NationStates Jolt Archive

There are two places spammers and nations with rude names definitely go; they are born into a pacific region; and eventually a delegate or founder somewhere sends them to the rejected realms.

The reasons for founders and delegates powers are clear, but the pacific regions are a very different kind of player-controlled region. Every spammer or intentionally offensively named nation starts in a pacific, some of the delegates report them and eject them, and some just eject them. Kandarin (the current rejected realms delegate) then gets them to report them to the Mods.

If the delegates of the pacific were unable to eject nations, they would only be able to report them themselves duplication of reports, there is doubtless much duplication of reports where delegates report and eject then Kandarin reports as well.

I do not think that this will increase the moderators workload just spread the workload of the delegate of the rejected realms amongst the pacific delegates.

I assume most of the pacific delegates will oppose this proposal and with good reason, I just feel that it would help us filter out offensive nations more quickly and increase fluidity and active politicking in the Pacific regions.

I know that the ejection power is an important part of the political process but in the pacific regions, commitment to acquire and maintain huge numbers of endorsements, ensures leadership anyway.

I'm interpreting the above post to suggest removal of delegate banning powers in the pacifics. This, I agree with.

Keep in mind the large numbers of nations in the pacifics, and the subsequent large number of endorsements each pacific delegate has. The main purpose I see of banning nations is to remove invaders. No pacific can be taken by a mere invasion force. On top of that, without the banning power in place, the defending delegate would have ample time to retake the delegacy by lobbying for more endorsements.

The banning power of delegates can be a valuable tool to protect small communities (especially those without a Founder), but comes with the risk of abuse. Besides spamming, most griefing I see in this game is based on an abuse of banning powers. When such power is not highly needed, such as in the Pacifics, I am of the opinion that the game would benefit greatly if these powers were to be removed.

We could have political parties in the pacifics, that compete for control and support, while now we basically have a few nations locked into their delegacy seats willing to use their power to maintain this position indefinitely.

Considering how the math works out, with the amount of endorsements required and the vast number of nations that can safely be ejected, there's no reasonable way for the delegacy of a feeder region to be lobbied for. Fighting against an active delegate willing to boot numerous nations is a battle against enormous odds. To use a political term: the power of incumbency is far too high to allow for enjoyable gameplay.

Ballotonia

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

This is (as the poster above states) a contentious issue, i'm not completely convinced of the "special region" arguement, it was not long ago it was used elsewhere to justify certain political considerations.

The current situation with the Pacific demands action and if memory serves it is up to nations to work it out (violet once stated that hacking, bugs and the coding of the game are her and the Mods problems, delegates abusing their powers for political ends is for us to do something about).

The Mods seem to be unsure how to proceed and I believe only player action will resolve this for the time being, the problem here would be that a joint operation (encompassing many regions/armies/alliances, some of which are hostile to on and another) of a size never seen before would be needed to take the Pacific back into democratic hands.

It is not a question of numbers, it is a question of will.

Anarchotopia
Delegate Elect
The Urbanites Region

Stop spamming about the Pacific! :evil: :roll:

I am sorry you feel that way. I have played no part in the current drama in the pacific. What I have paid attention to is the enormous outpouring of complaints and counter complaints in the moderation forum. I still feel that the idea of removing the ejection and placing these regions on the same footing as the Rejected Realms makes for better game play. Franco may well remain delegate of the pacific under any system; he works hard to garner those endorsements.

This is not a comment on a specific region it is a suggestion for a change to the birthing regions in general. The specifics of one region’s current difficulties threw it up, but considering the time required for a change in the game, I do not think suggesting a modification would be a realistic way to alter the politics of one region.

I'm sure how true it is to say you've played no role in this current crisis...but that aside nothing that has been posted about this has changed my mind, we need a multi-regional force because the Mods are taking to long.
A

I hope 3 am won't kill me for hijacking, but i opened the problem, and others, in this thread:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=69251

I report spammers when I catch them, I wish we could lock the region to existing nations yet allow new nations to still be born there, as what happened last night shows, when a spammer hits the ep and I boot one og his nations he jsut creates another and moves it intot he region.. however if he couldnt move into the region, all would be better.

I'm interpreting the above post to suggest removal of delegate banning powers in the pacifics. This, I agree with.

Keep in mind the large numbers of nations in the pacifics, and the subsequent large number of endorsements each pacific delegate has. The main purpose I see of banning nations is to remove invaders. No pacific can be taken by a mere invasion force. On top of that, without the banning power in place, the defending delegate would have ample time to retake the delegacy by lobbying for more endorsements.

