A Problem with Liberations

[Bavin]

Alright, as many of you know, there was recently an attemptby a known raider region and well known raider to "liberate" Haven from our legally elected (and well liked) delegate. This raises quite the problem: raiders "liberating" and the raiding RP regions who put our passwords up to avoid just that. Not because we don't want to be raided, just because we don't care, and raids are quite an annoyance when one tries to create an RPing sub-community like Haven. Naturally, me and my fellow Havenites didn't take too kindly to being forced to play a game we didn't want to, and harsh words were exchanged, on both sides. But lets put that behind us, and confront the larger problem: RP regions being forced to take part in the R/D game.

One possible solution, an "RP Region" button that would give a region immunity from "liberation"

Another, any region with few or none WA memebers being immune from "liberation".

Another would be to eliminate the "Liberate" function entirely, but I don't think that is necessary, at this point. Other suggestions would be much appreciated, "other then suck it up and deal", because that is tyranny, or as Derscon put it, rape.

[Kandarin]

Alright, as many of you know, there was recently an attemptby a known raider region and well known raider to "liberate" Haven from our legally elected (and well liked) delegate. This raises quite the problem: raiders "liberating" and the raiding RP regions who put our passwords up to avoid just that. Not because we don't want to be raided, just because we don't care, and raids are quite an annoyance when one tries to create an RPing sub-community like Haven. Naturally, me and my fellow Havenites didn't take too kindly to being forced to play a game we didn't want to, and harsh words were exchanged, on both sides. But lets put that behind us, and confront the larger problem: RP regions being forced to take part in the R/D game.

One possible solution, an "RP Region" button that would give a region immunity from "liberation"

What is to stop raiders from taking over a region and declaring it a RP region, thus removing the only recourse against its annihilation?

Another, any region with no WA memebers being immune from "liberation".

This would eliminate one of the other reasons why the liberation feature exists - some regions find themselves with a password and insufficient WAs to get a Delegate to remove it, thus dooming themselves to long slow death.

Another would be to eliminate the "Liberate" function entirely, but I don't think that is necessary, at this point. Other suggestions would be much appreciated, "other then suck it up and deal", because that is tyranny, or as Derscon put it, rape.

Emphasis mine. I really don't think this is an analogy you want to make here. If the resolution is bad, convince people to vote against it. Given the reaction thus far, that shouldn't be hard at all.

[[violet]]

My feeling is that the proposal is unlikely to pass. But I will watch with interest.

[Bavin]

Alright, as many of you know, there was recently an attemptby a known raider region and well known raider to "liberate" Haven from our legally elected (and well liked) delegate. This raises quite the problem: raiders "liberating" and the raiding RP regions who put our passwords up to avoid just that. Not because we don't want to be raided, just because we don't care, and raids are quite an annoyance when one tries to create an RPing sub-community like Haven. Naturally, me and my fellow Havenites didn't take too kindly to being forced to play a game we didn't want to, and harsh words were exchanged, on both sides. But lets put that behind us, and confront the larger problem: RP regions being forced to take part in the R/D game.

One possible solution, an "RP Region" button that would give a region immunity from "liberation"

What is to stop raiders from taking over a region and declaring it a RP region, thus removing the only recourse against its annihilation?

Good point, which is why I distrusted this option. I came up with a justification before, but it escapes me now.

Another, any region with no WA memebers being immune from "liberation".

This would eliminate one of the other reasons why the liberation feature exists - some regions find themselves with a password and insufficient WAs to get a Delegate to remove it, thus dooming themselves to long slow death.

Then maybe save liberate for this only, to be used at mod discretion, which would eliminate the tyranny by majority

Another would be to eliminate the "Liberate" function entirely, but I don't think that is necessary, at this point. Other suggestions would be much appreciated, "other then suck it up and deal", because that is tyranny, or as Derscon put it, rape.

Emphasis mine. I really don't think this is an analogy you want to make here. If the resolution is bad, convince people to vote against it. Given the reaction thus far, that shouldn't be hard at all.

Hmm... good point, but the analogy was Derson's. I agree with you that the resolution probably will fail, but it still raises the problem, and some small RP region may not be able to protect itself as vociferously as Haven has.

[Kandarin]

Another, any region with no WA memebers being immune from "liberation".

This would eliminate one of the other reasons why the liberation feature exists - some regions find themselves with a password and insufficient WAs to get a Delegate to remove it, thus dooming themselves to long slow death.

