NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just wondering if we could get a definitive definition of what constitutes a "native" and what constitutes and "invader."
Thanks.

That's tough to say. Why? Because I just invaded a region, claiming to be a native and repelling other invaders :lol: They were so shocked I am pleased :twisted:

I usually go by the 3 day rule.

Congrats on the promotion. Fisz.

I go by the 2 day rule. :twisted:

That's tough to say. Why? Because I just invaded a region, claiming to be a native and repelling other invaders :lol: They were so shocked I am pleased :twisted:

Would that have been the Monte Carlo action? :wink:

I was hoping for the mods to give a clear answer, because as the presence of both of you so clearly implies, it makes a big difference when it comes to ejections . . .

The definition that I have seen the mods use in the past is if they were in te region before the invasion then they are natives, if they were not, then they are invaders.

Of course I never thought to ask them about sleeper nations . . .

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] 2 duplicate posts deleted. [/modedit]

It would depend on the nations affiliation. A nation might be a spy and in the region before the "invasion" begins but considered an invader due to his ties to the invading group.

It's quite simple really: If you're an invader, you know it. If you're a native, you know that as well. If you're not one or the other, you know.

it makes a big difference when it comes to ejections . . .

Bah, I only managed to eject the invaders from the Imperial Commonwealth. I think they were numbered at six... don't remember.

Oh and one notice: I have crashed a region with the help of anti-crashers 8) More original than that, you die. :D

I've defended a region with the help of region crashers :D

But who has done both?

Tough one that but Gomulka could have been refering to me above.

But who has done both?

Done both what, invaded and defended?

Oh and one notice: I have crashed a region with the help of anti-crashers 8) More original than that, you die. :D

Actually that applies to most defenders ("anti-crashers"), as sometimes defending a region leads to crashing it and taking control over it, just to be able to boot the initial invaders. Yes, that qualifies as beating the invaders at their own invading game, I think that's part of why they think it's fun.

Now, on defending a region with the help of region crashers... I know a bunch of defenders to whom that applies as well, but it surely happens less often.

Ballotonia

But who has done both?

Done both what, invaded and defended?

I belive TG meant this-

Oh and one notice: I have crashed a region with the help of anti-crashers More original than that, you die.

I've defended a region with the help of region crashers

In which TG said-

But who has done both?

Heh heh heh, invaders ejecting invaders, defenders working with invaders and vice versa, next we'll have the head of the ACC become a Mod!! :twisted:

Heh heh heh, invaders ejecting invaders, defenders working with invaders and vice versa, next we'll have the head of the ACC become a Mod!! :twisted:

Keep in mind: as far as the rules are concerned, defenders are generally non-natives, and sometimes qualify as invaders themselves (depending on whether or not they try to grab the delegacy). What makes a defender different from invaders is their intention on what to do after the fight has been won, which makes no difference rulewise while an invasion/defence is going on. In the end, regular invaders will try to exert control over the region in some form to serve their own purposes, while defenders will try to 'secure' the region for what they regard to be the benefit of the natives.

Ballotonia

I was just wondering if we could get a definitive definition."
Thanks.


What a thingly thing to ask for.

Been there, done that. Got the t-shirt.

Been there, done that. Got the t-shirt.

:shock: I wanna t-shirt!!

I was just wondering if we could get a definitive definition."
Thanks.


What a thingly thing to ask for.

I do like my redundant redundancies. :wink: In all seriousness I thought abut changing it because of the perceived redundancy, but I decided not to, b/c I haven't found anywhere a rock solid definition of it. In that context, "definitive definition" is not quite analogous to "thingly thing." Of course, I may not have looked in all the right places.

With all due respect to Neutered Sputniks, the answer of "[i]f you're an invader, you know it. If you're a native, you know that as well. If you're not one or the other, you know[,]" is more than a little unsatisfying. In fact it isn't really a definition at all. TG & Rot's suggestion were much more helpful, but I have no idea if they are right.

I guess what I'm really trying to get at who makes the judgment call and what are the criteria used. Is there a time requirement? Does it matter whether it is a puppet involved? Does it matter from who's perspective one looks at the situation? It would be nice to have some solid guidelines set up so that the mods don't have to decide on a definition in the middle of some hotly contested endorsement battle.

As a final note, I'm also not sure what one is if one is not a native or an invader.

The mods decide, and as I stated, the nations who are associated with the invaders are the invaders, the nations who normally reside in a region are it's natives. Everyone else is of no consequence.

Once again, if you're an invader, you know. If you're not an invader, you know. Etc.

and defenders count as invaders, right neut?

Um, sometimes...They're considered non-natives...

The mods decide, and as I stated, the nations who are associated with the invaders are the invaders, the nations who normally reside in a region are it's natives. Everyone else is of no consequence.

Once again, if you're an invader, you know. If you're not an invader, you know. Etc.