The banning power of delegates can be a valuable tool to protect small communities (especially those without a Founder), but comes with the risk of abuse. Besides spamming, most griefing I see in this game is based on an abuse of banning powers. When such power is not highly needed, such as in the Pacifics, I am of the opinion that the game would benefit greatly if these powers were to be removed.


Not disagreeing with you, just not seeing you yet.

Francos is the first del to "invade" the region since new Pacific rules went into effect. I am not sure what the advantage of getting rid of banning is. Again, not disagreeing with you, just don't see the advantage of it other then preventing one legitmate action by someone you don't like. Why should The Pacific be considered prestine, out side all rules of other regions?

Again I might agree with you, just curious what the response is first.

Thanks.

Again, not disagreeing with you, just don't see the advantage of it other then preventing one legitmate action by someone you don't like.

First of all, this isn't about The Pacific alone, we're talking about all the pacifics here.

Right now, the way (and only realistic way) for someone to get into the delegacy of any of the pacifics is blind endorsement swapping. This has nothing to do with politics (even though that's supposed to be the theme of the game), but everything with newbie behaviour. Allowing the delegate to kick and ban others out of the region grants that delegate the sole right to endorsement-swap, and hence an almost guaranteed lock on the delegacy. This 'superpower of incumbancy' ruins the gameplay even more, to the point where IMHO the original political theme no longer exists in those large regions.

Ballotonia

I am not sure how sensible this suggestion is, but I have never let that stop me before. :)

Initially I thought it was a good idea to prevent bannings from the Pacific regions, and I still do. However, this may still allow the obvious unhappiness with the game to continue for many players. As the contentious issue appears to be the delegates in "birthing" regions, how about not allowing countries to be UN members in birthing regions. Countries would then need to move on to new regions to become UN members and then new players would be allowed to play on without be submitted to all of the hostility.

The game is supposed to be fun, isn't it? Thos that like controlling regions could do so in the regions that have been created.

As the contentious issue appears to be the delegates in "birthing" regions, how about not allowing countries to be UN members in birthing regions.

A simpler version of this has been suggested before: special regions shouldn't have delegates.

As I understand it, the RR and The Pacific was created originally thinking nations wouldn't reside in them endlessly: they were supposed to go out into the rest of the game, politicking, lobbying, etc... This didn't happen as much, and so the other four pacifics were created to at least spread the new nations a bit more.

The original problem of many nations clustering together and exerting lots of influence on the game without actually actively participating in it is still occuring. The delegacy of a feeder region is desired because it means having hundreds of UN votes by default, combined with a comparatively small active community to be held accountable by. Add to this the almost guaranteed lock-in of this position (by allowing a delegate to eject thousands of nations without regarding it griefing as defined by the rules), and the problem is increased dramatically.

Many changes can be made to the game that might reduce the problem. Not having delegates in the special regions is one, not allowing them to eject/ban is another. On top of that it should be considered what is reasonably fair to those already in these regions and playing the game by the current rules. This is why I think not having delegates in those regions would be going too far. Kandarin, for instance, isn't doing a bad job at all, and he can't eject/ban anyone. I see no problem with how the delegacy position in the RR, and the battle for it, functions right now. The problem is in the feeder regions (not just The Pacific, in all of them!)

Ballotonia

Again, not disagreeing with you, just don't see the advantage of it other then preventing one legitmate action by someone you don't like.

First of all, this isn't about The Pacific alone, we're talking about all the pacifics here.

Right now, the way (and only realistic way) for someone to get into the delegacy of any of the pacifics is blind endorsement swapping. This has nothing to do with politics (even though that's supposed to be the theme of the game), but everything with newbie behaviour. Allowing the delegate to kick and ban others out of the region grants that delegate the sole right to endorsement-swap, and hence an almost guaranteed lock on the delegacy. This 'superpower of incumbancy' ruins the gameplay even more, to the point where IMHO the original political theme no longer exists in those large regions.

Ballotonia

It seems to me, and please point out where I am wrong, but if there were no power to kick, that would be the real time for the Pacifics to be tuled by nothing but just endorsement swapping.

You say you are not just reffering to The Pacific, but what other Pacific DEL would you catagorize as being in power just due to endorsement swapping?

All of the other Pacific DEL have been in power for a long time. They have done so through a series of politcal movements, and I can account for at least 2 specificly that have had to do a lot to stay in power. As it is now, it is game of keeping those who back you with you, instead of just getting people in to swap endorsments with one another.

