NationStates Jolt Archive

It’s quite infrequent that I have a question about invader rules, but that is exactly what I have. I encourage players to give opinion, but would like to hear a mod ruling. Possible it has been covered before, if so sorry.

Invaders must give out Password to all natives who are kicked out of the region (so they can re-enter if they wish), this is clear. But, do invader Dels have to give the pw to all natives in the region.

I don’t think there is a ruling on this, and I don’t think it would make any sense. It makes sense for natives who leave the region temporarily or who are kicked to be given the pw, so they can come back in. It is their region and they should always have access. I don’t see why they should be given the pw if they are already in the region, there might as well not even be a pw in this case. But these are just my thoughts, I encourage opinions or links if it has been dealt with before.

Thanks a lot,

~Ack

Invaders do have to give the password to all natives.

Yes, all natives must be given the password, even ones who are still in the region.

Even ones who have been idle for 27 days.

Yes, all natives must be given the password, even ones who are still in the region.

Even ones who have been idle for 27 days.


Why? I thought you only had to give it out to people who asked for it

nope, you have to send it all natives.
natives must always be able to go in their region, if they have to wait for you to give them the password, they can't.

This has been discussed before:


ALL natives must be given the password immediately following it's inception/change.

It is not the responsibility of the Natives to find out the password (beyond checking their telegrams), it is the responsibility of the invaders to distribute the password.

The password is to be given to any native requesting it.

This has been discussed before:


ALL natives must be given the password immediately following it's inception/change.

It is not the responsibility of the Natives to find out the password (beyond checking their telegrams), it is the responsibility of the invaders to distribute the password.

The password is to be given to any native requesting it.

Actually, that last line is new, and goes contrary to a previous ruling. Before, if a native lost a password for whatever reason, the invaders were not required to hand it out again (Neut ruled that before, which I protested against due to it being a possible loophole). Since that last line is a blanket statement, should I now consider that previous ruling obsolete?

Ballotonia

I dont recall that previous ruling...but, yes, you should go by the rules I've posted in this thread.



EDIT: I thinK I made the previous ruling concerning excessive requests by invaders for the password. Remember, spam is still illegal - whether requesting the password or not. A concentrated effort from all the natives to spam the inbox of any invader with requests for the password is still illegal under the spam rules.

Found the thread:

Passwords (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=110859)

Spoffin: I'm not responsible if natives are given the password and then forget or lose it, right?
Neutered Sputniks: Yes

Ballotonia

Sometimes a Native's telegrams are spammed clean, and the password lost. Many players recieve a large number of telegrams every day. I apologize for the confusion started.

So first they cry for password protection, and it's given to them, despite the fact that invaders and non-invaders were previously on a level playing field (no restriction on regional entry).

Then it's discovered that if an invader team should be successful, they can use the password to their advantage. The system is still disadvantageous to invaders in most cases, but some work around it (restricted regional entry, but a small reward for success).

Then they cry for restriction of full use of password protection by invaders, so it's ruled that any "native" out of the region must get it if they ask and cannot be banned. (Restricted regional entry and substantially limited reward)

Now that's not good enough, because invaders still prevail over this. So now it's ruled that whenever an invader makes a change of the password, all natives must be telegrammed the new password, effectively negating any balance whatsoever in the passwording system. (Restricted regional entry, about 15% of the reward)

I remember when this game actually tried to mimic real life politics to some extent. Such a claim is laughable now - just try applying any of those rulings to real life. Was Hitler mandated to allow the Polish to come and go whenever they pleased, or to extend that right to whomever they wanted? If a government established by a coup deports a born citizen, must they allow him back in? Does God come down from on high and magically overturn such governments when they oppress the native people in any way?

At what point was it decided that this was no longer to be a game about politics and that now we're establishing little-happy-sunshine-lands?

Now that's not good enough, because invaders still prevail over this. So now it's ruled that whenever an invader makes a change of the password, all natives must be telegrammed the new password, effectively negating any balance whatsoever in the passwording system. (Restricted regional entry, about 15% of the reward)

This isn't exactly a new rule...

Now that's not good enough, because invaders still prevail over this. So now it's ruled that whenever an invader makes a change of the password, all natives must be telegrammed the new password, effectively negating any balance whatsoever in the passwording system. (Restricted regional entry, about 15% of the reward)

This isn't exactly a new rule...

No, but it isn't exactly old, or consistant, either.

So now it's ruled that whenever an invader makes a change of the password, all natives must be telegrammed the new password,
This isn't exactly a new rule...
No, but it isn't exactly old, or consistant, either.

Probably been around for five or six months, which is rather old in a game that is has only been around 14-15 months.

As for consistant, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Every invader must send the password to every native every time they change it. Seems consistant to me.

So now it's ruled that whenever an invader makes a change of the password, all natives must be telegrammed the new password,
This isn't exactly a new rule...
No, but it isn't exactly old, or consistant, either.

Probably been around for five or six months, which is rather old in a game that is has only been around 14-15 months.

As for consistant, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Every invader must send the password to every native every time they change it. Seems consistant to me.

The original ruling was that a native must be telegrammed the password if they are out of the region and request it (in that natives must be free to return to the region if they like). This is far different than the ruling, "Every invader must send the password to every native every time they change it." Perhaps you'll argue that this is only a clarification of the previous ruling, or a new ruling of some kind of responsibility on the part of the invader, but I think the difference between the two is readily apparent - as is the gross restriction of power the latter causes to the invader that the former does not.

really? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1478151#1478151)

that's the oldest post i know about it, maybe someone knows an older post?

The general rule is 'No restricting the movement of the natives.'
This rule pretty much covers everything to do with the password.

really? (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1478151#1478151)

that's the oldest post i know about it, maybe someone knows an older post?

I've been looking for older, and that's the oldest I've found so far. Enodia's sticky on region crashing doesn't even mention password restrictions. My point is the rather ambiguous wording involved - even this post by Reprod. isn't as limiting as what's being touted as "the rule as it is and has virtually always been". It doesn't say how the natives are to get it, which natives, etc. It's only slightly more restrictive than what I posted earlier about a native asking for it when out of the region, and only then by a interpretation.

It seems to me what we now have is a gradually tightened, formerly ambiguous rule, which reaches the point of absurdity if you were to have an invader delegate paranoid enough to change the password frequently. Which, of course, is the only alternative when you can't maintain security within a region because of the password needing to go out every time you change it.

It seems to me what we now have is a gradually tightened, formerly ambiguous rule, which reaches the point of absurdity if you were to have an invader delegate paranoid enough to change the password frequently. Which, of course, is the only alternative when you can't maintain security within a region because of the password needing to go out every time you change it.

Not to butt in too badly here, but a lot of rules that we would have been quite happy to keep nice and grey to be judged case by case have had to be defined into more black and white terms because of people looking for a hard line to find loopholes in. I forget who said it first, but there are people on this game who could find a loophole in a bloody brick wall!

It seems to me what we now have is a gradually tightened, formerly ambiguous rule, which reaches the point of absurdity if you were to have an invader delegate paranoid enough to change the password frequently. Which, of course, is the only alternative when you can't maintain security within a region because of the password needing to go out every time you change it.

Not to butt in too badly here, but a lot of rules that we would have been quite happy to keep nice and grey to be judged case by case have had to be defined into more black and white terms because of people looking for a hard line to find loopholes in. I forget who said it first, but there are people on this game who could find a loophole in a bloody brick wall!

