NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Moderation / Administration Staff

Recently its been hard to ignore ( well, not using the forum options ... ;) ) the business going with various cases of invading ... and defending ... and being natve ... and Moderating ... and screaming ...

Now, I've been wondering :

All invading needs U.N. members, to get in, endorse a single region member, thus making them delegate, so they can kick out the allowed percentage of region natives and or defenders, and the old delegate included in that number, and do what legal invading generally involves. The thing is, I don't know if I got all that quite right. And quite often it seems, nor do the invaders ... or the defenders ... or the natives ... or the Moderators ... say the screamers, ;).

* No, not those kind of screamers, go back to general, naughty.

Now, on the basis invasion needs the U.N. to work physically, my idea is to make it need it legally too.

Legally ?

Legally :

Yes. legally. Using the U.N. Well, if you see my logic.

Now, the big problem most seem to be complaining about, is that there are no solid rules to invading. And those we have are only a draft. Granted we do need a grey area for Moderation to work with to suit rules to situations, but is also seems we need some solid, definitive rules for all parties to abide by. That said ...

My Plan :

Moderation, possibly with input from " expert " or " older " players, form up a bundle of rules tha we desperately need, say some. Once Moderation / Administration are happy with these rules, they can be written up as a proposal, and stuck into the proposal list to gain support,

Well ...

At this pint :

At this point alot depends on delegates of region pulling out fingers ( from their mice, to click with, of course ... :) ) and getting this support, but really, if we can get down the rules we need, surely people will support it simply so all involved can have the " set in stone for ages " security they want. And quite frankly, it will just be a matter of time until its accepted.

Then, onto the general floor. And surely, onto a majority yes vote.

Then, bam, you have a set of solid rules which can be pointed at by all involved and said :

" Look, its there, your a U.N. member, not only must you abide by the rules AND past resolutions, but these rules are here where any player, let alone member, can see them. They are fair, just, and set out the basics of what you need to know to invade legally "

And so on, so forth, so there.

So there :

Naturally, you'll need them written up proposal like, and argued for, and made to look good, catchy, and happy. And my big bag of words is getting oh so low tonight, so forgive me if I seem to be stalling. So really, what do you think ? Considering I'm bushed, I have no idea if this is making any sense or is a good idea. Hopefully, moderation will see fit to reply to this.

Because it all depends on the legality. Technically I would not hink its game mechanics, because its not changing how the game works, but how the game components are used in relation to each other, ergo, " you are in the U.N., you want to invade ? you SHOULD know these rules " kind of business ...

* Yawns ...

Query = Comments oh powers which be ?

Thanks.

If such a proposal was written, made quorum (as I suspect it would), and implemented - it wouldn't matter - nations not in the UN can still invade UN regions and non-UN nations can still invade other non-UN regions. It sort of defeats the purpose, wouldn't you say?

Hmmm, well I don't know much about invading which may be a flaw, but I always thought the damage was done by the invaders who have U.N. membership who invade, unseat the delegate with their own, and proceed to kick-boot natives out, and such, and it would still give us some clear cut rules. Be aware, being made official by mods and written up proper U.N. like with input from the U.N. specialist players, i should still give us something to point at ( NED I amtired, I hope I am making some sense )

Does that help ... at all ?

I see your point, but, I'm still seeing this as being part of game mechanics AND game rules which the Admin draft up, not the players.

Yes, I mean they do that, possibly with some input ( not that they really need listen ) from older players, then could submit it on Mod/UN forumfor loking over, announcing, and such, then sub it to the list ... and I'm afraid I'm going to have to go on about this in possibly 13-14 hours. Need sleep, brain going click click click ... splat.

komo, there used to be a sticky in the gameplay forum where the rules on invading were posted, not sure if it's still there though.

also, reppy posted a sticky here in moderation with some new draft rules, and players could give their inputs in that thread as well.

not sure what happenend to that sticky either though, i'm guessing it's buried somewhere in this pile of threads in moderation.

still, the basic rules aren't that hard to follow..