You description makes The pacifics seem instable, but I feel that RL has shown this not to be the case. I believe, and again correct me as you feel nec., that taking this power away is what would actually make the regions less stable.

I am not sure how sensible this suggestion is, but I have never let that stop me before. :)

Initially I thought it was a good idea to prevent bannings from the Pacific regions, and I still do. However, this may still allow the obvious unhappiness with the game to continue for many players. As the contentious issue appears to be the delegates in "birthing" regions, how about not allowing countries to be UN members in birthing regions. Countries would then need to move on to new regions to become UN members and then new players would be allowed to play on without be submitted to all of the hostility.

The game is supposed to be fun, isn't it? Thos that like controlling regions could do so in the regions that have been created.

This might be a good suggestion. That said, I don't see any example of DEL powers in the pacifcs actually taking the fun out of the game.

As to UN DEL abusing power of being in the UN, this really isn't a problem. This is the first really contraversal DEL of the Pacifics in the eniotre time the new rules have been running.

I think that it is good to have strong leadership in the Pacifics. And I think it is good, as well, if you don't agree with that leadership that you find other regions you like. As well, if you find a region that is about unseating that Del of the Pacifics that you disagree with, good show. You will now get even more involvced as you plan to unseat him. I see this as helping the fun level in the game.

As the contentious issue appears to be the delegates in "birthing" regions, how about not allowing countries to be UN members in birthing regions.

A simpler version of this has been suggested before: special regions shouldn't have delegates.

As I understand it, the RR and The Pacific was created originally thinking nations wouldn't reside in them endlessly: they were supposed to go out into the rest of the game, politicking, lobbying, etc... This didn't happen as much, and so the other four pacifics were created to at least spread the new nations a bit more.


It was not expected for a culture to arise in the RR and Pacifics, true. That said, these have become some of the most politcally active regions in the game.

It seems to me, and please point out where I am wrong, but if there were no power to kick, that would be the real time for the Pacifics to be tuled by nothing but just endorsement swapping.

Right now a pacific delegate can enforce that he or she is the only one endorsement swapping by kicking anyone else that does. Endorsement swapping isn't going to stop, it's inherent with having a lot of new / less active players in the game. The playing field for those who wish to be active in the pacific would be levelled more if everybody could engage in endorsement swapping equally.

If endorsement swapping yield the same number of endorsements, the additional endorsements to get the delegacy will have to be gained through actual politicking, which was the whole point of the game to begin with!

You say you are not just reffering to The Pacific, but what other Pacific DEL would you catagorize as being in power just due to endorsement swapping?

All five of them.

You description makes The pacifics seem instable, but I feel that RL has shown this not to be the case. I believe, and again correct me as you feel nec., that taking this power away is what would actually make the regions less stable.

I did not intend for my messages to be interpreted to say that the pacifics are instable. They're not. The leadership positions there are overly stable: incumbents have absolute power, and they only lose their seat if they fail to use that power.

It was not expected for a culture to arise in the RR and Pacifics, true. That said, these have become some of the most politcally active regions in the game.

Could you please clarify what you mean with your claim that these regions are aome of the most politcally active regions in the game? I know the RR is, but I don't see political activity of substantial scale in the pacifics. Ladyrebels comes closest, as she doesn't want to have to boot people and will voluntarily try to get things done without using the eject/ban power. 1 Infinite Loop is much less picky in that sense. The whole rucus with Francos Spain has in essence nothing to do with politics either. The eject/ban ability in a feeder region is a notable un-political feature!

Ballotonia

It seems to me, and please point out where I am wrong, but if there were no power to kick, that would be the real time for the Pacifics to be tuled by nothing but just endorsement swapping.

Right now a pacific delegate can enforce that he or she is the only one endorsement swapping by kicking anyone else that does. Endorsement swapping isn't going to stop, it's inherent with having a lot of new / less active players in the game. The playing field for those who wish to be active in the pacific would be levelled more if everybody could engage in endorsement swapping equally.

Firstly, then you would have to say that all regions are ruled only by endorsement-swapping. And though this is technically true, it is not a good evaluation to all of the politics behind remaining control.

In any of the Pacific regions, if players could be convinced to stop endorsing the current DEL, and outside invaders (or whatever you want to call them) were to pour into the region and endorse a local they could well and easily take control of a region, or at least change the power. How is this different then other regions? Well, technically it is easier then doing so in any other region (tho really the #’s are an issue, because these are big regions) because the Pacifics can not set up password, so they can be entered by almost anyone at any time.