I certainly don't mind a clarification of terms, and know that in the past, many invaders have requested them. What I mind is when terms are gradually "clarified" to the point where there is a massive difference between what was commonly understood as the ruling and what it has become. I'd clarify, but I think I've made my issues with this clear enough above already. Let me know if I haven't (it's later here) and I'll address it tomorrow.

Lets start by clarifying the term 'clarification': Since someone is calling for one after recieving a large number of what I would call clarifications from a series of mods all of whom said the same thing... I'm not sure we all have the same meaning of the term 'clarification'.

And, as far as I knew the "must give all natives the password" part of it is common knowledge and has been for a while.

This isn't "little-happy-sunshine-lands", but pardon me for not being shocked that a defence mechanism favours the defender. The defender always has an advantage... this is right.

you know, I understand that the mods dont like to put these rules in stone and put them on teh game faq page because it encourages people finding loopholes, but not putting them in stone and keeping them ambiguious only gets stuff like this started, if there were a straight up rule set then there would be no gray area for people to argue in, trying to enforce Vapor Rules is like trying to Herd cats, it dont work and it usually involves someone getting bitten.

Ive watched a lot of invasions since the regional controls stuff started, and it usually happens like this

Region gets noticed by Legal invaders
Legals invade and ocassionally lock region
Natives grief their own region, blames their transgressions on invaders
someone whines to mods about password
passowrd gets taken down
Defenders come in and grief the region usually locking it down
defenders blast the region
Defenders refound the region
Defenders cheated and got glory for doing what they accuse the invaders of doing.

Personally I beleive that as far as the rules are concerned, they should be set in HTML on the Faq page, lestwise more and more of this stuff is going to come up. but that is just my opinion.
And Anbar has a good point, the way the game is currently managed is a very far cry from the political sim the game started out as.
I mean you cannot even reinact WWII anymore. People ned to realize that this game was not written jsut for the RPers, there are others who play this game in different ways, the invaders, the sitabouts, the socializers.

Ive watched a lot of invasions since the regional controls stuff started, and it usually happens like this

Region gets noticed by Legal invaders
Legals invade and ocassionally lock region
Natives grief their own region, blames their transgressions on invaders
someone whines to mods about password
passowrd gets taken down
Defenders come in and grief the region usually locking it down
defenders blast the region
Defenders refound the region
Defenders cheated and got glory for doing what they accuse the invaders of doing.

Excuse me?!? I've seen a LOT of invasions too and haven't seen a single one that happened like that. Rest assured that any defensive organization taking any kind of pride in their job does not grief the region to be defended. Can you provide any specific examples of the above scenario actually happening? You claim it happens 'usually', but you can convince me it happens often with just five examples.

Any invading organization taking any kind of pride in their job does not grief the target region either, but sadly there's a lot of really bad invaders out there who don't care. I've seen plenty of invaders empty a region (and get deleted shortly thereafter). I've never seen a defender do that. I've never seen a defender get deleted for griefing either. I have twice seen a defender getting kicked out of the UN, and both decisions were reversed on closer examination of the situation.

Ballotonia

Ive watched a lot of invasions since the regional controls stuff started, and it usually happens like this

Region gets noticed by Legal invaders
Legals invade and ocassionally lock region
Natives grief their own region, blames their transgressions on invaders
someone whines to mods about password
passowrd gets taken down
Defenders come in and grief the region usually locking it down
defenders blast the region
Defenders refound the region
Defenders cheated and got glory for doing what they accuse the invaders of doing.

Excuse me?!? I've seen a LOT of invasions too and haven't seen a single one that happened like that. Rest assured that any defensive organization taking any kind of pride in their job does not grief the region to be defended. Can you provide any specific examples of the above scenario actually happening? You claim it happens 'usually', but you can convince me it happens often with just five examples.

Any invading organization taking any kind of pride in their job does not grief the target region either, but sadly there's a lot of really bad invaders out there who don't care. I've seen plenty of invaders empty a region (and get deleted shortly thereafter). I've never seen a defender do that. I've never seen a defender get deleted for griefing either. I have twice seen a defender getting kicked out of the UN, and both decisions were reversed on closer examination of the situation.

Ballotonia

The flaw in your logic is pretty obvious here - "defenders" are recognized (or rather, outed) as "invaders" when engaging in such conduct. As such, "bad invaders" are frequently deleted, but not "bad defenders." It's a matter of labeling, and your biased viewpoint is readily apparent. I've seen defenders and invaders alike drop like flies from multi-bombings, in both deletion and UN-expulsion form, and I had to laugh out loud upon reading your testimonial to spotless defender conduct. I, for one, am not nearly naive enough to buy that line and I really doubt that Loop is, being who he is.

Lets start by clarifying the term 'clarification': Since someone is calling for one after recieving a large number of what I would call clarifications from a series of mods all of whom said the same thing... I'm not sure we all have the same meaning of the term 'clarification'.

And, as far as I knew the "must give all natives the password" part of it is common knowledge and has been for a while.

This isn't "little-happy-sunshine-lands", but pardon me for not being shocked that a defence mechanism favours the defender. The defender always has an advantage... this is right.

I'm not calling for a clarification - the time for that has passed. Now, after much waffling and hesitation to establish a rule over an extended period of time, we have a rule that, in my opinion, has gone too far. Assuming that quietly putting this rule into place hasn't been a part of some sinister plot all along (I'm not one to take to mod-conspiracy theories), my objection is to a rule that has come to be accepted in a form far different from that which was originally established.

As far as your claim of this interpretation being known "for some time," we've already established that as much as 5 months ago, this was not the case. I know for a fact that, during that time, legitimate invaders were not operating under this interpretation, and that mods were not acting upon this interpretation. I've yet to pin down just when this wording replaced the old ambiguous wording. It is not a hard-and-fast ruling that has always been, a belief that some seem all too willing to accept (or propagate), and I see it as the culmination of a restriction of rules on a slippery slope.

Lastly, the password system already favors the defender in the vast majority of cases. Your argument here is parallel to gun control advocates saying that guns should be allowed for protection, so we should legalize automatic weaponry. It's all defense for the defender, right?

This is not "right," as this is supposed to be a political game based somewhat in reality. If you can tell me how this is "right" based on that premise, giving me an example of how this current version of the ruling in any way parallels real international politics, perhaps I'll retract my argument.

The flaw in your logic is pretty obvious here - "defenders" are recognized (or rather, outed) as "invaders" when engaging in such conduct.

Good point, and you're close there, but no. I do not define a defender as someone who engages is non rule-violating conduct. Rule-technically there is no difference at all between invaders and defenders as both will invade regions. The difference I make is in the goal they have: invaders wish to conquer a region to serve their own purposes, while defenders wish to hand the region back to the natives for them to decide on their future for themselves. It may be that you're regarding some nations to be 'defenders' while I'm not. Can you clarify what the line is you're drawing to distinguish between the two groups? If you simply regard your own group as invaders and all those who may oppose you at some point to be 'defenders', well... that would make the entire definition very relative to who's counting the beans, and as such useless.

Sit back and think about it for a while... what IS a defender, and why? Who meets those standards? What does this say about the statistical likelyhood of rule violations?

I had to laugh out loud upon reading your testimonial to spotless defender conduct.

I do not make such a claim, merely that of the many, many, many invader and defender activities I've seen, the defenders do not break the rules. I'll admit that this is partly due to my definition of defenders, since often the modbombs fall because the rights of natives have been violated. Doing so sadly comes naturally for some invaders, while it's really counter-intuitive behaviour for defenders.

Still waiting for those examples, I noticed you gave none... ;)

Ballotonia

my objection is to a rule that has come to be accepted in a form far different from that which was originally established.

