated) is another person who doesn't understand how Liberations work.
See:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=506712&p=38785778&hilit=Liberation#p38785778

I quote Cormac:
"the Liberation put the Founder on notice that if he thinks he might be on the brink of a puppetsweep he should impose a password himself which would not be subject to the Liberation resolution."

Cormac clearly believes (like Jakker did) that a founder imposed password is not affected by a Liberation.

Some of Gameplay's (arguably) greatest players don't understand the Liberation mechanism.

So I'm still after this wording being amended.

Cheers!

[Twertis]

I agree, it needs to be amended. I’ve seen this discussion come up perhaps a dozen times.

“Removes password protection for regions without a founder”

[Omnicontrol]

Apologies for the grave dig on my puppet's thread, but this is still outstanding.

I'd like to note that Cormac (who caused Christmas to be Liberated) is another person who doesn't understand how Liberations work.
See:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=506712&p=38785778&hilit=Liberation#p38785778

I quote Cormac:
"the Liberation put the Founder on notice that if he thinks he might be on the brink of a puppetsweep he should impose a password himself which would not be subject to the Liberation resolution."

Cormac clearly believes (like Jakker did) that a founder imposed password is not affected by a Liberation.

Some of Gameplay's (arguably) greatest players don't understand the Liberation mechanism.

So I'm still after this wording being amended.

Cheers!

This uncovers 2 things:

1. You still wanna amend the wording (full support)
2. Ambassadors Reception was your puppet (The Embassy would probably be helped a lot if you gave them that request script)

[Jar Wattinree]

Apologies for the grave dig on my puppet's thread, but this is still outstanding.

I'd like to note that Cormac (who caused Christmas to be Liberated) is another person who doesn't understand how Liberations work.
See:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=506712&p=38785778&hilit=Liberation#p38785778

I quote Cormac:
"the Liberation put the Founder on notice that if he thinks he might be on the brink of a puppetsweep he should impose a password himself which would not be subject to the Liberation resolution."

Cormac clearly believes (like Jakker did) that a founder imposed password is not affected by a Liberation.

Some of Gameplay's (arguably) greatest players don't understand the Liberation mechanism.

So I'm still after this wording being amended.

Cheers!

This uncovers 2 things:

1. You still wanna amend the wording (full support)
2. Ambassadors Reception was your puppet (The Embassy would probably be helped a lot if you gave them that request script)

This too is a great discovery. Not surprised.

[All Wild Things]

viewtopic.php?p=39395086#p39395086

While I remember, yet another player misled by the Liberation wording.