If you only see the Pacifics as endorsement swapping, I think you are missing something. I am not saying you would agree with me, just that there are factors that you are not aware of. I suggest looking at some of the policing of The South Pacific off-site forum if you want to see what I am talking about.



You description makes The pacifics seem instable, but I feel that RL has shown this not to be the case. I believe, and again correct me as you feel nec., that taking this power away is what would actually make the regions less stable.

I did not intend for my messages to be interpreted to say that the pacifics are instable. They're not. The leadership positions there are overly stable: incumbents have absolute power, and they only lose their seat if they fail to use that power.


Not really, tho I do not completely disagree with where you are leading.

Lets not forget that not every region has to be a democracy. In RL I am very pro-democracy. But let’s not, and I know we are tempted to, forget that this is a game. And part of the game is too test out different forms of government. So I am not going to say that a dictator should rule the pacific, but I am going to say that it is a good thing that this is an option. The game should not be purely an understood example of homogony in democratic politics. Or moreover, if the overall goal of all players in this game is to have a Democratic or Republic rule, this game is a great example of seeing that these are not achieved simply through apathy, complaints only, or by standing on the side-lines.

What I am saying is that it is good that an unpopular ruler rises from time to time. It should, and has despite all of the posts in this forum feigning being powerless… sorry… it has forced players to actually think outside of their normal boxes, in order to quest for democracy in a region that is not as open as they would wish. In short, look at the Pacific Army. They are fighting for democracy. Instead of just wallowing in a democratic region, they have to fight to regain democracy in their region. This is very realistic, a good example of the bonus of having such a political game, and is a good thing.

Thus, I see no reason that The Pacifcs need to have power of DEL removed.



It was not expected for a culture to arise in the RR and Pacifics, true. That said, these have become some of the most politcally active regions in the game.

Could you please clarify what you mean with your claim that these regions are aome of the most politcally active regions in the game? I know the RR is, but I don't see political activity of substantial scale in the pacifics. Ladyrebels comes closest, as she doesn't want to have to boot people and will voluntarily try to get things done without using the eject/ban power. 1 Infinite Loop is much less picky in that sense. The whole rucus with Francos Spain has in essence nothing to do with politics either. The eject/ban ability in a feeder region is a notable un-political feature!

Ballotonia

Well I have already responded to the idea that Francos is not a political figure. See above, and take note that I think Dictators should be allowed, and those who want freedom should be willing to do something about it.

As to the activity of the pacifics, LR is a great example of an active ruler. Look at her regional boards, look at the off-site forums. Also with Loop, his main politicking is in the regional boards, where I have seen him try and field the EP inhabitants in regards to current UN Resolutions. Simply hanging out in both regions I can tell you, they are more of a hotbed of politics then many other regions I sit in, or have visited.


Good talking with you,

Ack

Firstly, then you would have to say that all regions are ruled only by endorsement-swapping. And though this is technically true, it is not a good evaluation to all of the politics behind remaining control.

Endorsement swapping can be quite powerful in combination with banning others who do the same. In smaller regions this doesn't work well as a tactic, as the outcry against it causes ones own endorsements to vanish rather quickly. Smaller communities demand interaction on a much more personal level. So, while endorsement swapping is a problem everywhere, it only becomes a cornerstone of power in the very biggest regions filled with new and less active players: the feeder regions.

In any of the Pacific regions, if players could be convinced to stop endorsing the current DEL, and outside invaders (or whatever you want to call them) were to pour into the region and endorse a local they could well and easily take control of a region, or at least change the power.

Sadly, if only things were that simple. Players could indeed be convinced to drop endorsements, and they have been. Guess what? The influx of new nations counters this. Add in inactivity or those who simply don't care one way or the other, and you're still left with a very large number of endorsements to overcome. Please note that these are NOT political supporters! The number of invaders / liberators required is still so big that this isn't realistic anymore. Even if these could be gathered, the sitting delegate only has to boot out a number of them, and thus survive the server update to boot the rest at a more leisurely pace. At any time: if the plan leakes, it's over as well. The odds are staggeringly in favor of the incumbant, just because he or she is sitting on a big pile of blind endorsement-swapped votes.

Lets not forget that not every region has to be a democracy. In RL I am very pro-democracy. But let’s not, and I know we are tempted to, forget that this is a game. And part of the game is too test out different forms of government.