Originally there weren't any regional controls like passwords and ejecting, so "originally established" is a bit of a misnomer. If I understood correctly, these were established to combat rampant misbehaviour caused by nations who lost a political battle yet remained in a region and annoyed the hell out of the locals. There was no way to break the fighting people apart other than mod ([violet]) intervention. That's way too labor intensive. The side-effect however was an entirely new class of possible misbehaviour: invaders mass-banning and/or locking nations out of their own region. The password feature was not established with the purpose of allowing invaders to lock natives out of their own region.

As far as your claim of this interpretation being known "for some time," we've already established that as much as 5 months ago, this was not the case.

You have? Where? I thought this ruling went back to at least June or July, and has always been like this. At least, that was my understanding.

I know for a fact that, during that time, legitimate invaders were not operating under this interpretation, and that mods were not acting upon this interpretation.

Mods can only act on those things they know of. If someone is able to fly below the radar and grief dozens of regions before getting caught, it doesn't mean doing so has become legal.

And how do you define "legitimate invaders" here? Is there an Invader University handing out degrees? ;)

Ballotonia

The flaw in your logic is pretty obvious here - "defenders" are recognized (or rather, outed) as "invaders" when engaging in such conduct.

Good point, and you're close there, but no. I do not define a defender as someone who engages is non rule-violating conduct. Rule-technically there is no difference at all between invaders and defenders as both will invade regions. The difference I make is in the goal they have: invaders wish to conquer a region to serve their own purposes, while defenders wish to hand the region back to the natives for them to decide on their future for themselves. It may be that you're regarding some nations to be 'defenders' while I'm not. Can you clarify what the line is you're drawing to distinguish between the two groups? If you simply regard your own group as invaders and all those who may oppose you at some point to be 'defenders', well... that would make the entire definition very relative to who's counting the beans, and as such useless.

Sit back and think about it for a while... what IS a defender, and why? Who meets those standards? What does this say about the statistical likelyhood of rule violations?

And the continued testimonials to inherent bias just keep flowing in. What does this say? For one, it says that defenders will do anything to take a region back, imbued with a sense of some kind of moral-rightness. "Hey, why not multi - those guys took over a region and we're the good guys!" Again, it's pretty obvious that your definition of a defender is one who legally defends a region - see the part I put in bold above. Your definiton of "invader" mixes both the legal and illegal variety, while your definition of "defender" is of a benevolent, good nation. Just what happens when a defender ceases to be "good?" They cease to be a defender - how convenient. And since everyone looks alike when the complaint of an unfair mass booting/deletion comes in, I'm willing to bet that you don't follow up on just which side the complainer was on. It's much easier to assume that it's just another one of those damn invaders who're obviously so statistically likely to get deleted. It's a flaw in human nature to seek out cases which verify your bias and ignore that which does not, as seems to be all too clearly the case here.

That is what pondering your points tells me.

I had to laugh out loud upon reading your testimonial to spotless defender conduct.

I do not make such a claim, merely that of the many, many, many invader and defender activities I've seen, the defenders do not break the rules. I'll admit that this is partly due to my definition of defenders, since often the modbombs fall because the rights of natives have been violated. Doing so sadly comes naturally for some invaders, while it's really counter-intuitive behaviour for defenders.

Still waiting for those examples, I noticed you gave none... ;)

Ballotonia

Again, your bias shines like a beacon, and your invader:bad/defender:good dichotomy is apparent in your tone. See above - I give your perception of events little credit, as from personal experience with self-proclaimed "defenders," I know your claim to be ludicrous. I've personally been associated with the deletion/expulsion of dozens upon dozens of them, sometimes at a single time, and know the lengths they'll go to take back a region.

And save your snide comments - you're waiting on an example from Loop as we sidetrack this thread. I'm merely here to point out why your claims are false, and to address the actual issue at hand.

Ballotopia, my post was about the annoying concept of Vapor Rules
But if you want an example I have 6 nations who were parts of other regions where invasions occured, and as soon as the defenders arrived my naiton got booted out accused of various BS trumped up charges and were not allowed to return to their region. and now live within other regions, Im not telling you exact example as I want these other nations treated as thmeselves not as Loop puppets.

Defenders can claim all day long that they are Legitimate, well, SO are the Invaders, Max stated that Invaders are a Legitimate manner of gameplay and they need to be treated as such. and all these Vapor Rules need to be put into writing, enforcing unwritten rules is no way to handle a situation especially one in a gmae where Politics is the entire basis of the game. I stated a long time ago that this game would quickly turn into Stalinist Russia when the regional controls and the age of the Moderators started, and is has. also not to poke at our current mods but the mod team needs a little more diversity, it is all RPers, and well, it needs a couple of invaders or at least peole who once were invaders put on it, if invaders are a legitimate player group, then why are they not treated as one?

and to make it easier for someone to Quote me out of context again.

Monkeys are small primates who live in places where monkeys are at home.

also Ball you talk anbout Modbombs falling, well, I see a lot in this game, and when the fall they usually fall on Griefers (who are not Legitimate invaders,) and they fall on Defenders.

very true

Well I'm Cheif of Italian Security, Well after our region was blasted by Defenders in an attempt to refound it* and Shortly after Fiat Refounded it and brought peace to the region, a group of Defenders arrived and tried to grief it again, they even stated that they planned on booting out specific nations, this is a reason Fiat keeps the region under lockdown with no Delegate access to regional control, Unfortunantly because of Cheaters known as Defenders particularly the Freedom Alliance, our region cannot enjoy true freedom, Holy Mother Church Strives to bring salvation instead as She cannot give the Freedom everyone wants.


Ink®, good for Dad, Great for Mom, and the kids will probably die without regular doses of it.




*(they failed to refound it as Deus ex Fiat just happened to be quicker with the keyboard than they)

my objection is to a rule that has come to be accepted in a form far different from that which was originally established.

Originally there weren't any regional controls like passwords and ejecting, so "originally established" is a bit of a misnomer. If I understood correctly, these were established to combat rampant misbehaviour caused by nations who lost a political battle yet remained in a region and annoyed the hell out of the locals. There was no way to break the fighting people apart other than mod ([violet]) intervention. That's way too labor intensive. The side-effect however was an entirely new class of possible misbehaviour: invaders mass-banning and/or locking nations out of their own region. The password feature was not established with the purpose of allowing invaders to lock natives out of their own region.

Rampant misbehavior? Oh, you mean the locals who couldn't be punished within their own region, yet had to be stopped from flaming, spamming, and otherwise engaging in illegal conduct in response to legal invasions. Your take on the situation is again flawed, because such situations couldn't happen - griefing invaders, those there with the sole pupose of annoying the locals, are engaging in illegal activity, and hence could be ejected from the region by the rules. Too labor-intensive? Hardly - any invader group unable to avoid breaking the rules as such is pretty unlikely to be compentant enough to be able to hold a region for long enough for this to be an issue of rampant occurence. Your interpretation of use of the password system is also flawed - there is middle ground between unlimited use of the password to lock out natives and being mandated to email every password change to every local.

As far as your claim of this interpretation being known "for some time," we've already established that as much as 5 months ago, this was not the case.

You have? Where? I thought this ruling went back to at least June or July, and has always been like this. At least, that was my understanding.

The link posted by Crazygirl cites Reprod quoting a far less specific ruling in September. Why don't you show me just where this current ruling of "All natives must be sent the password every time an invader delegate changes it" is first mentioned with this specific wording for the first time?

I know for a fact that, during that time, legitimate invaders were not operating under this interpretation, and that mods were not acting upon this interpretation.