-password the region, send the password to all natives.
-kick a native out, unban him immediatly.
-don't kick out too many natives, try to keep it to just those you really need to kick out (think i saw the number of 10% somewhere, but still usually numbers are just pointers)
-don't multi, spam, flame.
-play nice.


sorry if i forgot any.

Ah, CG and I agree again!

Yes, the rules are out there, perhaps, they should be easier to find, if I do say so myself.

Ummm, my point was ...

Okay, granted I was tired last night, and probably did not make much sense. In fact reading over it again ... I wish I could edit that thread title ... how do I do that again ?

* I got mixed up, I put it up before it was finished, but by some odd stroke changed it to reflect I was editing it up proper ... but now can't change it back ...

Anyway,

Mean-while, Back on Earth ... :

Okay, I'm going to try to make this as clear as possible.

1) Now, from what little I understand of invading/crashing, you have natives, defenders, invaders, and our moderators trying to keep some order to it all. Now, the invaders I think need to be U.N. members, and so I suppose the defenders would need to be too, in that the entire battle to endorse a delegate for one party over the other, to gain control.

2) My intent was, people trying this more often then not seem to run into problems with the legality of their actions. This can be for a varity of reasons, ranging from not see-ing or finding the rules, not bEing very inspired by massive " THIS IS A DRAFT ... " ... even Moderators giving two different versions of legality o a specific question. It has/could happen, I think. Anyway, with this all going on, my idea was when Moderation / Admin get some fairly clear cut rules going, and which are not a " DRAFT ... " version, they could be written up :

3) As a U.N. proposal. These could be the rules we really do need to have Moderator / Admin agree-ment on, yet leave out some of those points or " gray " areas which Moderation requires to make seperate rullings on specific cases.

4) This way, we could probably get these rules onto the past proposal list ( And judging from those which were retro-actively removed for being a waste of time or game mechanics, etc, etc, etc, it could probably just be slotted in. ) and give some solid set in stone regulations.

5) Now, naturally one would expect these would probably find their way onto game-play and Moderation Forum, as would be expected, but with this set of rules resolved in place we would have set in stone regulations for all parties which would surely help cut back the amount of " But XXXXX said XXX about XXXX so what the XXXX is the right thing to do, XXX ? " and all the fun and joy that went on in the recent various NP stuff and such ...

6) Also its important to note, its not game mechanics in the fact it requires zero recoding or players making up rules, its Moderation / Admin staff almost 100 % the way through.

Conclusion :

I doubt that makes much more sense I guess, maybe I'm getting the fundamentals on invading wrong, ( I think its a load of wank any-way, and an abuse of the U.N. granted powers to players, but I'm just trying to resolve some of the problems all parties are facoing ) but I suppose the fatal flaw is that I'm presuming enough people when told could be arse'd enough to look up what the U.N. has done and such, ... which is a pity for them I guess ...

Meh. I don't really care that much now, I'd like a Moderator / Official response to this before I give up though, but failing that might as well leave it up to the current ffects of natural selection on players ...

Yeah thats about it now ... [ shrug ] ... [ / shrug ] ...

Why go through all this trouble?

The rules are simple:

-password the region, send the password to all natives.
-kick a native out, unban him immediatly.
-don't kick out too many natives, try to keep it to just those you really need to kick out (think i saw the number of 10% somewhere, but still usually numbers are just pointers)
-don't multi, spam, flame.
-play nice.


Because some people have problems following these rules the mods and admins created the warzones. In the warzones are (almost) no rules.

I say: Dissable the "eject" button for delegates, and 90% of the problems are annihilated, and moderators have less of a headache. Leave the ejecting to the founder, and when there is no founder, the button should still be dissabled. Really, it solves most of our problems. :p

Carinthe, I think I agree with you there, :)

* Still would like a bona-fide Moderator opinion on my ... errr ... inspiration, ( huff )

;)

Oh well ...

* Off to bed. Need to be bright eyed and bushy tailed to fall asleep in organic chemistry in the morning ...