Then maybe save liberate for this only, to be used at mod discretion, which would eliminate the tyranny by majority

Much of the point of Liberations (and before that, Influence) is to take mod discretion out of the picture. Talk to any game mod who's been around since before influence about the possibility of mods arbitrating raids and defenses and the like, and they'll likely curl up in the fetal position and mutter about how the bees are always buzzing. The idea is to allow players to create their own recourse for undesirable player activity through politics.

Another would be to eliminate the "Liberate" function entirely, but I don't think that is necessary, at this point. Other suggestions would be much appreciated, "other then suck it up and deal", because that is tyranny, or as Derscon put it, rape.

Emphasis mine. I really don't think this is an analogy you want to make here. If the resolution is bad, convince people to vote against it. Given the reaction thus far, that shouldn't be hard at all.

Hmm... good point, but the analogy was Derson's. I agree with you that the resolution probably will fail, but it still raises the problem, and some small RP region may not be able to protect itself as vociferously as Haven has.

I'm not privy to the rationale behind this proposal, but I believe that the motive behind it must be tied to the fact that Haven is a high-profile target. Beyond this, it's unclear. OMD may be targeting Haven simply because it's a large target, in which case a smaller target would not net the same response. Alternatively, OMD may be trying to discredit the SC (which Condemned his region, after all) by deliberately selling a misleading proposal that targets a region with legitimate password use. If the latter is the case, his tactic wouldn't work on any other region besides Haven, because Haven is the only region in the entire history of the game to benefit from the existence of the password feature. I'll admit that this is something of an extreme claim and would be glad to hear other examples, but in general, passwording is either a raider tool or a way of slowly dooming one's region. Only Haven manages to use it in a way that is constructive for them, and so only Haven could be targeted by a deliberately malicious Liberation. Neither of these conditions would apply to a smaller, more obscure region.

[Pythagosaurus]

You don't really have to be in the same region to RP, do you? It sounds like you do care.

[Bavin]

Hmm, I guess we are out of options at this point, but the problem of "liberating" regions that are using passwords constructively remains.

[Pythagosaurus]

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

[Bavin]

You don't really have to be in the same region to RP, do you? It sounds like you do care.

Its more or less a recruitment area to garner players for the off-site boards and a nice place to compare our nations (through the WA Factbook or whatever it is) and chit-chat.

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

Well, it is the opinion of me and many of the Havenite's I've spoken too that this feature is potentially problematic, even if such a proposal is unlikely to pass.

[Kalibarr]

Hmm, I guess we are out of options at this point, but the problem of "liberating" regions that are using passwords constructively remains.

In my opinion Raiders use passwords "constructively" too, so it's an unfair judgement

[Automagfreek]

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

It's a feature that potentially forces RPers to partake in the raiding/defending aspect that the majority of us do not care about, nor want to take part in. It is a problematic situation.

[Kalibarr]

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

It's a feature that potentially forces RPers to partake in the raiding/defending aspect that the majority of us do not care about, nor want to take part in. It is a problematic situation.

Prove to the WA your an RP region and it will almost surely fail, Liberate Haven will fail because of your response. You could always launch a TG campaign if you need further convincing

[Bavin]

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

It's a feature that potentially forces RPers to partake in the raiding/defending aspect that the majority of us do not care about, nor want to take part in. It is a problematic situation.

Prove to the WA your an RP region and it will almost surely fail, Liberate Haven will fail because of your response. You could always launch a TG campaign if you need further convincing

Problem is, that requires effort that the RPers have to make to avoid being seriously annoyed, effort that they, unlike defenders, have no wish to do, and find no fun in it.

[Kalibarr]

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

It's a feature that potentially forces RPers to partake in the raiding/defending aspect that the majority of us do not care about, nor want to take part in. It is a problematic situation.

Prove to the WA your an RP region and it will almost surely fail, Liberate Haven will fail because of your response. You could always launch a TG campaign if you need further convincing

Problem is, that requires effort that the RPers have to make to avoid being seriously annoyed, effort that they, unlike defenders, have no wish to do, and find no fun in it.

Well, heck if it were that easy raider would be exempt too, for many seem to not want to take the effort.

[Automagfreek]

Prove to the WA your an RP region and it will almost surely fail, Liberate Haven will fail because of your response. You could always launch a TG campaign if you need further convincing

Again, that would require me to involve myself in gameplay, which I don't want to do. I'm guessing at some point you'll realize that all we want to do is RP, not get involved with in game issues/situations.