Is a native nation that endorses an invader considered an invader? Is an invading nation that endorses a native nation considered a native?

Is a native nation that endorses an invader considered an invader? Is an invading nation that endorses a native nation considered a native?

My opinion as player: No. No.

Please keep in mind that Neut is answering your questions like this for a reason: the separation between native and invader can get quite murky, especially when people are trying to create confusion. Some people will merely try to confuse the 'other side' of the battle, while others will create confusion in order to try and get around the rules. Making hard-coded rules that try to make a definition which can be measured (like: presence in the region for X days) simply means that some people will use those limitations in their tactical approach to invading, basically trying to get an invasion to formally qualify as an internal coup.

One simplified way of defining natives is to look at the moment an invasion starts. Whomever is inside the region prior to the start of the invasion should be regarded natives for the purpose of that invasion. For invaders to put a puppet in a region earlier and claiming native status for it makes no difference: it just means the invasion started earlier and in a more sneaky way.

In the end I think the separation comes down to intent and where you 'belong'. If you don't 'belong' in the region, and came with a bunch of friends with the intent to take the delegacy (regardless of strategy or tactics used), then you're an invader and you know it. When a region is your 'home', you know it too. This doesn't sound like a very 'useful' definition, as a player cannot utilize it to his/her own advantage. And that's the point of defining it that way.

(all IMHO)

Ballotonia

Ball, you are on the ball (pun most definately intended). Thanks for further explaining why i was responding as I was.

But who has done both?

I have. I successfully rallied soldiers to defend the Pacific against invaders one time. In fact, I like to point out to people for bragging purposes that I was the deciding factor of that battle.

You will only truly reah enlightnment when you realize, there are no natives, nor are there any invaders, they are but Constructs of the Machine.

Heh heh heh, invaders ejecting invaders, defenders working with invaders and vice versa, next we'll have the head of the ACC become a Mod!! :twisted:

Keep in mind: as far as the rules are concerned, defenders are generally non-natives, and sometimes qualify as invaders themselves (depending on whether or not they try to grab the delegacy). What makes a defender different from invaders is their intention on what to do after the fight has been won, which makes no difference rulewise while an invasion/defence is going on. In the end, regular invaders will try to exert control over the region in some form to serve their own purposes, while defenders will try to 'secure' the region for what they regard to be the benefit of the natives.

Ballotonia

This is not to detract from the fact that some of the defenders are just as obnoxious as the majority of invaders. Afterall, a lot of defenders are simply failed invaders.

failed invaders?
and what do you mean, obnoxious?

failed invaders?
and what do you mean, obnoxious?

The RRA or FPA or FPF, or whatever you're calling yourselves this week.

failed invaders?
and what do you mean, obnoxious?

The RRA or FPA or FPF, or whatever you're calling yourselves this week.

that's not what i meant..

This is not to detract from the fact that some of the defenders are just as obnoxious as the majority of invaders. Afterall, a lot of defenders are simply failed invaders.

For certain (subjective) values of "obnoxious", I'll go along with that first statement. However, that second one... no. Succeeding at defense is a lot harder than invasion. After all, invaders get to pick the time and place where they strike, while defenders have to not only discover what's going on in time to respond but actually then have to out-do the invasion that's taking place.

Ballotonia

My take on this, is... The natives that side with the invaders would then become invaders themselves, even thou they really are natives. Since defenders are invaders, and invaders obviously are as well, and natives that side with the both groups of invaders are also invaders, and anyone left is clearly native. Hmmm. Kind of a catch 22 there. If an invasion force moves into a region (clearly invaders) and a defender group moves in to support the old delegate or one of the natives (not quite so clear as to whether this group is invaders or natives) and the other parties that are not in either camp are clearly native.

Ok. I think I lost my tangent. :)

In the above example, nearly everyone is an invader and anyone else is inconsequential. Is that it? Or is that too simplified?

...<snip>
In the above example, nearly everyone is an invader and anyone else is inconsequential. Is that it? Or is that too simplified?


Hey, I like that part.

I would like to thank everyone for their input. I do think some clearer outlines were obtained.

failed invaders?
and what do you mean, obnoxious?

Well yeah. Many of you are just failed invaders. And more of you are failed invaders after you became "defenders". Like your invasions of the Pacifics.

Now, for obnoxious, how about the not leaving the residents of the Pacific alone? Or any article in NetWorkRadio on invasions. A catchphrase for liberators is to call invaders "scum." In my opinion, that's pretty obnoxious.

Knock it off.

failed invaders?
and what do you mean, obnoxious?

The RRA or FPA or FPF, or whatever you're calling yourselves this week.

The RRA is an entirely seperate entity from the FPA and FPF, with a very long history of both offensive and defensive tactics. We are neither invaders nor defenders, but both, depending on the situation. Ditto ACC/AA, although they tend to lean more toward the invader end of things.