Mods can only act on those things they know of. If someone is able to fly below the radar and grief dozens of regions before getting caught, it doesn't mean doing so has become legal.

And how do you define "legitimate invaders" here? Is there an Invader University handing out degrees? ;)

Ballotonia

I'm talking about extended, successful, legal invasions which repeatedly received mod attention via calls for it from both sides. We're discussing legitimate invasion here, not the conduct of some hack n00bs.

"Legitimate invaders" have been through many invasions without deletion and stick to the letter of the law. They look down on lesser invaders who knowlingly break the rules to succeed, and do not fear a just mod intervention. Indeed, they may call them in as needed to combat infractions by their opposition, which, as I've mentioned, seem just about as common as their illegal-invader counterparts.

I didn't think I'd need to look far for an example of defender conduct. Bear in mind, here's an obvious exception to the claim that the vast majority of defenders are lawabiding. Carlskank has been deleted for spamming the U.S.'s regional happenings board this evening. Her compatriots had this to say of her in Central Intelligence Agency:

29 minutes ago The Free Platonic Democracy of Gothicville:
"Damn Carlskank died.......The one who started this...trying to save the US."

Now what are the odds that I could find an example of a defender deletion due to illegal behavior in a matter of hours? Five minutes later, in CIA:

24 minutes ago The Conservative Holy Empire of Carlskank101
"Yea. I guess I am the remainder of her. "

Didn't even bother arguing. She knew that she was griefing to "save" a region - further proof of what I've said.

I'm not calling for a clarification - the time for that has passed. Now, after much waffling and hesitation to establish a rule over an extended period of time, we have a rule that, in my opinion, has gone too far. Assuming that quietly putting this rule into place hasn't been a part of some sinister plot all along (I'm not one to take to mod-conspiracy theories), my objection is to a rule that has come to be accepted in a form far different from that which was originally established.
As far as your claim of this interpretation being known "for some time," we've already established that as much as 5 months ago, this was not the case. I know for a fact that, during that time, legitimate invaders were not operating under this interpretation, and that mods were not acting upon this interpretation. I've yet to pin down just when this wording replaced the old ambiguous wording. It is not a hard-and-fast ruling that has always been, a belief that some seem all too willing to accept (or propagate), and I see it as the culmination of a restriction of rules on a slippery slope.

Part of the reason for not setting everything in stone is that it has the capacity to change and adapt to circumstances without formal review and release, as well as permitting moderators to judge on a case by case basis. Now, this isn't meant as an offense, but I've noticed that people who watch something evolve tend to pay less attention to the latest developments when the 'current' version fits their own thinking.
After all, if it is the way one wants it then it is right, and it wouldn't change away from the right answer, would it?

Not directed at you specificly, we all do it... remembering the most convenient rules version is very easy in a changing environment and most people wouldn't question it. But the fact is that it cannot be said to have been 'established' (let alone 'orignally established') in the form you claim: it passed through that, yes, but it has also passed through many other versions as well, all holding equal weight. i.e. none. The only one that matters is the current version and if you don't pay attention to that then you run the risk of breaking the rules.

The only hard and fast rule here is that the version the mods are using is the only one that matters, not what has once been written in 'Ye Olde Tome of Region Griefing'. I'm not propogating that it has always been the case... just that it is the case now and that it is not a sudden change of decision: it has been ruled that way on multiple occations prior to this. I can't give you an exact, precise date upon which the change was officially ordained: but I can tell you that this is not a snap decision. And so I have.


Lastly, the password system already favors the defender in the vast majority of cases. Your argument here is parallel to gun control advocates saying that guns should be allowed for protection, so we should legalize automatic weaponry. It's all defense for the defender, right?

No, its not. I don't feel the analogy appropriate, but I'll argue it back anyway.
Guns (the password system) are out there anyway. Currently, you can use a gun (password) to defend your own home (region). You are advocating that people ought to be allowed to enter other peoples houses (regions) and shoot them with their own gun (password). Which is bad, no?

This is not "right," as this is supposed to be a political game based somewhat in reality. If you can tell me how this is "right" based on that premise, giving me an example of how this current version of the ruling in any way parallels real international politics, perhaps I'll retract my argument.

I'll admit that my theory there had a basis in the military theatre rather than the political. But then after all we are playing nations, not political parties. What can invasion of a region be but, well, an invasion? And so the dynamics of NS invasion ought to reflect the bias of a military action. When two minor nations fight, has the UN ever decided to impose sanctions on the defender until he surrenders? No. They favour the defender as the innocent party... hence the rules are stacked against invaders in real life.

In pure politics terms, I am forced to argue using the 'status quo'. In a defined structure, it is always harder to upset the status quo because the action of changing causes disturbances, disputes, mistakes and (for want of a better word) lag. Thus a new concept must demonstrate that A) it is better than the status quo and B) it is sufficient an improvement as to be worth the hassle of changing it. To defend the status quo, one merely has to assert that even if this might be better, its not so much better that it is worth the problems associated with change.
Thus it is easier to defend the status quo than to upset it.
Quad Erat Demonstrandum?

This is another reason why the mods avoid setting a formal status quo.

Part of the reason for not setting everything in stone is that it has the capacity to change and adapt to circumstances without formal review and release, as well as permitting moderators to judge on a case by case basis. Now, this isn't meant as an offense, but I've noticed that people who watch something evolve tend to pay less attention to the latest developments when the 'current' version fits their own thinking.
After all, if it is the way one wants it then it is right, and it wouldn't change away from the right answer, would it?

You seem to have an idea of "objective right." Please stop wasting my time as if this somehow existed, especially on a computer server moderated by people of varying viewpoints. There is little justification for not setting something in stone and getting it over with, because then moderation decisions are doubly questionable - not only to their application to current circumstances, but also in that they don't even have a solid basis upon which they're made.

I can't give you an exact, precise date upon which the change was officially ordained: but I can tell you that this is not a snap decision. And so I have.

No, you've given me your opinion and some idle speculation. We've already established that the rule has been changed, and I fail to see how anything you've said here has anything to do with the topic at hand - save for sidetracking because you don't seem to want to admit that a change was made at some point.

No, its not. I don't feel the analogy appropriate, but I'll argue it back anyway.
Guns (the password system) are out there anyway. Currently, you can use a gun (password) to defend your own home (region). You are advocating that people ought to be allowed to enter other peoples houses (regions) and shoot them with their own gun (password). Which is bad, no?

No, because we're not talking about murder, nor an illegal activity of any kind. My analogy was entirely appropriate, and as per usual when this situation arises, you've responded with a defense that assumes invasion illegal. It is not, hence your argument is inappropriate.

I'll admit that my theory there had a basis in the military theatre rather than the political. But then after all we are playing nations, not political parties. What can invasion of a region be but, well, an invasion? And so the dynamics of NS invasion ought to reflect the bias of a military action...

Do point out to me where in military history, God has come down to smite a nation for violation of international law or the ethics of war. Parallels with the UN are invalid, as the UN does not operate on this level, nor do the mods act as the UN here.

Part of the reason for not setting everything in stone is that it has the capacity to change and adapt to circumstances without formal review and release, as well as permitting moderators to judge on a case by case basis. Now, this isn't meant as an offense, but I've noticed that people who watch something evolve tend to pay less attention to the latest developments when the 'current' version fits their own thinking.
After all, if it is the way one wants it then it is right, and it wouldn't change away from the right answer, would it?

You seem to have an idea of "objective right." Please stop wasting my time as if this somehow existed, especially on a computer server moderated by people of varying viewpoints. There is little justification for not setting something in stone and getting it over with, because then moderation decisions are doubly questionable - not only to their application to current circumstances, but also in that they don't even have a solid basis upon which they're made.