[Kalibarr]

Raiders have no wish to involve them selves in the WA RP stuff like liberations, but are forced under it's authority and forced to deal with the WASC. NO reason you shouldn't be too

[Automagfreek]

Raiders have no wish to involve them selves in the WA RP stuff like liberations, but are forced under it's authority and forced to deal with the WASC. NO reason you shouldn't be too

Explain how a game feature like "Liberation" falls under roleplay. I don't think you realize that what takes place in NS and II is for the most part completely detached from anything WA related. WA roleplay has no relationship with NS/II roleplay in the slightest, and just about every regular RPer I know does not even acknowledge the WA as existing in terms of RP.

[Mudkips]

Raiders have no wish to involve them selves in the WA RP stuff like liberations, but are forced under it's authority and forced to deal with the WASC. NO reason you shouldn't be too

Explain how a game feature like "Liberation" falls under roleplay. I don't think you realize that what takes place in NS and II is for the most part completely detached from anything WA related. WA roleplay has no relationship with NS/II roleplay in the slightest, and just about every regular RPer I know does not even acknowledge the WA as existing in terms of RP.

God knows that if the WA had the ability to affect RP it'd have put an end to your shenanigans a long time ago...

[Pythagosaurus]

You don't really have to be in the same region to RP, do you? It sounds like you do care.

Its more or less a recruitment area to garner players for the off-site boards and a nice place to compare our nations (through the WA Factbook or whatever it is) and chit-chat.

Surely recruitment for an off-site forum can be decentralized, and my understanding is that you don't really use the nation stats anyway.

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

Well, it is the opinion of me and many of the Havenite's I've spoken too that this feature is potentially problematic, even if such a proposal is unlikely to pass.

Well I think it's funny.

That's not a problem. That's a feature.

It's a feature that potentially forces RPers to partake in the raiding/defending aspect that the majority of us do not care about, nor want to take part in. It is a problematic situation.

Waa. Go find me a region that wants to be raided. Or are you suggesting that raiding should be banned?

[Automagfreek]

Waa. Go find me a region that wants to be raided. Or are you suggesting that raiding should be banned?

You're making the assumption that I even care about raiding. I'm only on this site for roleplay, and my region only exists as a place for the guys in my circle to meet up, and as a recruiting tool to expand our RP circle. Why should the dedicated RPers on this site be forced to take part in game mechanics when we want no part of it?

[Scandavian States]

Raiders have no wish to involve them selves in the WA RP stuff like liberations, but are forced under it's authority and forced to deal with the WASC. NO reason you shouldn't be too

Here's the problem with this train of thought. Raiding is a gameplay function. Liberation is a gameplay function. WE DON'T GAMEPLAY. Everything we do is tied to those short stories called roleplays, as a matter of fact a lot of us ignore the game generated stats and put hours of hard work into fleshing out a nation that is pleasing to us. Not to be arrogant or anything, but most RPers regard the work we do as far superior to staying inside the constraints the game lays down and we don't want to be dragged down to your level. IOW, we want nothing to do with raiding, defending, liberation, etc; hell, for the most part we despise everything to do with the WA and the only reason we have a delegate is to have a defense against you and your ilk.

[Pythagosaurus]

Waa. Go find me a region that wants to be raided. Or are you suggesting that raiding should be banned?

You're making the assumption that I even care about raiding. I'm only on this site for roleplay, and my region only exists as a place for the guys in my circle to meet up, and as a recruiting tool to expand our RP circle. Why should the dedicated RPers on this site be forced to take part in game mechanics when we want no part of it?

Because the only other option is banning it.

[Mudkips]

Waa. Go find me a region that wants to be raided. Or are you suggesting that raiding should be banned?

You're making the assumption that I even care about raiding. I'm only on this site for roleplay, and my region only exists as a place for the guys in my circle to meet up, and as a recruiting tool to expand our RP circle. Why should the dedicated RPers on this site be forced to take part in game mechanics when we want no part of it?

Because the only other option is banning it.

You could always just set Scandavian States as the founder. Edolia lost the password to the original founder a long, long time ago.

[Kandarin]

You could always just set Scandavian States as the founder. Edolia lost the password to the original founder a long, long time ago.

There are many other significant older regions that also would like founders.

[Scandavian States]

Because the only other option is banning it.

Actually, it would be trivially easy to allow WA delegates to mark their region as a "roleplay" region and therefor exempt from liberations, commendations, and condemnations. Why this wasn't done in conjunction with the introduction of those features is beyond me.