Yes, within ones own nation. Even on a regional level, one can start a region and as Founder one can install any kind of government desired. The feeder regions are a different story. They are created by the game itself.

So I am not going to say that a dictator should rule the pacific, but I am going to say that it is a good thing that this is an option.

I regard all five pacific rulers to be dictators to some degree. Their delegacy isn't up for a free election, they can and will boot opposition which gets too close in taking over. Dictatorship is not merely an option, it's the only lasting form of government in the pacifics. I should point out here that Ladyrebels is the least dictatorial, as I know she makes every effort possible to avoid getting to the point of having to boot someone. And she's very good at avoiding that point, but I have no doubt she will do so when needed to maintain her position.

In short, look at the Pacific Army. They are fighting for democracy. Instead of just wallowing in a democratic region, they have to fight to regain democracy in their region. This is very realistic, a good example of the bonus of having such a political game, and is a good thing.

The Pacific Army is fighting against overwhelming odds. They got closest when Francos Spain was 'accidentally' deleted, and still didn't make it. But more importantly it is to realize that this is not a political battle. It's a strategic one, and whether or not the Pacific Army is socialist or capitalist, etc... has nothing to do with the fight whatsoever. I'm not even sure they HAVE any particular political persuasion as a combined force, not even something as basic as 'democracy'. This is central to my point here: None of this fighting is political in nature. Endorsement-swapping isn't, blindly booting anyone that comes close through endorsement-swapping isn't, and trying to get one dictator out to install a lesser dictator in a pacific region isn't either. It's all totally outside the initial theme of the game.

Ballotonia

Following the advice of Ballotonia(thanks), I re-post this idea(for the Mods to think about and consider) here:

Put a daily or weekly limit quota for ban, wich delegate(with honorable intentions) need to ban 100+ nations in a minute?.

I think this idea can restore the fair play, with limited bans, the oposition/competition or whatever can have a fair oportunity to fight/play the game.

in case you ask, yes i am one of the (100+)banned nations over The Pacific, at first, it was fun to try to regain the region, but now...where is the fun if you can't play any more where you like to play?

You have become a debating force to be reckoned with, and for that I thank you. You remind me of Cog or Ancient Pitt (tho I don’t guess he posts anymore). That said, I will keep this conversation going as long as we are still discussing new points. I feel that I can add a couple of things, and I want to acknowledge a well divided argument.

That said, I think that I see where we are heading, and I think that it is just that we disagree on some issues. This is great. It is what the game is somewhat about, and more then that it means that, I believe, that our disagreement does not lie in lack of comprehension of the other side. Well, I guess I shouldn’t speak for you. I can say only that I feel the point of our disagreement is not that I didn’t see your perspective, I just disagree with you. And really, beyond time and circumstance, nothing too convincing that either of us could do to move the other’s opinion.

So, I will comment. That said, if I don’t agree with you please do not take it as me not listening or considering your perspective. I believe we simply disagree on some fundamentals.




Firstly, then you would have to say that all regions are ruled only by endorsement-swapping. And though this is technically true, it is not a good evaluation to all of the politics behind remaining control.

Endorsement swapping can be quite powerful in combination with banning others who do the same. In smaller regions this doesn't work well as a tactic, as the outcry against it causes ones own endorsements to vanish rather quickly. Smaller communities demand interaction on a much more personal level. So, while endorsement swapping is a problem everywhere, it only becomes a cornerstone of power in the very biggest regions filled with new and less active players: the feeder regions.

Very true. I believe I was implying something other then my intention, I do completely agree with your assessment on region swapping up to one point.

This is an objective, and I feel accurate, portrayal/description up to the use of the word “cornerstone.” This will be a bigger issue, and perhaps only an issue in larger feeder regions. To simply this as the major stay of power or politics I feel is wrong. I think you are under-evaluating the political discourse and climate in the feeder regions.

I don’t believe it is as mindless as endorsement swapping, sorry. I also don’t buy that it is just endorsement swapping and kicking nations who reach power. If that were the case the AAC would have taken back the EP. They failed because they did not understand the political climate of being in charge such a large region.





In any of the Pacific regions, if players could be convinced to stop endorsing the current DEL, and outside invaders (or whatever you want to call them) were to pour into the region and endorse a local they could well and easily take control of a region, or at least change the power.