Erm, you've lost me here. I have no idea what you mean by an "objective right". I was meaning that in a theoretical changing environment, the theoretical thing that one likes the most would be what one considers correct (a.k.a. 'right'). I wasn't talking about some universal 'one true way'.
In fact, the person arguing for a 'one true way' is you: a rule that must be cast in iron and forever unchanged. Rigid, uncaring and riddled with loopholes.

I can't give you an exact, precise date upon which the change was officially ordained: but I can tell you that this is not a snap decision. And so I have.

No, you've given me your opinion and some idle speculation. We've already established that the rule has been changed, and I fail to see how anything you've said here has anything to do with the topic at hand - save for sidetracking because you don't seem to want to admit that a change was made at some point.

Erm... Sorry. I am in error there and shall correct it.
"Hey, Anbar... It wasn't a snap decision."
There. Rectified.

And just because I've told you it, doesn't mean it isn't my opinion. I can also tell you idle speculation, to match your active and enthusiastic speculation.

A change was made. Many changes were made. You are obsessing about the change you liked. It got changed. A long time ago.

No, its not. I don't feel the analogy appropriate, but I'll argue it back anyway.
Guns (the password system) are out there anyway. Currently, you can use a gun (password) to defend your own home (region). You are advocating that people ought to be allowed to enter other peoples houses (regions) and shoot them with their own gun (password). Which is bad, no?
No, because we're not talking about murder, nor an illegal activity of any kind. My analogy was entirely appropriate, and as per usual when this situation arises, you've responded with a defense that assumes invasion illegal. It is not, hence your argument is inappropriate.


So my opinion that your analogy was flawed was entirely ignored?
Well it is flawed. Its an obvious attempt to bias a neutral party with no more basis in fact than me saying "Your argument is that invasion isn't wrong. Hitler invaded people, so you're saying that Hitler never did anything wrong."

Sorry. I'm not going to continue your falacy any more. Passwords are not automatic weapons. Period. Deal.

Do point out to me where in military history, God has come down to smite a nation for violation of international law or the ethics of war. Parallels with the UN are invalid, as the UN does not operate on this level, nor do the mods act as the UN here.

Erm... Sodom? Gomorah?
The mods are closer to a UN level of power than godlike. ie. they have rules that must be followed and a level of accountability. The in-game 'UN' here is closer to a League of Nations level of power.

Any chance of answering the arguments I put forward rather than debating semantics?

And the continued testimonials to inherent bias just keep flowing in. What does this say? For one, it says that defenders will do anything to take a region back, imbued with a sense of some kind of moral-rightness. "Hey, why not multi - those guys took over a region and we're the good guys!" Again, it's pretty obvious that your definition of a defender is one who legally defends a region - see the part I put in bold above. Your definiton of "invader" mixes both the legal and illegal variety, while your definition of "defender" is of a benevolent, good nation. Just what happens when a defender ceases to be "good?" They cease to be a defender - how convenient.

No, a defender that decides to Multi doesn't stop being a defender. That defender (hopefully) gets punished for breaking the rules, just like an invader would. As I said before, rule-technically there is no difference between invaders and defenders. I merely don't see as many defenders breaking rules, and I think it is due to invaders fighting for their own glory while defenders fight to help others. As such invaders have more of an interest in 'winning' a particular fight, and some of them will break the rules to do so.

Looking at the rest of the responses, I do acknowledge my perspective is colored in the sense that the defenders I associate with are very strict in not breaking any rules. Sometimes this means losing against a cheating opponent (watching as a region gets blown away, being left to do nothing more than filing a mod report), or realizing a situation is so messed-up it's better to not jump in swinging battle axes. And then the invaders 'win', for what that kind of 'winning' is worth to them. So be it.

In one response I get the impression anyone is a Defender who opposes any invader anywhere, including natives. My original statement above is about those Defenders I associate with, and nothing more. Feel free to label anyone you wish as 'Defender' and attempt to claim I made judgements on their behaviour as well, but rest assured that will be quite meaningless when and if you do.

also Ball you talk anbout Modbombs falling, well, I see a lot in this game, and when the fall they usually fall on Griefers (who are not Legitimate invaders,) and they fall on Defenders.

Please note that here the definition of "Legitimate Invaders" actually *IS* a definition of rule-legal-only invaders, which I am wrongly being accused of making for Defenders.

Ballotonia

first off I apoligise for not quoting your entire text, but this is all I was refering too.

Part of the reason for not setting everything in stone is that it has the capacity to change and adapt to circumstances without formal review and release, as well as permitting moderators to judge on a case by case basis. Now, this isn't meant as an offense, but I've noticed that people who watch something evolve tend to pay less attention to the latest developments when the 'current' version fits their own thinking.
After all, if it is the way one wants it then it is right, and it wouldn't change away from the right answer, would it?


(bolded part)
Hey that is a great Idea, Just like Stalin did, makes it much easier to shoot folks and or send them to Siberia, not in that particular order.

In the long run though, the Vapor Rules are going to really hurt the game, and by really hurt I mean kill. I hate to see this happen and especially with Max gone perhaps if he took a more active role in setting up the rules, Not to offend anyone but without Max putting the rules in the game itself it kinda makes it hard to stand behind them especailly how he has said Invaders are a legit player type, and should be respected as such yet the rules keep getting rewritten to try to stifel them with no regards to anyone but the Isolationist RPers, who are rarely hit by Legit invaders.
just some Loop thoughts, take them how you want.

and here is teh part to quote out of context.

"and then there was this big old red dodge truck, and it ran the redlight and smack into a VW full of Nuns and Orphans."


=-=-=
Loop East Pacific, Delegate
Proud Member of [Team Advantage]
My current flag
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/1_infinite_loop.jpg

Part of the reason for not setting everything in stone is that it has the capacity to change and adapt to circumstances without formal review and release, as well as permitting moderators to judge on a case by case basis. Now, this isn't meant as an offense, but I've noticed that people who watch something evolve tend to pay less attention to the latest developments when the 'current' version fits their own thinking.
After all, if it is the way one wants it then it is right, and it wouldn't change away from the right answer, would it?

You seem to have an idea of "objective right." Please stop wasting my time as if this somehow existed, especially on a computer server moderated by people of varying viewpoints. There is little justification for not setting something in stone and getting it over with, because then moderation decisions are doubly questionable - not only to their application to current circumstances, but also in that they don't even have a solid basis upon which they're made.


Erm, you've lost me here. I have no idea what you mean by an "objective right". I was meaning that in a theoretical changing environment, the theoretical thing that one likes the most would be what one considers correct (a.k.a. 'right'). I wasn't talking about some universal 'one true way'.
In fact, the person arguing for a 'one true way' is you: a rule that must be cast in iron and forever unchanged. Rigid, uncaring and riddled with loopholes.

"Objective right" is not some elevated philosophical concept - you used the phrase "This is right." This is subjective, not objective (as such a system of "right" does not exis here or anywhere) - that's your opinion, and to continue to try to impress it upon me is very futile, because I obviously disagree. I am arguing for a solid, well thought out rule, and if it's riddled with loopholes, that means it's not well thought out. I am also arguing for a rule being consistent. As Loop pointed out, "vapor rules" are neither, and lead to such problems.