I'll look this over and discuss this with the other Moderators.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

I'll look this over and discuss this with the other Moderators.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

You are my hero for today, but I don't make any promisses for tomorrow :fluffle:

I say: Dissable the "eject" button for delegates, and 90% of the problems are annihilated, and moderators have less of a headache. Leave the ejecting to the founder, and when there is no founder, the button should still be dissabled. Really, it solves most of our problems. :p
Well, actually, it really wouldn't solve the problems. The eject button overwhelmingly favours the current delegate, it is, in the case of founderless regions, the first and best line of defence against invasions. Disabling it would call open season on those regions.

I say: Dissable the "eject" button for delegates, and 90% of the problems are annihilated, and moderators have less of a headache.

I do not agree that the ejection button is the cause of 90% of moderation headaches; I believe, it serves a better good, than most care to point out.

I do agree with your solution to the problem, however, by allowing only the Founder access to it, but if the Founder shuts off UN Delegate Regional Control, there isn't a problem at all, is there?

I do not agree that the ejection button is the cause of 90% of moderation headaches; I believe, it serves a better good, than most care to point out.

I do agree with your solution to the problem, however, by allowing only the Founder access to it, but if the Founder shuts off UN Delegate Regional Control, there isn't a problem at all, is there?
Actually, that is an amazingly good point that I didn't think of. In regions with founders, there already is the option to deny delegate access to regional control.

Well, actually, it really wouldn't solve the problems. The eject button overwhelmingly favours the current delegate, it is, in the case of founderless regions, the first and best line of defence against invasions. Disabling it would call open season on those regions.

Do you think that invasions still happen, if the winner can't eject oponents anymore? Eventually, that part of the game will be less significant. Invaders like to play bullies, and that is why they do it. Fact is that rules are far to difficult to follow. There are dissapointed invader wannabees everywhere. Why not let them invade, and have the button dissabled for delegates. That gives the natives some fun too. Right now invading is no fun at all for natives. They watch, and hope not to be ejected. Let invaders go their merry ways in Warzones, and if they want to invade other places, they do that without ejecting natives. I understand your vision. You are a "hardcore" player, and you like to have the controll as delegate. Fact is that everyday regios are griefed, and nations are deleted. Whatever the outcome of a modaction will be on those ocasions, nobody is completely happy. Natives have to rebuild their region, and the deleted griefer comes whining here, because he can't find the rule that he broke. Why does a "hardcore" player, like you, gets all the advantages of the eject button, but all the newbies have to suffer the concequences? Have it barred for all user-created regios, and move to the Warzones, if you really like to eject your fellow gamers. At least you meet them there on their own terms.

Carinthe, and to all those who no longer want an ejection tool in the game, eliminating it will only cause those "wannabes" to learn different ways to grief nations. There will always be ways to do it, at least ejecting nations is a clearer way for mods to see "griefing-in-action."

Carinthe, and to all those who no longer want an ejection tool in the game, eliminating it will only cause those "wannabes" to learn different ways to grief nations. There will always be ways to do it, at least ejecting nations is a clearer way for mods to see "griefing-in-action."

Sorry, I don't come with this option to make the mods happy, but I am sure they will benefit from it. Sure there are other ways to grief, but ejecting is the extremest of all, since it is often done to re-create the region. In other words "steal" it.

Do you think that invasions still happen, if the winner can't eject oponents anymore?
Invasions started before regional controls existed. Evidence suggests that they still would

Invasions started before regional controls existed. Evidence suggests that they still would

So barring the ejection button is not "anti" invading at all?

I rest my case.

Eventually, that part of the game will be less significant. Invaders like to play bullies, and that is why they do it. Fact is that rules are far to difficult to follow. There are dissapointed invader wannabees everywhere. Why not let them invade, and have the button dissabled for delegates. That gives the natives some fun too. Right now invading is no fun at all for natives. They watch, and hope not to be ejected. Let invaders go their merry ways in Warzones, and if they want to invade other places, they do that without ejecting natives.
Personally, I think it'd be great if the game split off a bit, having most crashing stuff going on in the Warzones. Thats the main reason I'm trying to get the Warzones made more interesting (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=344450).