Sadly, if only things were that simple. Players could indeed be convinced to drop endorsements, and they have been. Guess what? The influx of new nations counters this. Add in inactivity or those who simply don't care one way or the other, and you're still left with a very large number of endorsements to overcome. Please note that these are NOT political supporters! The number of invaders / liberators required is still so big that this isn't realistic anymore. Even if these could be gathered, the sitting delegate only has to boot out a number of them, and thus survive the server update to boot the rest at a more leisurely pace. At any time: if the plan leakes, it's over as well. The odds are staggeringly in favor of the incumbant, just because he or she is sitting on a big pile of blind endorsement-swapped votes.

Have you studied, and I have not, how many nations actually gain UN status while in the Pacifics (not counting now with the Francos invasion of course)? I don’t think it is as significant as all that, tho I don’t have any figures. Do you?

As well, There are SOO many anti-invader groups. As well, there are a lot of people in this game who are upset about Franco’s rise to power. I am an optimist. I believe if they tried to really rally forces, that they could earn enough to take the region back politically. If people are too lazy or misguided or whatever, to play politics in a game about politics, I am afraid I simply feel only mild pity for them.




Lets not forget that not every region has to be a democracy. In RL I am very pro-democracy. But let’s not, and I know we are tempted to, forget that this is a game. And part of the game is too test out different forms of government.

Yes, within ones own nation. Even on a regional level, one can start a region and as Founder one can install any kind of government desired. The feeder regions are a different story. They are created by the game itself.

So? Just because the Admin created them, why should there be no politics in the region? Those are very different issues.


In short, look at the Pacific Army. They are fighting for democracy. Instead of just wallowing in a democratic region, they have to fight to regain democracy in their region. This is very realistic, a good example of the bonus of having such a political game, and is a good thing.

The Pacific Army is fighting against overwhelming odds. They got closest when Francos Spain was 'accidentally' deleted, and still didn't make it. But more importantly it is to realize that this is not a political battle. It's a strategic one, and whether or not the Pacific Army is socialist or capitalist, etc... has nothing to do with the fight whatsoever. I'm not even sure they HAVE any particular political persuasion as a combined force, not even something as basic as 'democracy'. This is central to my point here: None of this fighting is political in nature. Endorsement-swapping isn't, blindly booting anyone that comes close through endorsement-swapping isn't, and trying to get one dictator out to install a lesser dictator in a pacific region isn't either. It's all totally outside the initial theme of the game.

Ballotonia

To me, and again I know we will disagree on something, but to me is where you completely lose my point. Not trying to sound rub, just saying, “Aye, there’s the rub.”

But it is politics, or is should be. Politics are dynamic. If you learn nothing more, you should know that. Whether you invade or RP or both, politics is your perception and list of allies based on how you present yourself. It is more then that. It is also how you choose issues on a daily basis, as I guess you refer to, but it is much more then that.

Why did the PA fail, because they didn’t play politics much at least. I saw at least 3 different off-game regional boards talking about invading the region to take down Francos. And the only one I saw where the PA was talking about it was in their own forum. Why weren’t they trying to pull allies in to help them take over the region. By allies I mean other Protector regions and strong regions who were simply anti francos? And if they did then they did a poor job. Politics is more then just playing your nation. It is a global community, and had they tried to enlist more outside, calculated help they may have succeed.

Wow, this post is going to kill me. Thanks for the dialogue.

Ack

::Why weren’t they trying to pull allies in to help them take over the region. By allies I mean other Protector regions and strong regions who were simply anti francos? And if they did then they did a poor job. Politics is more then just playing your nation. It is a global community, and had they tried to enlist more outside, calculated help they may have succeed. ::


Very good point,the problem here (and I believe in this case it's either the mods doing something unprecedented or a massive multi-regional force) is that these things take time to plan, add that to the numbers needed and it could take weeks to get something together...there are of course other less "moral" ways of resolving this situation but that is a road I think noone should be tempted down.

At present I still think it to be player action but I must admit the lack of cordination for such an operation is lacklustre at best...what we need is an offsite forum where only the heads of interested regions can post to plan this in private but then that still doesn't solvethe problem of the Delegate being online during update.

A

Well, there is an offsite website for the Pacific, and I believe for the Pacific Army.

I agree with you, and I think part of the friction we see in here is what you outlined-- It Will Take Time. If people are willign to fight for it they will take it back, but it will actuallty take some time and co-ordination.

There are several anti-invader groups, and as I said I saw several were talking about the issue in the pacific, without an inclination that there is a co-ordinated effort between them and the PAcific Army.

Good luck to them, it won't be super easy, but is very possible. This is the very reason why the mods/Admin set the Feeder regions up without a password.