And I will not argue the analogy any further, because I don't think you have much of a grasp of the terms involved, and as such, expanding upon it would be like teaching a pig to sing. As for the rest, it's just attempts to vault your claims over mine, mostly in a condescending way that's really getting on my nerves. You can't cite when this change was made, but you assert that I ought to accept that it was and move on. Having failed to convince me that it's always been this way, I can understand why you'd try to make such a claim - and why you'd put it in bold print. :wink:

As for why I think you don't have a grasp of the terms involved here, take this, for example:

Its an obvious attempt to bias a neutral party with no more basis in fact than me saying "Your argument is that invasion isn't wrong. Hitler invaded people, so you're saying that Hitler never did anything wrong."

We're not arguing the morality of invasions, here or in the real world. We're arguing the legality here, and here invasions are legal. Period. If that's supposed to be an emotional plea on the end, well, you may as well keep those to yourself. As for this:

Do point out to me where in military history, God has come down to smite a nation for violation of international law or the ethics of war. Parallels with the UN are invalid, as the UN does not operate on this level, nor do the mods act as the UN here.

Erm... Sodom? Gomorah?
The mods are closer to a UN level of power than godlike. ie. they have rules that must be followed and a level of accountability. The in-game 'UN' here is closer to a League of Nations level of power.

I'm talking about factual military history, not fiction. Nice try though.

The mods make nations cease to exist. They raise nations from the dead. They take entire regions, overturn entire systems of rule, etc, all in the blink of an eye on on their decision. That sounds pretty much like an act of God in the real world to me. Thusly, I say that the level of intervention being practiced now is getting beyond a point where any political business is being simulated.

And the continued testimonials to inherent bias just keep flowing in. What does this say? For one, it says that defenders will do anything to take a region back, imbued with a sense of some kind of moral-rightness. "Hey, why not multi - those guys took over a region and we're the good guys!" Again, it's pretty obvious that your definition of a defender is one who legally defends a region - see the part I put in bold above. Your definiton of "invader" mixes both the legal and illegal variety, while your definition of "defender" is of a benevolent, good nation. Just what happens when a defender ceases to be "good?" They cease to be a defender - how convenient.

No, a defender that decides to Multi doesn't stop being a defender. That defender (hopefully) gets punished for breaking the rules, just like an invader would. As I said before, rule-technically there is no difference between invaders and defenders. I merely don't see as many defenders breaking rules, and I think it is due to invaders fighting for their own glory while defenders fight to help others. As such invaders have more of an interest in 'winning' a particular fight, and some of them will break the rules to do so.

Looking at the rest of the responses, I do acknowledge my perspective is colored in the sense that the defenders I associate with are very strict in not breaking any rules. Sometimes this means losing against a cheating opponent (watching as a region gets blown away, being left to do nothing more than filing a mod report), or realizing a situation is so messed-up it's better to not jump in swinging battle axes. And then the invaders 'win', for what that kind of 'winning' is worth to them. So be it.

In one response I get the impression anyone is a Defender who opposes any invader anywhere, including natives. My original statement above is about those Defenders I associate with, and nothing more. Feel free to label anyone you wish as 'Defender' and attempt to claim I made judgements on their behaviour as well, but rest assured that will be quite meaningless when and if you do.

also Ball you talk anbout Modbombs falling, well, I see a lot in this game, and when the fall they usually fall on Griefers (who are not Legitimate invaders,) and they fall on Defenders.

Please note that here the definition of "Legitimate Invaders" actually *IS* a definition of rule-legal-only invaders, which I am wrongly being accused of making for Defenders.

Ballotonia

Im just refering to the bolded part.

No, a Defender who Muties is just like anyone who multies, they are a cheater and should be punished as such, I see no reason to Multi and personally if Region A was invaded, and Defenders from region V showed up to Defend it and one of them was Multiing, I would advocate booting them all from the UN ,the Multies Perminantly, the others temporary and and telling them Privatly as well as on teh regional baords involved what happened. and why they were all booted, I would probably add that the Defenders who were Multiing were forbidden from becoming involved in the situation any further transgression would result in deletions.

this policy would apply on both sides, the above situation is just how I would Handle the Defender situation set forth.
I would als oconsider it for spamming of the regional boards and happenings.

"Objective right" is not some elevated philosophical concept - you used the phrase "This is right." This is subjective, not objective (as such a system of "right" does not exis here or anywhere) - that's your opinion, and to continue to try to impress it upon me is very futile, because I obviously disagree. I am arguing for a solid, well thought out rule, and if it's riddled with loopholes, that means it's not well thought out. I am also arguing for a rule being consistent. As Loop pointed out, "vapor rules" are neither, and lead to such problems.

I'll agree that that is the point we are arguing and will address it shortly. As for the rest, why are you still trying to impress your argument on me if you don't believe that someone who disagrees can be convinced otherwise? After all, isn't convincing someone to change their point of view the purpose of arguing?
Plus there is probably a lurker or two whos opinion is not so set in stone and might be swayed by this. One of those neutral observers I mentioned.

And I will not argue the analogy any further, because I don't think you have much of a grasp of the terms involved, and as such, expanding upon it would be like teaching a pig to sing. As for the rest, it's just attempts to vault your claims over mine, mostly in a condescending way that's really getting on my nerves. You can't cite when this change was made, but you assert that I ought to accept that it was and move on. Having failed to convince me that it's always been this way, I can understand why you'd try to make such a claim - and why you'd put it in bold print. :wink:

Condescending, huh? Perhaps, but its been mutual so far. I will reign in my (seemingly undetected) sarcasm and irony, if you refrain from belittling my intelligence. Fair?

I am not trying to assert that it has always been this way, I never have been. If I gave that impression then I appologise. I am arguing that it is not a recent change, which is not the same.

Its an obvious attempt to bias a neutral party with no more basis in fact than me saying "Your argument is that invasion isn't wrong. Hitler invaded people, so you're saying that Hitler never did anything wrong."

We're not arguing the morality of invasions, here or in the real world. We're arguing the legality here, and here invasions are legal. Period. If that's supposed to be an emotional plea on the end, well, you may as well keep those to yourself. As for this:
Hmmm, you missed the irony there. My example was blatantly ridiculous to illustrate how yours was subtly ridiculous.

Yet here you say I cannot attack your theory on the basis of RW morality, having begun this string by saying that current policy was akin to the legalisation of automatic weaponry. Isn't that an attack based on RW morality? It seems mildy hypocritical.

Do point out to me where in military history, God has come down to smite a nation for violation of international law or the ethics of war. Parallels with the UN are invalid, as the UN does not operate on this level, nor do the mods act as the UN here.
Erm... Sodom? Gomorah?
The mods are closer to a UN level of power than godlike. ie. they have rules that must be followed and a level of accountability. The in-game 'UN' here is closer to a League of Nations level of power.
I'm talking about factual military history, not fiction. Nice try though.
There was a degree of humour in that response, the main thrust of my assertion was the power level comparison, which you answered below:
(and some people might argue that the bible isn't fiction, especially since some of the ruins of Sodom/Gomorah have been found by archeologists.)

The mods make nations cease to exist. They raise nations from the dead. They take entire regions, overturn entire systems of rule, etc, all in the blink of an eye on on their decision. That sounds pretty much like an act of God in the real world to me. Thusly, I say that the level of intervention being practiced now is getting beyond a point where any political business is being simulated.

And transporting your entire nation to Europe, gaining control in a single day, literally throwing France, Belgium and Switzerland out of the continent and forbidding them to return is an everyday occurance, is it?
Sorry, I said I'd hold the sarcasm back. The point is that the basic powers of the players is godlike and the impossibility of getting 'removed from power' by ones supporters means that any attempt to claim that this is a realistic political business simulation is on rocky ground to start with.

