NationStates Jolt Archive


Framing

MrNonchalant
23-12-2003, 02:39
The term "region crashing" is not neutral. Crashing means "To break violently or noisily; smash." So "region crashing" means to break, violently, a region. It is a term perfect for the anti-"crashers" because "region crashing" is inherently a bad thing as denoted by the very term it's referred to by. This is not the case, but it's certainly what "region crashing" means. Hell, the Free Pacific people really want to "region crash" The Pacific. The RRA has been known to "region crash" any region they think has a too-oppressive delegate. Those things may be well-intentioned but the framing of the phrase "region crash" means the term they are referred to with has a negative connotation. I hereby petition the people in power, and those who have a vested interest in regional acquisition, to change this phrase either officially outright or through a grassroots campaign that leads to official recognition. I suggest "regional acquisition," it is a truly neutral phrase.
Neutered Sputniks
23-12-2003, 02:43
Eh...I doubt it will happen.

We refer to region crashing as the illegal griefing of a region, whereas regional invasions are the legal overthrow of a region.

We cant force everyone to use the same terms. Sorry.
Myrth
23-12-2003, 02:43
Region crashing is region crashing, no matter how it's phrased.
War is war, no matter how it's phrased.

If it makes them feel more comfortable, then people can call it a liberation.
The Most Glorious Hack
23-12-2003, 02:44
Actually, I use "region crashing" interchangably with "region griefing". For the legal side, I use "regional invasion."
MrNonchalant
23-12-2003, 02:46
As a reference to griefing it's fine, but far too many use it to refer to invasion. A practice I want stopped.
Neutered Sputniks
23-12-2003, 02:46
Good luck.
MrNonchalant
23-12-2003, 02:54
Thanks, I'll need it. I figure I'll try it the legitamite way for a week and when that pans out I'll spam everyone's inbox with it :twisted:
Spoffin
23-12-2003, 03:19
:shock: I always used "Region crashing" as a less emotive term than invading. Weird that.
The Most Glorious Hack
23-12-2003, 03:26
:shock: I always used "Region crashing" as a less emotive term than invading. Weird that.

Well, "invading" implies outsiders coming in and trying to take over, which is what is happening.

"Crashing" carries the connotation of something being broken.
Myrth
23-12-2003, 03:30
"Crashing" carries the connotation of something being broken.

I think it's moreso from the term gate-crash - i.e. to go to a party you're not welcome in.
In this case, you're going to a region you're not welcome in.
Spoffin
23-12-2003, 03:44
:shock: I always used "Region crashing" as a less emotive term than invading. Weird that.

Well, "invading" implies outsiders coming in and trying to take over, which is what is happening.

"Crashing" carries the connotation of something being broken.True. I just never saw it that way.


I agree with Myrth, like gatecrashing maybe.
Cogitation
23-12-2003, 03:45
...and when that pans out I'll spam everyone's inbox with it :twisted:

I assume that this is a joke.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
MrNonchalant
23-12-2003, 03:59
Yes Cogitation, dear. Gatecrashing it may have been intended as, but it still carries that connotation.
Cogitation
23-12-2003, 04:02
Yes Cogitation, dear.

Just checking. :wink:

Gatecrashing it may have been intended as, but it still carries that connotation.

/me nods.

Makes sense to me.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
23-12-2003, 04:09
I think, although bearing in mind that this goes back to the pre-mod days, that "region crashing" as a term was indeed used as a formation from "gate crashing". As it now stands, there are legal means to invade/conquer a region, where in the pre-mod days it was largely illegal (not that anyone could do too much about it, but that's a different story), so maybe the action does need re-naming.
I doubt it would happen, though.
MrNonchalant
23-12-2003, 04:13
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=107251
23-12-2003, 04:18
A noble cause.
Unfree People
23-12-2003, 04:35
Hell, the Free Pacific people really want to "region crash" The Pacific. It's liberating the Paciifc. ;)

Actually, the term region crashing is just propaganda. You can't stop propaganda, especially if it's legal. You may remember me from the time I helped "crash" the Atlantic, I'm certain I remember being called a crasher by y'all ;)
MrNonchalant
23-12-2003, 05:18
Pfft. Liberating is what people say when they mean they just got total control of it themselves. Think of this as counter-propaganda.
Crazy girl
23-12-2003, 09:12
from the FAQ:

Can I invade other people's regions?
Yes. The practice of "region crashing," where a group of nations all move to a region with the aim of seizing the UN Delegate position, is part of the game. Certain groups within NationStates are particularly adroit at this, and can attack very quickly.

Once I've taken over a region, can I eject everyone else?
No. Region crashing by itself is a legitimate tactic to seize power, but ejecting large numbers of nations is griefing. It can be a fine line between region crashing and griefing. Players who enjoy launching invasions should take care to stay on the right side.