I understand your vision. You are a "hardcore" player, and you like to have the controll as delegate. Fact is that everyday regios are griefed, and nations are deleted. Whatever the outcome of a modaction will be on those ocasions, nobody is completely happy. Natives have to rebuild their region, and the deleted griefer comes whining here, because he can't find the rule that he broke. Why does a "hardcore" player, like you, gets all the advantages of the eject button, but all the newbies have to suffer the concequences? Have it barred for all user-created regios, and move to the Warzones, if you really like to eject your fellow gamers. At least you meet them there on their own terms.I don't quite understand how you can quote own term ("hardcore player"), but nm. I do like to have control as delegate, I think that it leads to greater safety for the region if I'm at the helm, and I think that thats true of regions I'm not in as well. If regional control is disabled, then the only line of defence are defender groups like the ADN. With my cynical hat on, I have a feeling that they will support your suggestion as a way of padding their own membership rolls. Currently, the eject button benefits natives the most; they are far more likely to use it to kick out invaders than invaders are likely to use it to kick out natives.

So barring the ejection button is not "anti" invading at all?

I rest my case.
Carinthe, its entirely possible you've bought the propaganda about me being an invader, and I don't fault you for that. But it isn't true.

I was not opposing your suggestion because it was anti invading, I was opposing it because its pro-defender and anti-native. Its anti-occupation as well, but anti-invading? Certainly not. It would make it even easier to invade, because the delegate couldn't kick them. It would make regions harder to hold, thus tipping the balance in favour of counter-invasions.

Carinthe, its entirely possible you've bought the propaganda about me being an invader, and I don't fault you for that. But it isn't true.

I was not opposing your suggestion because it was anti invading, I was opposing it because its pro-defender and anti-native. Its anti-occupation as well, but anti-invading? Certainly not. It would make it even easier to invade, because the delegate couldn't kick them. It would make regions harder to hold, thus tipping the balance in favour of counter-invasions.

Yeah, it will open a whole new world for noobs and newbies. Even they will be able to invade. On the end everybody is fighting with everybody, and eventually there will be a stand-off :cool:
I am suprised that nobody of the pacifics joined this talk, because they will probably have a new leader every day, and there will be nobody (Like me) whining that Francos Spain is griefing, because he couldn't do that anymore. From than on it requires politics and charisma to hold a pacific. One has to make a whole lot of friends, and train an army who only endorse you.
I am dreaming :cool:
I am not against invading. I think it's a fun part of the game, but defending is also fun, and the most fun is winning. Nothing beats a clear victory :cool:

hardcore = someone who puts all at stake. I quote it, because HC players are never to be trusted, and often just pathetic little cheats. I always play HC, because I like the thrill.

calling me? :confused:

the most fun is winning. Nothing beats a clear victory :cool:
Ah, now, there we can agree

hardcore = someone who puts all at stake. I quote it, because HC players are never to be trusted, and often just pathetic little cheats. I always play HC, because I like the thrill.
:confused: You mean that you say of yourself that you can't be trusted as well?

Ah, now, there we can agree


:confused: You mean that you say of yourself that you can't be trusted as well?

I am the only one you can trust :p

It's amazing, isn't it, to think that once one person questions the rules a whole bunch of other rules are questioned? Lately, this seems to be the case in Moderation...

I'll look this over and discuss this with the other Moderators.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

* Happy Noise :D "

S'all I wanted.

( Go figure, I'm now all tense that I did not get my ideas across, ( face -> palm ) ... :) )

I do believe we're about to witness a precedent everyone, unfortunately, sit back and enjoy the show. :headbang:

:rolleyes:

...

Sorry Tuesday, but I'm afraid even here, " change is a constant " :)

Now, as too ...

* Invades own thread, and ejects every-one but the modly out, ;)

Sorry Tuesday, but I'm afraid even here, " change is a constant " :)

Actually, no, it isn't.

I'm going to leave that well alone, I did an HSC Adv English class in senior high, and the entire " change " module was horrific in its scope and depth. And the night-mares just finally stopped ...

" Argh, no, no, anything but ... PERCEPTION IN RELATION TO CHANGE AND THE INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS THE EFFECTS OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL STIMULI, ARGH, NOOO ! "

* Head explodes ...

;)