The level of mod intervention is linearly proportional to the level of player rule-breaking. I see it as an effect, not a cause: "Physitian, heal thyself."

Wow. I'm definately impressed at the level of discussion concerning a ruling that I made concerning an invasion by Sythia in June/July.

Amazingly, the rules concerning password distribution have not changed (the one time they came close was due to some confusion on my part, which Ballotonia and I cleared on page 1 of this thread) from the day I made the initial ruling that ALL natives - in the region or not - had to be sent the password.

The reason the first thread cannot be found is because it was cleared many months ago in a purge.

Defenders are not natives. Period. They are subject to the very same rules invaders are, and many a time I have deleted natives who were multying/griefing, defenders who were multying/griefing - right along with invaders who were multying/griefing.


Argue that the ruling has changed all you like, Anbar. It changes not the original ruling that the password must be given to all natives, whether in the region or not, to further the ability of natives to come and go as they please from a region they are considered to be in ownership of (ownership != delegateship).

Passwords were never intended to allow nations to steal regions and lock the original owners out of their 'home.' Unfortunately, there are punks that play this game and have little to no respect for fair play. As such, the rules had to be changed in an effort to stick with what the password was originally added for.

Think of invaders and defenders as 'guests' if you will - sometimes hostile, but they cannot keep the 'owner(s) out of their house,' nor can they change the locks and not give out the key to the 'owner(s).'

To be honest, I fail to see what is so horrible about that rule? Is it really that bad to have to play with a little honor, or to play nice?

Wow, ask a question, get the internet to go kaput, and miss everything:

This has been discussed before:

ALL natives must be given the password immediately following it's inception/change.

The password is to be given to any native requesting it.

Not that you care, and no offence to you, but this is a stupid rule- it is a step away from making invading illegal.

It makes sense to give all kicked natives the pw, it is their region and they deserve access. But if all natives are in the region and invaders are required to give pw to everyone, only the absolute stupidest regions would ever remain invaded.

How many defender groups are they? The rule as you state it does not guarantee native the right to their region, it guarantee’s the right for natives to invite non-native into the region at any time.

Unless the invader stays up at update every single night, the only region that will remain invaded would have to be simply too stupid to give the password to any other players.

Again, no offence Newt, but if this is how you guys are going to rule on invasions why not be more honest and simply outlaw invasions altogether? Insuring the right to always invite defenders in the region hardly makes sense, and changes the stakes from making it far more difficult to invade to making it impossible to hold any region.

It has been my understanding that invasions are not intended to be permanent. At some point the invaders are expected to have achieved whatever their goals were/are with the invasion, and move on.

Rule-technically, invaders and defenders are on equal basis. What does make a difference is that defenders can get a password from natives by offering their assistance in getting rid of the invaders, while invaders don't get the password in order to get defenders out of a region (who, BTW, tend to leave quickly enough anyway after the invaders have been removed).

Ballotonia

[Deleted]

It has been my understanding that invasions are not intended to be permanent. At some point the invaders are expected to have achieved whatever their goals were/are with the invasion, and move on.

Rule-technically, invaders and defenders are on equal basis. What does make a difference is that defenders can get a password from natives by offering their assistance in getting rid of the invaders, while invaders don't get the password in order to get defenders out of a region (who, BTW, tend to leave quickly enough anyway after the invaders have been removed).

Ballotonia

Where in the world could you possibly base this off of? Invasions have never been given a time limit, why would you assume that invasions are intended to be cut into a day or two.

As to whether or not they are permanent, nothing is permanent and that isn’t even the issue.

As to the last part of your point, I’m sorry I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

So, are the mods disagreeing with me on this, is there a general apathy, or what?

That’s fine if it is simply a disagreance, just curious.

Ackbar?

Why should the invaders be protected from being tossed out?

That's like saying Germany could of kept All of Europe Because the british, russians and americans didn't know the secret password to land on the shores - nor could they involve the polish, lithuanians, italians, and french because they didn't know the password either.

Invaders should not gain a password protected area. If "invasion" is going to be used as a reflective term, one must also accept that uprisings will toss the invaders out as well. Password Protection denies the right to an uprising.

the invaders who follow the initial invaders shouldnt be allowed to use password protection either, the guys who are currently invading United States have ti locked down and are booting nations a dozen byt eh day, so that they can blast it and refound it.

this is commonly called Griefing, and sure enough it is.

Yes and no.

If a region doesn't want to play the "invasion" game then they should be allowed to lock down the region.

those that want to play the "invasion" game should not be allowed to lock down a region.

the invaders who follow the initial invaders shouldnt be allowed to use password protection either, the guys who are currently invading United States have ti locked down and are booting nations a dozen byt eh day, so that they can blast it and refound it.

this is commonly called Griefing, and sure enough it is.

That is simply not true, at all. We are defenders (yes, technically considered invaders), and through our ideals (or "angle" in this game) we would never have any reason to "blast a region" and re-found it. Not only is there only proof opposite of that claim (otherwise we wouldn't have spent so much time trying to keep it legal and supervised by the natives and Mods), but anyone who tried to blast and re-found United States at this point would be simply suicidal, for the Mods are watching the region and they'd be deleted in a flash.

It has been my understanding that invasions are not intended to be permanent. At some point the invaders are expected to have achieved whatever their goals were/are with the invasion, and move on.

Rule-technically, invaders and defenders are on equal basis. What does make a difference is that defenders can get a password from natives by offering their assistance in getting rid of the invaders, while invaders don't get the password in order to get defenders out of a region (who, BTW, tend to leave quickly enough anyway after the invaders have been removed).

Ballotonia

Where in the world could you possibly base this off of? Invasions have never been given a time limit, why would you assume that invasions are intended to be cut into a day or two.

As to whether or not they are permanent, nothing is permanent and that isn’t even the issue.

As to the last part of your point, I’m sorry I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

So, are the mods disagreeing with me on this, is there a general apathy, or what?

That’s fine if it is simply a disagreance, just curious.

There was never an official time limit given on invasions, however, they were never intended to be permanent. Hence, the password rule. It is quite possible to take a region and hold it without a password. I recall when invaders argued there was no need for a password to hold a region if the delegate is active. Why the change now that the password must be given to the 'owners' of a region?

I'm just curious about the double standard. Arch, with the support of both natives and invaders, was kicking out a bunch of new invaders who claimed to be defenders and he's no longer with us. Hrmmm kicked out more nations, including natives, and passworded the region and still holds it against the will of the natives. I seem to be missing how the first is enought to get you deleted but the second seems to be perfectly legal.

I know very little about both situations as I'm on vacation (sorta a vacation at this point) and not at home so my access is somewhat limited (I only log into the mod centre from home or work in emergencies).

It will be looked at sometime soon, but I wont be home until the end of this week at the earliest (depends on how long the engine/tranny swap for my truck takes).

I just read your post in the other topic. I'll wait til there's an official response.

I just read your post in the other topic. I'll wait til there's an official response.

Official response on what?

I know very little about both situations as I'm on vacation (sorta a vacation at this point) and not at home so my access is somewhat limited (I only log into the mod centre from home or work in emergencies).

It will be looked at sometime soon, but I wont be home until the end of this week at the earliest (depends on how long the engine/tranny swap for my truck takes).

Hope you're having fun on vacation.

I know very little about both situations as I'm on vacation (sorta a vacation at this point) and not at home so my access is somewhat limited (I only log into the mod centre from home or work in emergencies).

It will be looked at sometime soon, but I wont be home until the end of this week at the earliest (depends on how long the engine/tranny swap for my truck takes).

Hope you're having fun on vacation.

Um...if you call having to extend your vacation by over a week to have an engine/tranny swap (not b/c you just want to, but because you have to) fun...well...yeah, I'm havin a killer time. The wife's happy bout the extended vacation...

ANYWAY, no more hijacking this thread.

Ackbar?
That's like saying Germany could of kept All of Europe Because the british, russians and americans didn't know the secret password to land on the shores - nor could they involve the polish, lithuanians, italians, and french because they didn't know the password either.



You’re a good debater (at times), but even you know that this is too simplistic of a job on your part. I never suggested that an invader should be able to keep a region forever lock, stock, and barrel. Just because a password is in place should not guarantee that the region is not able to be taken over again by defenders. By your analogy, if natives have a password it is impenetrable, invaders need not apply. We all know that is not the case.

And to use your analogy of the Nazis, would all of the allies have been able to go into an invaded England easy as pie, simply because they were allied? No. While they might well have foreknowledge of some of the obstacles originally put in place by the natives once removed, but it doesn’t mean that it would be a walk through the Canadian border, just because they knew the people who lived there before.

We can discuss morality of invading or playing nice (not that you are, just can’t find the way you were discussing it) if you want, but in my mind the rules here would be inconsistent in an illogical manner. I completely believe that natives should have the lion’s share of rights. Just not sure if all rights should be theirs. Otherwise, why say invasions are legal? How are they legal, just for an update or two?

Yes and no.

If a region doesn't want to play the "invasion" game then they should be allowed to lock down the region.

those that want to play the "invasion" game should not be allowed to lock down a region.

A) How many rules are invaders are going to be able to pick and choose? Just thinking if they get to throw out a rule that Max endorsed and put into his game, should invaders also get the same privilege?
B) How is it locked down? A native is a native. They can leave the region at any time if they want to and get the pw if they don’t know it. Heck, they can leave every day, get the pw every day, and hand it out to the defenders daily if they wanted to. The only thing is, they would have to care enough to actually type in a request, and to move from one region to another. Is this to much to ask, that the region not be handed to them by the rules, that if they care enough to try to get their region back that they can? Again, no offence, you know I like you. But, would encourage you to respond—what’s the fault in assuming players at least do very little if they actually want the region back?


There was never an official time limit given on invasions, however, they were never intended to be permanent. Hence, the password rule. It is quite possible to take a region and hold it without a password. I recall when invaders argued there was no need for a password to hold a region if the delegate is active. Why the change now that the password must be given to the 'owners' of a region?

No, there are few permanent invaders. Or rather, only those not yet disposed of ;)

So, you are asking why I feel both sets should play by the same set of rules? Not to be coy, honestly, but that is what you are saying. I wouldn’t mind if invaders couldn’t use a pw, as long as natives couldn’t either. I am asking for consistency more then anything else.


As it is set, we are only one step from being mandated to pass the pw directly to defenders. One of the biggest threats to this game, luckily it may be a constant one which means it is of no real trouble, one of the biggest threats is passivity. It isn’t as if the natives can’t pass the pw to the denfenders whenever. I am fine with that. The way the current rules are, all they have to do is sit back and wait for someone to rescue them. If you have to fight to rescue people who don’t care enough to even type in a pw request, seems a hollow victory to me. Only, not just hollow in this instance, but to the game itself.

I fully think that natives should always be able to take a region back. All the tools should be theirs to use. However, I don’t think that they should be encouraged to be so lazy that the game hands it back to them.

If the time spent complaining in the forums (which is totally their right) was instead spent playing the actual game, they would have the region and be no need for complaints. You know I don’t mind expressing dissatisfaction. At least make it something that it is not in their powers to begin with.

I just read your post in the other topic. I'll wait til there's an official response.

Official response on what?

The Arch thing. Holding off of comment, as I am also waiting official follow-up (no rush of course, just letting you know what I believe he was referring to).

You’re a good debater (at times), but even you know that this is too simplistic of a job on your part. I never suggested that an invader should be able to keep a region forever lock, stock, and barrel. Just because a password is in place should not guarantee that the region is not able to be taken over again by defenders. By your analogy, if natives have a password it is impenetrable, invaders need not apply. We all know that is not the case. That should be the case however. Take for instance my region - Lemming Land. Two People, Two Puppets, Password protected and off limits to invaders. I do NOT want to be involved in any type of invasions. Period. That's not the game I signed up to play. I should have the absolute right to keep my shores unviolated by invaders.

Just because a subgame of Nationstates was invented does not mean that I should be forced to participate.


And to use your analogy of the Nazis, would all of the allies have been able to go into an invaded England easy as pie, simply because they were allied? No. While they might well have foreknowledge of some of the obstacles originally put in place by the natives once removed, but it doesn’t mean that it would be a walk through the Canadian border, just because they knew the people who lived there before.

We can discuss morality of invading or playing nice (not that you are, just can’t find the way you were discussing it) if you want, but in my mind the rules here would be inconsistent in an illogical manner. I completely believe that natives should have the lion’s share of rights. Just not sure if all rights should be theirs. Otherwise, why say invasions are legal? How are they legal, just for an update or two?
They are legal as long as the invaded region wants to play. Passing out the password to everyone in the region makes it fair.

You might call it simplistic, but tearing all the rhetoric away leads to the simple fact that regions that aren't pass protected are going to be involved in invasions, and those that are pass protected don't want to play. Building on that simple statement - if an Invader pass/protects a region they are sgnalling they DON'T WANT TO PLAY the invasion game - and that's wrong.

A) How many rules are invaders are going to be able to pick and choose? Just thinking if they get to throw out a rule that Max endorsed and put into his game, should invaders also get the same privilege?

No. Invaders should gain no protections at all. I'd go one further and not allow invaders to have pass protection for the reasons I outlined above.


B) How is it locked down? A native is a native. They can leave the region at any time if they want to and get the pw if they don’t know it. Heck, they can leave every day, get the pw every day, and hand it out to the defenders daily if they wanted to. The only thing is, they would have to care enough to actually type in a request, and to move from one region to another. Is this to much to ask, that the region not be handed to them by the rules, that if they care enough to try to get their region back that they can? Again, no offence, you know I like you. But, would encourage you to respond—what’s the fault in assuming players at least do very little if they actually want the region back?
We look at passwords differently - I look at them as a desire to stay out of the invasion aspect of the game, and you look at them as obstacles. It's a schisim we'll have to agree to disagree on.
So, you are asking why I feel both sets should play by the same set of rules? Not to be coy, honestly, but that is what you are saying. I wouldn’t mind if invaders couldn’t use a pw, as long as natives couldn’t either. I am asking for consistency more then anything else.

If we modify the password bit to "REgions that don't want to play invasions use the password - all else don't - this wouldn't be an issue that needs to be addressed.


As it is set, we are only one step from being mandated to pass the pw directly to defenders. One of the biggest threats to this game, luckily it may be a constant one which means it is of no real trouble, one of the biggest threats is passivity. It isn’t as if the natives can’t pass the pw to the denfenders whenever. I am fine with that. The way the current rules are, all they have to do is sit back and wait for someone to rescue them. If you have to fight to rescue people who don’t care enough to even type in a pw request, seems a hollow victory to me. Only, not just hollow in this instance, but to the game itself.

Which Game? Nationstates or the invasion game? They are TWO different games altogetrher.



I fully think that natives should always be able to take a region back. All the tools should be theirs to use. However, I don’t think that they should be encouraged to be so lazy that the game hands it back to them.
But what if they didn't even want to play that game in first place? Seems unfair to force it on them.